Eager whatever we are.

Okay, I will now call Tuesday, September 2nd, meeting of the Fateville City Council to order.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Weaker.

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Ms.

Bunch.

Here.

Ms.

Dark?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mayor Rowan.

Here.

Please join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

Our first order of business.

Actually, but before we get to that, I am going to make an announcement that we have received a request from the applicant relating to item B, B as in Boy, B2, under unfinished business, the PCD on North Devil Springs Road.

We've received a request to table.

It is up to council when it gets to that time whether they vote to table or not.

But just so that you know, if you were here to talk about that item, there's a strong likelihood that it will be it almost certainly will not be uh heard tonight.

So I want to let you all know that as a courtesy if you all are waiting for that.

Um, and first up, we have our sales tax and monthly financial report from Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is the uh June sales tax report for taxes received in July of 2025.

In June, taxable sales in the city totaled approximately 289 million, which was an increase of nearly 4.7 percent or 12.8 million compared to June of 2024.

This increase was led by the other services sector, where commercial and industrial machinery and equipment was up 3.3 million dollars.

Transportation and warehousing was up 2.5 million in taxable sales for the month.

Wholesale trade was up 2.1 million, and retail trade was up 1% in June or around $2 million.

The food services and accommodation sectors were down around 2% in June, or approximately $632,000 from last year.

All in all, though, we did note a 4.7% gain in taxable sales compared to 2024.

And now to move on to the actual tax collection results for Fayetteville, which are June sales taxes received in July of 2025.

And for a comparison of June 2025 to June 2024, the city one penny was up 4.5 percent.

The county portion of the city was up 6%.

This results in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 5.2% or 250,000 compared to June of 2024.

Year to date, the combined city and county sales tax are up approximately 5.4% or 1.78 million compared to last year at this time.

In the general fund, the city's up around 5.4% or 204,000 compared to last year.

Now in comparing June of 2025 to what we budgeted for, uh the city one penny sales tax is up around 1.5% compared to budget, the county portions up around 2.9 percent for a combined total for the month of June up 2.1 percent compared to budget or around 107,000.

That will put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget, up a combined 2.3 percent, or $795,000 for sales tax.

And can I answer any questions on the sales tax portion of my report?

Okay, then I will move on to the uh monthly financial report, and this is a report for uh through June of or I'm sorry, through July of 2025.

Starting off in the general fund, our property tax was up two percent.

Sales tax was up three percent, our franchise fees, they were down around one percent or around thirty thousand dollars.

Alcoholic beverage fees, those were flat, but our building permits were way up around 33 percent or 589,000.

Now that's through the month of July, year to date.

Uh turn back was up three percent.

Our charges for services were down around four percent, but all in all, the general fund total, we were up around 2.7 percent compared to budget, or around 557,000.

Once again, that's through July of 2025.

Moving over to the street fund, we were up one percent overall compared to budget, around $26,000.

We did note that our state turn back was pretty flat for the year through July, around six point or six thousand three hundred and twenty-seven uh dollars up.

So that is uh pretty flat.

Over in the parking fund, we're up two percent compared to budget for the year, around thirty thousand dollars.

And uh that's led by a pretty strong showing in fines and fees.

We were up around 30% there, around $60,000.

We did note that our charges for services were down around 3% or around $35,000 uh year to date.

In the parks development fund, that's our HMR tax.

Uh that was up around 1% or around $32,000.

Um, looking at everything, all in all, the fund total is up around 3.6% for the year through July, or around $114,000.

In the water and sewer fund, that's driven heavily by charges for services.

We're up around $565,000 for the year there or two percent.

And we look at the fund total, we're up around 2% for the fund as well overall, or around $588,000.

In recycling and trash, uh, we're up three percent for the year fund total, and that was uh led by uh franchise fees, which were up 16% for the year, and charges for services, which are up 2% or $232,000 for the year.

So we're looking pretty good so far in the recycling and trash collection fund.

And last but not least in the airport fund, our gasoline sales for the year are down 1.6% or around $26,000.

But uh once again, the next few months are gonna be the ones where we see um significant gains, hopefully, in gasoline sales.

Our number of flight operations for the year through July are up 13.7 percent around 1,824 more flight operations for the year, and those are basically any sort of operation that involves the tower out there at the airport.

So uh those are some numbers that we we definitely like to see at the airport.

And that uh that concludes the monthly financial report.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Steve.

Minister Jones?

Thank you, Mayor.

Steve, I wanted to go back in the general fund.

You reported that the franchise fees were down one percent.

Did you say that was $130,000?

Franchise fees were down uh one percent around $28,000.

And that's in the but that's in the general fund, is correct.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Anything else I can answer?

Great.

Thank you, Steve.

Okay, that brings us to the consent agenda.

Item A1 is approval of the August 19th City Council meeting minutes.

A2 is a resolution to confirm Mayor Ron's appointments to the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board.

A three, a resolution to authorize Mayor Ron to sign a shared parking lease agreement with the University of Arkansas for operation of the university's West Annex parking lot as a revenue-producing off-street parking lot within the Dixon Street Entertainment District.

A4, a resolution authorizing mayor to sign a shared parking lease agreement with HMT at Fayetteville for the operation of two privately owned parking lots as revenue producing off-street lots within the Dixon Street Entertainment District and to approve the related budget adjustment.

A5, a resolution, a resolution to award bid 2544 and authorize the purchase of concrete construction services from Sweetster Construction in variable amounts and for varying unit prices as needed through end of year.

A6, a resolution to approve the purchase of a hydro excavation truck from GAPVAX in the amount of $733,015 and 70 cents, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract and to approve the budget adjustment.

A7, a resolution to approve the purchase of a commercial roll-off truck from National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of $251,400, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees pursuant to a source well co-op purchasing contract and to approve a budget adjustment.

A8, a resolution to approve the purchase of a Spartan aerial fire apparatus from Delta Fire and Safety in the amount of $2,000,386, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract and to approve a budget adjustment.

And A9, a resolution to award RFP 2509 and authorize a contract with McGrath Human Resources Group Incorporated in the amount of 171,500 to provide compensation and classification, consulting services, and to approve a budget adjustment.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheater?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

That brings us to unfinished business.

Item B1 of Unfinished Business 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.

This was tabled initially heard at the August 5th meeting and tabled until today.

And I would like for um Keith to weigh in on this as well if needed.

Basically, this is committing, this is expressing our intent.

It is dependent upon the Salvation Army receiving the funds from that grant.

If they do not receive the funds, the city is not responsible for paying the 70,000.

If they if they receive a smaller portion of the funds, we will then be matching a smaller portion of the funds.

But us doing the resolution of intent this evening allows them to um apply and plan for that.

So I suppose since it came from administration that either Keith or myself can answer questions from the council.

Minister Jones, do you have a question?

No, I don't.

Okay.

Dr.

Jones?

Uh yes, I have a question.

Is it up to $70,000?

Or how does if they if they receive the grant for anything up to $70,000?

We are to match that, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Yes, up to $70,000.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, we're still doing um doing, I'm gonna call for public comment in just one moment.

Um, which actually right now.

So if anybody members of the public have a comment, if you want to go ahead and come up to the lecture and state your name and address.

And uh we have a three-minute time limit.

So I came here purposely from I don't live in Fiatville.

Um, I felt I was ousted because I dealt a lot with the prejudice from black community and then was accused of being prejudiced.

But I became homeless and I know what uh homelessness is.

So I came from church.

Um today I visited um with the manager, uh, Mr.

Paul.

He is in charge, like all of you city councils.

He lost a child wife had cancer, and I was trying to uh talk about homeless animals because I feel they have uh a right to live, and we can uh make uh more effort to help them to survive.

So um it's very hard on anybody to be homeless, and I wanted for you to um adopt some kind of resolution where uh homeless shelters will receive more money because of your resolution, not because of government giving money.

I know that I tried to approach some developers to promote the book about animals we saved as a family six from street and from shelter.

And when you see humans on the street veterans with signs, you ask for help.

Um it's very very demoralizing, and it's a very bad phase for the um city to um uh to look at.

So uh when I became homeless once again, um it's why I asked for Monique Jones to be removed.

I felt there was some kind of a dealing between Dykos who arrested me at uh Willow Heights 11 years ago.

Uh it was all on the uh news uh on the internet.

I was shown in the Germany I was accused of being prejudiced, even I felt like black juveniles who urinated in front of me, threw rocks at me, who had no ma uh no dads, only momso guardians and uh Jones and uh DICA's are friends on the board of St.

James Church.

I felt there was a connection and the rest was not supposed to be made, but nobody asked me.

Uh the article is still online.

It made me homeless.

Uh people didn't want to give me jobs, and uh I had to leave the area.

And it's very, very shameful.

I stopped believing in police.

Um, I felt like um uh all of them, some of them passed away, Hartsville, Dyka Spartain, Gentry, um, Reynolds, uh, Baby Borchio's own son and got arrested on narcotics.

Uh Samuels, um, they all could do more, and instead of helping, um, they were willing for me to become homeless and just go wherever I wanted to go, and I just lost my only parent a few months before that.

So uh when I provided you with petitions for Jones to be remote, citing possible connection with my arrest and its painful issue to talk about.

Um, I still feel you could make more effort um to help homeless people in Fayetteville, because as far as I know, Fayetteville homeless community has grown to larger sizes, and people are everywhere.

They're roaming through the through the streets, and it's a shameful for the city not to do anything about it.

And I still have the same feeling about Jones being able to thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other public comment?

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Um I would move to adopt the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to adopt and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wiedaker, yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones.

Abstain.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay, great.

So that passes, and we will move on to the next item of new business, um, which I believe we have the request to table, and that needs to occur before I before we read it.

Is that correct, Mr.

Williams?

Yes, you can do that if you'd like to.

Okay.

So we have a uh Minister Jones.

Move that we table item B2 and until the next full city council meeting.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a uh second to table this until the next city council meeting.

Oh, yes, sir.

Uh, we might want to hear from the representative because I thought he said he wanted a month.

Is that correct?

Very short comments.

Okay, I don't know that we can have comments on it and then vote to table it, right?

Once we have comments on it, we're hearing it and have to.

Well, as soon as you know the vote hadn't been taken yet, so he can it's it's not been tabled.

Okay, but we can still vote to table even after we're allowing someone to comment on it.

Well, this is the you're representing the sponsor, aren't you?

Yes, sir.

The applicant.

I just he told me I thought maybe I didn't hear him right that he wanted to have it tabled for a month rather than two weeks.

Would someone like to perhaps modify that?

Like you maybe I don't want to make sure I I got it wrong.

So I'd rather him confirm what he wants.

Okay.

I'm just uh yes, how long would you like for it to be tabled for?

I'm uncomfortable having a much more of a discussion other than just that, if we're gonna then vote to table without people being able to hear it.

So just one month, please.

And then um, I did want to make an announcement to the members of the public.

Um we are going to be having an informational session at Fayetteville Public Library tomorrow from 6 30 through 7 30.

Um, in which you are all welcome to come and answer questions and provide feedback.

Um if you guys want more information on that, we will be right outside.

Okay, that's all thank you.

Thank you so much.

So tomorrow evening, you said, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So may I do we want to proceed with the two weeks or get a modified motion, Minister Jones?

Yeah, I'd like to modify the motion to the um, I think it will be September 23rd.

Or is are we looking at October?

It'll be the first meeting in October.

First meeting in October, October 6th.

Second.

Okay.

We have a new motion and second.

Clerk Packinson, will you please call the roll?

I show that as October 7th as the a month from now, just to be clear.

Okay, October 7th.

Seven, thank you.

Pardon me.

Thank you.

Mr.

Whedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Hart?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

So we will hear that item in October, and members of the public are welcome to also learn more tomorrow evening.

Um, moving on to new business item C One, a resolution to approve a cost share agreement requiring South Cato Springs Holdings, LLC, to provide up to the estimated amount of one million nine hundred sixty thousand five hundred and twenty-seven dollars to increase the capacity of planned sewer infrastructure improvements to serve its development and to approve amendment number one to the economic development project contract with South Cato Springs Holdings LLC.

Mr.

Holland.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to confirm that my screen is clean and looking good in one moment.

There we go.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Devin Howland, Director of Economic Development for the City of Fayetteville.

Tonight, the resolution before you for consideration does two things specifically.

One, it authorizes a cost share agreement for sanitary sewer with South Kato Springs Holdings.

The second, it amends an economic development contract with South Cato Springs holdings that I'll touch on more in just a moment.

This project traces back to resolution 279-22, which established our partnership with South Cato Springs in support of the SLS Community Initiative and accepted a $3 million HUD Community Project Fund Award to build the sanitary sewer infrastructure needed to support the Cato Springs and SLS community projects.

Since then, we've invested a great deal of time to make sure we get capacity right the first time on this sewer connection.

As of May of this year, the Arkansas Department of Health is reviewing 90% sewer design plans.

And on July 8th of this year, we presented this cost share to the Water and Sewer Committee.

The Cato Springs Project Team has made significant progress towards advancing the goals of the project.

The project's professional development team continues to take shape.

And the sewer capacity being expanded to support the development of more housing on the property.

City staff has coordinated and confirmed with HUD to amend the community project for grant community project award narrative and to confirm that our NEPA, our environmental assessments, do not need to be re-engaged.

Stakeholder engagement sessions too are planned with this group this fall to learn more about this project and get the community involved.

This is a project that I have personally worked on for many years.

And it represents the type of partnership that positions Fayetteville for long-term success.

Under this agreement, Council, the city's only responsibility is managing the construction of the sewer and the grant.

The fiscal fiscal from a fiscal standpoint, money other than Cato Springs is capped at the $3 million HUD Community Project Fund Award.

The city doesn't have a direct financial responsibility with this agreement.

It is managing the grant and the project.

The contract amendment also ensures tangible community outcomes and adds a new milestone to this group.

And within five years, they must produce 200 occupant or 200 housing units, and that's obtained the certificate of occupancy on those units.

It also amends that within 10 years it must include a facility serving the neurodiverse adults along with spaces dedicated to innovation, job skill training, or corporate headquarters, to additional milestones.

And I want to provide a reminder to council since this has been some time.

The two pieces of an infrastructure that this contract discusses, the secondary point of access and the senior connection, both benefit our park.

This Kessler Regional Park needed a secondary point of access, which is currently under construction right now.

And Kessler also from the connection of the sanitary sewer enables us to open up some more room in that area, not having to have on-site septic.

Council, with this group, I just wanted to close and say that I'm extremely proud of the progress they've made and the commitment of this investment.

This agreement brings federal dollars, private investment, and enforceable outcomes to jobs and housing, and it strengthens an inclusive development.

I'm really proud of the work they've done, and they have a long, long way to go, though, too, as this project is just now entering its next pay phase.

I'm personally happy to answer any questions in the project team is here tonight.

Thank you, Council, for your time.

Okay, great.

Does the project team have a presentation they would like to make, or are they simply available for questions?

Available for questions, Mayor.

Okay, all right, great.

Do we have questions?

Um Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Devin, for your presentation.

Um, just a couple of questions.

So the additional 200 new residential units, or are those only for newer neurodiverse, or are they for other folks?

Great question, and go let me clarify on that.

No, what is being built here is a holistic community.

This isn't about just the development just for neurodiverse.

And from the beginning, it's about been about intentional inclusion in the community.

So, what you're gonna see with this development is you'll see housing for neurodiverse sprinkled in throughout, not in just one little spot, which was our point.

You'll see employment opportunities sprinkled throughout.

And so think of more nodes, and I also don't want to presume I know what this master plan is going to look like.

I think we'll get a better idea in the fall once the input and community sessions kick up.

Second question, um, because you are bringing it back and it's been a couple of years since we first heard it.

Yes.

Did the uh footprint of the land change at all, or is it simply more uh units within that that original land area?

The footprint has not changed, it is still the same 228 acres.

What it has changed is what looking back, and you think back to that point in time where we were at when we first looked at this, this was very office-driven, which is not being driven very much in the country right now.

And so looking at that shift into building an actual neighborhood, um, you're still going to see those other components, the health care, the other aspects of this, but it's much more of a housing focus.

I also think it's indicative of the fact they actually have a project team now, and so the group is recapitalized, they're here.

Um, it's a huge step for this, and it's taking you know an approach of how do you build a great place.

You start by leading with housing.

So, final question.

Um, even though they're um having two two other board units, there's no additional cost whatsoever to the city's water and sewer, all of that was captured in that three million dollar grant.

Correct.

Okay, that's how it's been structured.

You're very welcome.

Councilperson Bunch.

Uh yes.

Um Devin.

Now, remember, you know, thinking back on this, thinking back on this.

Um, we we had an element we had the housing, we had the health care portion of it.

We also had a restaurant and some job force training, that sort of thing.

That that still exists.

Um, yes, I don't want to put a cap on what this community is going to include.

I think what you may see is some refinement of the actual health care that ends up looking at on the site.

You know, this project had a really early champion in Camp Patterson.

And we remember Cam Patterson leading us through the pandemic and the Chancellor VMS when he stepped down earlier in June this year, and those relationships with SLS are still being formed, but it's new relationships too.

And so looking at that, I wouldn't presuppose we know exactly what, but yes, all the original project goals are still happy and healthy, and I hear that from them too.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thanks, Steven.

Um, and kind of similar to Councilmember Turk, you know, this started um you know some time ago, and so I'm curious if you or the project team is able to just give us a sneak peek too, as you talked about the 200 units, but there's going to be like community uh feedback that's gonna happen as well.

Can we get just like briefly touched on kind of what that's gonna look like as folks maybe are you know, kind of hearing about this for the first time?

Um, it may be something new to them, and so I'm trying to think about that part of our population that their ears are perking up and wanting to maybe hear some additional details.

I'm happy yeah, so we're not prepared to provide a preliminary look at what the development is, but this fall we will be you know making the rounds and having uh sessions with you all or anyone else in the community that is interested in it.

Um earlier this uh about a month ago, we we finished on recapitalization of the project, which is given the the project enough capital in order to move forward, which is a big milestone for us, and with that new project development team, we're gonna be going through a process in terms of creating a master plan that that fits into the original intent of the project.

Yeah, council member Moore, I want to add to that too, and to also to give the community a taste from the beginning and is still with this project team.

One of the big things of why I've enjoyed being at this table has been the intention on trying to help the city realize its long-term land use goals, wanting to say yes to attached housing and other types of development that we're not seeing.

And so that thread and that theme is still there, and that's my intention and expectations for the project.

And so I think anybody that cares about place we should come and get involved.

Thank you.

Um, seeing no more questions from the council, we will turn it over to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this issue?

Okay, seeing none, I'm I'm sorry.

Keith, do we have any on Zoom?

We do not.

Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Councilperson Stafford.

Uh I motion we pass the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Weaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Thank you all.

Um, item two of new business, an ordinance to approve vacation 2516 for property located at 835 West Cleveland Street in Ward 2 to vacate 0.02 acres of right-away.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under ACA 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof, which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined that the following described portion of a right-of-way is not required for corporate purposes.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Thaiville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Favel or hereby vacates the portion of right-of-way as described in exhibit B attached to the planning department's memo.

Section two.

Copy this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk along with the map attached as exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

Section three, this vacation shall not be effective until a 20-foot utility easement centered on the existing water main is dedicated and approved by the City of Fayetteville's utility department.

And section four, this vacation approval is subject to the ongoing condition that any damage or relocation of any existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Great.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurth, Development Services Director.

This property is in Central Fayetteville, a few blocks north of the main University of Arkansas campus and ward two.

It is more specifically located at the southeast corner of Store Avenue and Cleveland Street and is associated with a larger roughly third of an acre piece of property at that corner.

The request before council is to vacate roughly two hundredths of an acre of right of way located at that southeast corner of the property, which you can see here in aerial and survey form.

Most prominently in this area, that makes this request somewhat unique is that uh Store Avenue is not aligned within the right-of-way.

As you can see on the left-hand side, right, the store is actually hugging the left hand side of the street, uh, resulting in a uh an excess amount of right-of-way on the right side or the east side of the street where this request is being made.

Uh as a result, when staff was uh approached with this request, we evaluated it in terms of our master street plan and whether we could accommodate the uh typical street elements if this right-of-way vacation were to occur.

Uh so to make sure that there's enough room for uh through traffic, uh on street parking, sidewalk screen space.

Uh, we ultimately found that those could still be accommodated with this right-of-way uh and uh do not find that uh it would serve the public interest to keep it.

Uh at agenda session, there was a question posed about uh the availability of accident and traffic data at this intersection.

Uh while I uh do not have traffic data available, which is not unusual on on smaller uh streets of this nature in the city of Fayetteville unless we're uh anticipating uh major street improvements in that area.

Uh we do have some accident data that I uh do have through RDOT, uh which is collected at a local level from our police department from 2020 to 2024, and that indicated that there were four non-injury accidents uh at that intersection over that five-year period.

Uh also of note, uh if you did read the staff report, you saw that uh what went to the planning commission had a third condition of approval, and that was something that SWEPCO required uh when there were concerns about an easement being necessary to accommodate some of their facilities.

Uh ultimately, when the item was heard by the planning commission, they heard from SWEPCO that that was not necessary.

So that condition was stricken from uh those being proposed uh to the commission before it was forwarded to city council.

Uh the last item of note, uh we did receive one piece of public comment at the planning commission itself uh with concerns from a nearby resident that uh adequate fits or adequate space would not be available for pedestrian facilities.

Again, that's one of the first uh considerations that staff makes when we get these requests as we compare the existing right-of-way, the existing street facilities with our master street plans uh design for that street, which in this case is uh at a minimum two three lanes, green space and sidewalk, and making sure that that can still be accommodated by this request, whether it happens as a street project or whether it happens uh in association with any development of adjacent properties.

Accordingly, uh we are recommending in favor of the request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it to city council unanimously with the conditions that you heard Mr.

Williams read.

And I'm happy to take any questions that the council has.

And uh mayor believe Nathan Street may be available as the applicant on this item.

Thanks.

I'd have to defer to advice to make comments.

Oh, okay, but uh first of the question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I appreciate you pulling up that that um accident data of Jonathan.

When you all go out there and take a look at that, I mean I know you have your master street land standards, um, but do you also think about you know how this might change site distance or the orientation and um you know we just had a bad accident, not at this intersection, but fairly close by, and so um this intersection in particular is very is very odd, and uh we've already had four non fatal accidents or non injury accidents there, but I just think um I'm just asking about the kind of scrutiny that you all go through in considering this.

And so this intersection in particular is very is very odd, and uh we've already had four non-fatal accidents or non-injury accidents there.

But I just think um just asking about the kind of scrutiny that you all go through in considering this.

Certainly, and it's a good question, and we we are not able to make a recommendation on these with full information uh supposing the property were to be developed in some way, shape, or form.

Uh sometimes we know what's going to be put in there.

We can uh have a better sense of uh how that project may interact with the streetscape.

Uh but our primary consideration is whether it can fit those elements of our street design, which among their number one priorities is to be create a multimodal uh street network throughout the city, meaning that uh every street can accommodate not just vehicular traffic but also pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and not just that, also having some form of separation between the two because having, as you noted, having back of curb sidewalks is not an ideal condition, especially when traffic is moving around, having that the potential for that buffer area is very important, and that can be accommodated with with uh if this right-of-way were to be vacated and the street to be rebuilt.

I'm sorry.

I don't see any other questions for Jonathan or the applicant, so we'll turn it over to public comment.

Do we have anyone in the room that would like to comment on this item?

Keith, do we have anyone?

Okay, we don't have anyone on Zoom.

So I will bring it back to the council for I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third reading.

Second.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

In ordernance to approve VAC 25-16 for property located at 835 West Cleveland Street in Ward 2 to vacate about 200ths of an acre of right-of-way.

Okay.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Yes, sir?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay, moving on to item C3, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-26 for approximately 1.04 acres located at 1893 North REPL Road and Ward 4.

From RSF 1, residential single family, one unit per acre, to RIU, residential intermediate urban, subject to a bill of assurance.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Section 1.

As a city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 1 residential single family one unit per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban, subject to the attached bill of assurance exhibit C.

Section 2 that the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends the fisher zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This property is in West Fayville.

It's on the west side of RuPa Road, which you can see running north to south through the middle of the area on the screen right now.

It's about a third of a mile south of RuPaul Road with a section of multi-use trail running along the property's frontage, which continues north and southward to between meeting between Mount Comfort and Weddington.

The property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and has a current zoning designation of RSF 1, residential single family one unit per acre.

Those on the council who are here in November may recall that a rezoning request did come forward for this piece of property at that time.

The request was to rezone it from RSF 1 to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Ultimately, that request was denied by the city council.

And under the UNIFI Development Code, there is a requirement for a resone for any rezoning on a piece of property where a previous rezoning was denied.

So to that effect, I'll be touching on that towards the end of the conversation because that was a factor in the planning commission's uh consideration.

What's before the council tonight uh is a request to rezone the property from RSF one to RIU.

As Mr.

Williams noted, there is a bill of assurance associated with this.

Uh this includes multiple elements.

Uh first and foremost, from a land use standpoint, it limits the development of the property to single and two family dwellings, uh, where the RIU zoning district would uh typically also allow three and four family dwellings.

It includes a limitation of eight units to be developed on the property.

Requires that they be built to a minimum of 1600 square feet in size.

Then it includes several elements that are intended to mimic the Oak Brook Plan Zoning District that is located to the north and west of here, which is a planned zoning district that was established some years ago with higher design standards than our typical city development code requires, including requirements for building materials, what manner of materials, walls, and fences can be made out of, the degree to which yards and have to be landscaped.

Finally, for those on the or as a reminder for those on the council when this request came through November, one of the primary pieces of conversation were a concern about how this property would be accessed, whether the property would access directly off of RuPaul Road, whether it could come from Starry Night to the north, or there is a private alley that runs behind the houses immediately to the west, which you can see indicating on the screen here today.

There was a significant amount of consternation or question about whether that was available for connection as a part of this request.

Considering this from our typical review standpoints before moving into some of those specific issues, staff does find this proposal to be compatible from land use standpoint.

There are a wide variety of residential uses in this area.

The Oakbrook subdivision immediately to the west is largely single family, albeit in a range of different lot sizes.

As you move elsewhere along RuPaul Road, the lots vary in size from very large and some of the older agricultural properties to much smaller and narrower, including those with apartments immediately east of here at the links, moving into attached residential as you move closer to Wedding to the South.

Additionally, the location of the property on a major corridor aligns the request with a land use compatible standpoint in staff's estimation.

RuPaul is again considered a major north-south corridor in this area, is intended to be part of a wider circular network within the city.

Additionally, it includes a multi-use trail along its frontage, which can connect it to the north and south for future residents of the property.

Circling back to the discussion of the PZD, this is a an image from the plat of that PZD, the Oprah PCD that was approved to the north and west of here some years ago with the subject property in the lower right-hand corner.

There are two sub-areas of that PCD, planning areas three and five, located to the north and west of this site.

One reason staff finds the request to RIU to be compatible is that these planning areas do in many ways resonate with the allowances in the RIU zoning district.

The PA the PA Planning Area 5 area to the north, not only does it allow single, two, and three family dwellings, it also allows some commercial uses as well, which we feel would be complementary to allowing additional residents in this area.

To the west, the planning area three that's part of the Oak Brook subdivision itself also allows single, two and three family dwellings, although it has, as you probably noted in the aerial image, been developed with detached single family dwellings.

The allowance is there.

Reviewing the request from a land use planning standpoint.

I did notice some of the factors that led staff to find this to be consistent with our land use plans as a part of the compatibility discussion, and that includes that it is on a major transportation corridor, both vehicular and for active transportation, given the trail along the frontage.

There's also access to transit with a stop in the links apartment complex to the east.

There's access to water, sewer, and city park as well, that we feel makes this a complementary location for additional housing types and housing variety.

As far as remaining issues, fee preservation would decline with this request.

The existing RSF 1 zoning district is a very low density zoning designation and has a an associated low or high tree preservation requirement comparatively of 25%.

RIU would lessen that to 15%.

Coming back to the access management discussion, what was discussed in November and is still pertinent tonight are those standards that regulate how property connects to the adjacent streets.

Our development code requires properties to access a lower classification street where two are available.

In this case, that means instead of going east to RuPaul, where it's a higher traffic street and it actually has several portions that are access restricted with medians.

This property would be expected under our development code to connect northward to Starring Night.

Staff feels that that is a respected or honored by the bill of assurance that's proposed, where they the applicant intends to connect to the alley if it's available and failing that connect to Starring Night by shared access points onto Starry Night.

Similar to the November request, uh staff did hear uh concerns from uh nearby residents.

Uh many of those had to do again with that uh access to that private alley to the southwest and concerns that it'd be accessed by this property and assertions that it could not be accessed by this property uh for staff purposes.

That is uh an issue between those property owners.

We would need to see some manner of access easement indicating that they could be connected into prior to us being able to approve any manner of development application.

Uh we also heard concerns about the overall potential density of this project or this rezoning request and the compatibility uh that's uh uh development of this property could have with the Oak Brook subdivision to the north and west.

Uh all findings told, uh staff does recommend in favor of this request.

Uh, when the planning commission heard it on August 11th, they took two votes, as I alluded to earlier.

The first vote was to decide whether they would even reconsider this request since there was a denial within 12 months.

Uh they unanimously felt that the inclusion of a bill of assurance constituted a substantially different request.

Uh so they did approve unanimously to hear it and then ultimately forwarded the city council by a vote of eight to one recommending approval uh largely citing land use compatibility as a part of that discussion.

And with that, I'm happy to take any questions, Mayor.

And before that though, uh the applicant Allison Pinzo does have a presentation to make the council, please.

Okay, great.

If the applicant can come forward, Miss Pinza.

I have the property owner here too.

Um I'm Alison Pinzo, and um I just wanted to go over a few things with a PowerPoint so that y'all kind of had some visuals.

Um, but basically we're wanting to rezone um 1893 REPL to RIU with a bill of assurances.

Do I just let you know when I need the next slide?

Um so our intent again is to basically mimic the Oak Brook subdivision and just continue it on.

So it is a seamless transition, um, which we believe is best for our project and also for the Oak Brook uh community as well.

Um so on the screen, you'll see the existing house that is on the lot right now.

Um we intend to remodel that and then hopefully build four new row style homes that also meet the look and bill of the existing subdivision.

Um but this is our ideal option right now, but we are we do intend to work hand in hand with the city um and are very open to changes that you all may have.

So, and one of those, so you can kind of see uh we did an alley access, and then we have it going to Starry Night, and we're open to moving that to the west boundary um if that's more feasible or keeping it there or other options.

Um so a lot of questions came up about zoning, um, why we're doing RIU instead of RFF eight or 12 or neighborhood conservation.

Um, the simple answer is is the lot width minimum.

So we need roughly 37 to 39 feet on the south boundary line uh for a lot width.

Um, and with the RSF 8, uh 12 and the neighborhood conservation, those are all 40 to 50 feet wide.

So we would need a little bit smaller, and RIU would accommodate that with a lot width minimum of 18 feet.

Um, and we did meet with staff uh both this time and last time uh to come up with this uh with this zoning.

So um so the main concerns that we've been hearing um from the council and from the neighbors um come down to three things safety, density, and community um with property values and access being a major theme.

Um the bill of assurances again, it just kind of highlights uh that we will minimize our curb cuts.

Um again, our density will not exceed eight.

So it kind of aligns with that RSF eight um without being RSS8.

Um we're limiting it to single family and two-family dwellings uh with a minimum of 1600 square feet.

And then some of these other points come straight from the Oak Brook Covenants because again, we do want to kind of mimic that subdivision and make it cohesive.

So we wanted to assure the neighborhood that we want it to be, we don't want their property values to be affected.

We want to continue on.

And we felt like that was a good way of showing our good faith.

For safety, that was one of the big concerns with uh Rupple being right there.

Um so I decided, I don't think the police commented.

So I did do an FOI request just to see how many uh car accidents have been in that intersection for the last five and a half years, roughly.

Um, and you can see there, those are the results.

So there were only four accidents total in that intersection according to my FOI request.

Um, and it appears that all uh it was all property damage only, so no fatalities, no serious injuries or anything like that.

Um, and then it does appear um that since the installation of the uh multi-use trail, there hasn't been any uh it doesn't look like there's been any car accidents, and uh so I kind of wanted to show y'all a picture um of the intersection that shows you how that trail um gives you better visibility because there was some trees and brush and stuff that was cleared out.

Um, so it definitely has better visibility now that that's um there.

Um as far as curb cuts, I wanted to show some pictures of what it looks like because there was mention that that was a steep hill down to ruffles.

Um, but it's you can kind of see that's one of them's from the west boundary of ruffle, which is one of our suggested locations, and then the other ones on the east side of the house on the property, and you can tell from those pictures that the stop sign down below is very visible from both locations.

Um so we feel it is a safe way to access the um alleyways is through those curb codes.

And then you'll see on there the the locations that I've marked with X's on the left side.

You'll see that if we do go with the west boundary, that that really aligns with the Oak Brook subdivision as well, um, which we feel like would be a really seamless transition there.

Um but those are just some visuals for you guys.

Um, and then again, speaking of the the steep hill, that is a picture of the topography, so you can see that there is uh a site decline down to uh Rupple Road, but it's not anything major.

Um traffic was another concern.

Um, and uh the neighbors commented about having traffic through the subdivision, um, and I just wanted to highlight that this property is on the outer edge of the subdivision, so most traffic should be going to straight down Starry Night to Ruffle, so it shouldn't be going through the subdivision for the most part.

Um density again, that was another question, and I think I I pretty much told you guys, but again, total units, we are limiting it, limiting it to eight.

Um, so that aligns with uh the zoning that you all mentioned last time.

Um I think the neighbors brought up property values, and again, that's why we did do the bill of assurances to show them that we are looking out for their best interest as well, and so we want to again just seamlessly continue the subdivision for the most part, which shouldn't affect their properties in any sort of negative way.

Um, and then access with the alleyway has been a huge uh point as well.

Um, and we just want to say that we are a hundred percent not going to extend the Oak Brooks alleyway.

That is not in our plans at all because we have gotten feedback from the neighbors that they don't want it, we've gotten feedback from the developer that they don't want it, and so we want to honor it was just a suggestion that we had because we thought it might be good, but we're again very open to something different, and we we just want to say that we heard them and assure everybody that that is not an option that we are considering.

So I just want to thank you for your time and consideration of this project.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um do we have questions for um the applicant or for Mr.

Kurth?

Bob?

Yeah.

Jonathan, when I look at these maps and I open Google Maps and I look at that, this basically what they're asking for is just a continuation of what exists right next door.

Just kind of extending the neighborhood.

That's the intent the applicant has expressed in what they're uh seeking to achieve with the bill of assurance on the RIE zoning district.

And based on the limitation, like they couldn't really do much more than that, anyways, especially with the bill of assurance.

Correct.

The bill of assurance is a legal document.

They would not be allowed to build more than eight units on the property.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, you probably said this, but just to just to be clear, um, that alley, whether it connects to Oakbrook or whether it's um it ends up being what was just depicted in the PowerPoint, it cannot connect to RuPaul, correct?

It's a not a straightforward answer.

It is not a public alley, first of all, which I think is one of the most important pieces of the note here, which is a again why there's a lot of confusion about it is a public alley could be connected to, it could be extended, it could connect to RuPa.

Since it is a private alley serving those residents of the Oak Brook subdivision, it does not appear as though it's available for this property to use if the Oakbrook subdivision and the Oak Brook uh Homeowners Association or property owners association did not want it to, it could not extend into this property.

That combined with the concerns or considerations for access management dictate that the alley, if it were extended, which is one big if it would be it would tie back northward to Starry Night rather than the come out on RuPool given Starry Knight is a lower volume street and not doesn't have the uh the access management from the medians.

So, what I'm understanding is with any of these different configurations, it will not uh connect to RuPaul.

Is that accurate?

That is what our ordinances require.

They would have to receive special exception from our planning commission to do something like that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I don't see any more questions from council, so we'll turn it over to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this item?

So, yes, and please come on up and state your name and address, and you have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Jeff Conrad.

I'm here with my sister Erin Conrad uh on behalf of the development we hope to undertake in 1893 North Ruppel Road.

Wanted to start by thanking this council, the planning commission, and our neighbors in the adjacent Oak Brook community, especially Tracy Hotkins, the developer of Oak Brook, Karen, uh the current Oak Brook HOA president, and Gretchen, who have all taken time to meet with us and advise us on how we can better integrate with the surrounding community.

It's always been our intent to develop uh 1893 North Ruppel Road in a manner that closely aligns with Oak Brook because we believe it best balances the four parties with an interest in this application, us, our neighbors, the city of Fayetteville, and the future homeowners.

So we have felt the best way to approach this development would be to build those four single-family homes with their front yards facing West Story Night, built in the existing style of Oak Brook, while also renovating the existing property to match.

Just yesterday, we toured Oak Brook with Karen and Gretchen, uh, and we're impressed with how the community continues to develop.

Our vision borrows from what we feel like makes Oak Brook successful.

In fact, we copied some of their existing POA material in our bill of assurances.

However, prior to achieving our vision, there will be extensive input for an engineers, architects in the city, and much of that will incur cost.

Should our rezone request ultimately be denied, all of that money would have been wasted.

And for this reason, we've tried to approach this rezoning in a way that maintains some flexibility to adjust to future input.

We did not make comment in our initial rezone application, so I just wanted to take this opportunity to address some of those prior concerns that we heard both from this council and the public, which we summarized into safety density and community.

We talked about safety earlier and showed pictures of the existing options.

We are willing to work with uh future planning commission to determine if there are specific uh turning direction limitations with whichever access that ultimately gets approved, and we fully acknowledge that part of the development will have to go through additional steps and reviews, and we plan to work with the city and our neighbors to make sure to come up with the safest option possible.

Uh the second bucket of concerns around densities.

We put in assurances, eliminating apartments, condos, tiny homes, mobile homes, all to say that we seek to try and mimic the existing community look and feel.

And that's that third bucket is around the community.

Oakbrook has done a tremendous job, and we plan to fully emulate their success.

We plan to borrow major elements from Oak Brook in our own development and have made assurances along those lines.

In recent discussions with our neighbors, one of the things that helped address some concerns was our plan to have a POA for our own development.

Here, once again, we plan to draw heavily from the existing documentation to reinforce the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any other comments from in the room?

Hi, good evening.

I'm Gretchen Wilkes.

I live at uh 3984 West Starry Night View, and I'm right across the street from the lot in question.

Um thank you for the opportunity to speak and also thank you for uh hearing our concerns last November when we when we went through this process.

Um I would like to say that we appreciate Jeff and Aaron Conrad, who are the owners of this property.

We appreciate that they address the Oak Brook property owners' concerns about by adding in the bill of assurance that they have provided with the second request for zoning.

Since the last planning committee meeting, we've twice had the opportunity to meet with them, and they've assured us that their plan is to build only single family dwellings that will fit seamlessly into our existing neighborhood, follow Oak Brook's architectural and structural standards, and provide a single access point.

We've talked about uh the problems with RuPaul.

I know that would require a variance for from Starry Night.

The recent construction on RuPaul that has just been addressed this evening that removed two large trees that blocked our view when we turned and also widened the road to include a bike lane has greatly improved the visibility from starry night onto RuPaul.

It's a it and it has lessened the concerns of our property owners uh about safety.

So as long as we continue to move in this positive direction with the Conrads, the neighborhood has no further objection to their plan for development on that lot, and we appreciate them you know addressing our concerns and meeting us halfway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other comments from in the room?

Keith.

We do not.

Okay.

All right, great.

Uh Councilperson Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, just to have a single point of contact.

I just want to clarify the alley.

While they've said they won't tie into the existing private alley, they're entitled to have just their own private alley behind their own property.

I don't see any other way to have a single point of contact to um starry night otherwise.

That's correct.

I think one of the iterations the applicant shared was one driveway coming off starry night, the street to the north, and then having the houses be rearloaded by a separate private alley.

That is that is feasible, at least from a high level.

I don't see any reason that could not be done.

Thank you.

Councilperson Stafford.

I motion we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Packerson, will you please call the rules?

We have I'm sorry, joke all the rules.

Call the roll.

Yes, go ahead.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

And ornament to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-26 for approximately 1.04 acres located at 1893 North Ruthville Road in Ward 4.

From RSF 1 residential single family, one unit per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban, subject to a bill of assurance.

Okay.

Clark Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you all.

We will move on to item C4, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition 2025-30 for approximately 0.81 acres located at 2135 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family for residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood kit.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition 2025-30 for approximately 0.81 acres located at 2135 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4, residential single family for residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Faithville, Arkansas, Section One.

And the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, here by changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

And section two, that the city council of the city of Federal, Arkansas, here by amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Thank you, Kit.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Southeast Fayetteville, about 1,000 feet west of crossovers intersection with Huntsville.

It includes about eight tenths of an acre of land at the southwest corner of Jerry Avenue and Huntsville Road.

It includes a single family dwelling and some accessory structures that are located immediately west of a former gas station, which is uh depending on how you remember that property, uh, was the home previously of the Hip Cafe and is now currently the home of uh Dots Hot Chicken.

Uh so this is the property immediately west of that on the other side of Jerry Avenue.

And as Mayor and Mr.

Williams both noted, the request is to rezone the property from its existing RSF4 residential single family four units per acre zoning designation to UN urban neighborhood.

Uh staff finds the request to be compatible from a land use standpoint.

Uh there is a wide variety of different land uses in this area, uh both existing and under zoning entitlement.

Uh the checker board of zoning districts that you can see on the zoning map here is an indicator of that allowance with the purple and lavender colors being mixed use zoning districts allowing both residential and non-residential uses, the orange and brown colors being uh those that allow attached residential, the yellow, of course, being RSA for uh allowing uh detached residential, uh, and the light pink immediately across the street being one of our uh older conventional uh commercial zoning districts, uh the UN zoning district and its allowance for single two three four family two three four and multi-family along with small services at a uh maximum building height of three stories uh fits in well in staff's estimation from that land use compatibility standpoint.

Similarly, uh when looking at the request through the lens of our long-range planning documents, uh we find it to be consistent with uh both the uh uh future land use map and its designation of the property as a city neighborhood area, along with set with several of the factors that contribute to this being an ideal infill location, including uh access to uh water and sewer, uh access to transit, and access to amenities such as uh nearby park when looking at other items under request, uh this does reduce the tree preservation requirement for the property.

RSF4 has the highest standard in the city, which is 25 percent, and going to UN would reduce that to 15.

Uh by the time we're done tonight, you all will be experts in our access management standards, uh similar to the last one.

This property is a corner lot, uh, one uh side of which fronts a major street, Huntsville, uh one of which uh fronts a lower classification, lower volume street, which in this case is Jerry, our access management standards prioritize accessing the lower one so that traffic can enter the busier street at a formal intersection.

Um additionally, I touched on briefly the the wide variety of uh uses along the Huntsville Road area.

We feel that UN is a very uh effective intermediate zoning that complements all of those with its allowance of both residential and non-residential uses at a moderated amount so that you can't go up to five stories uh when you're at an area of of generally two and three-story dwellings, and you can't allow or does not allow large uh non-residential uses uh as well.

But those findings in mind, staff is recommending approval.

Uh, when the planning commission heard this item, uh they voted unanimously to forward it to city council.

Um to date we've received no public comments on the item, and uh I'm available for any questions, and mayor, I believe a representative from the Scobie family is here uh if I'm not clear if they want to make a presentation or not, so okay, if you would like to if are you the applicant?

Yes, okay, if you would like to go, would you like to speak or okay?

Okay, do we have questions for Jonathan?

Minister Jones?

Thank you, Mayor Duncan.

You said the access would be to the Lower Street, not Huntsville Road.

It would be our develop our access manager requires it to go to Jerry, which is to the east.

That's that side street rather than Huntsville Road.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

Do we have anybody in the room that would like to speak on this rezoning?

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Okay, Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you.

Um, this is my neighborhood.

Uh uh, I'm very excited.

I think this is a perfect rezone.

Um, and I'm very supportive.

Uh and as to my support, uh, I would like to motion that we um suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Bunch?

Yes.

His turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

And you're going to rezone that property described the rezoning petition RZN 2025-30 for approximately four fifths of an acre located at 2135 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1.

From RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

Okay, Councilperson Turk.

Before we go to a final vote, um, I have one last question.

Um, Jonathan, um, if this is rezoned to you in, what's the maximum number of units that could be placed on this piece of property?

There is no defined maximum in the urban neighborhood zoning district.

It's a form-based district that defines what you can do with the property based on our other development standards, such as the width of the lot, which in UN is 12 feet, uh, or the requirements for parking, which residential we do still have uh residential parking requirements and then other uh orbiting requirements like tree reservation, stormwater uh and things of that nature.

And then the maximum height is three stories, correct?

Correct.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Dr.

Jones, did you have another comment?

Yes, uh, I I just wanted to say that I echo the sentiment uh council member Stafford.

That's in Ward 1, and I'm super excited about what that could what that could uh possibly be become.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Clark Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Barna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

So that brings us to C5, 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 with 24 units per acre, to UN Urban Neighborhood.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, Exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre to UN urban neighborhood in section two.

At the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us just immediately east of uh the downtown uh plan boundaries, uh east of where we are sitting in City Hall, uh, is southeast of the Yvonne Richardson Community Center, which you can see just to the north of this, and which uh the council will be excited to hear is rapidly moving towards opening after its uh addition uh recently.

Uh this property is also uh characterized or can be more readily identified by its proximity to Buddy Hayes Park, which shares its eastern boundary with this property, uh with the Spout Spring R the Spout Spring Branch running between Buddy Hayes uh and this property more generally.

Uh the request to with this item is to rezone the property from RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

Uh what is not readily apparent on this map as our zoning uh maps uh keep up with the the changes in the city is uh there is a portion of property immediately to the east on the east side of a uh alley right-of-way that was rezoned to urban neighborhood by uh city council in recent months.

So uh as a as a factor of considering into land use compatibility, that's not as apparent on this map.

Uh that is worth keeping in mind uh as it was part of staff's considerations, which is to say that we do find this to be a compatible request.

Uh this portion of Fayetteville uh has a wide variety of uh residential uses uh from uh medium to smaller size single family lots.

Uh there's also uh can readily be found of many examples of attached residential housing, uh both in multifamily or townhome form.

Uh there are both uh historic and uh previous uh non-resident uses that can be found in this part of Fayetteville, and of course, as I mentioned before, this is immediately across from the Yvonne Richardson Center, uh, which in uh staff's estimation is an ideal place to have housing so that the residents there could have access to those facilities.

There are both uh historic and uh previous uh non-residential uses that can be found in this part of Fayetteville and of course as I mentioned before this is immediately across from the Yvonne Richardson Center uh which in uh staff's estimation is an ideal place to have housing so that the residents there could have access to those facilities and they looking through a land use plan lens uh this property has many factors that contribute to uh a uh appropriate uh this being appropriate location for infill uh it has of course adequate fire response it has access to both our transit services in the city uh this is this area of Fayetteville that has a uh wide or large amount of connectivity uh both to downtown to the north and southward towards Walker Park as well uh through a historic tighter street grid uh we consider these factors along with uh the future land use map designation as a residential neighborhood to make it appropriate to rezone to UN urban neighborhood additionally while it's not generally considered a land use planning document uh the uh the the recently considered uh southeast fayantville uh historic neighborhood lack historic neighborhood document that was uh uh uh drafted and then put together and has been shared widely with the community recognizes very much that this partial portion of Fayel has not historically always been uh residential as the zoning districts dictate they ought to be now uh there were many a wide variety of of small businesses in this area historically and rezoning it back to or a designation that would allow it is fitting in staff's mind as well from uh that uh perspective looking at it from uh other considerations uh the tree preservation requirements will decrease from 20 to 15 percent with this uh going from uh one of our uh historic uh multifamily zoning designations to a more urban one uh I did note the land use history a little bit already uh but if the council's interested there is a particular memo from our long range planning group that was included in this packet uh that may uh prove educational if the council's curious uh and finally I did want to touch upon the fact that the Spout Spring branch does run along the western property line of this uh site and you may have noted that there is floodway associated with that uh this property did receive a variance from the streamside protection zone requirements in 2022 from our planning commission prior to that the property was effectively completely encumbered by streamside protection standards as a part of reviewing that request the planning commission allowed encroachments into the management zone which is the outside area of our streamside protection zone uh requiring that the stream the the I'm sorry I'm forgetting about terminology the management zone was allowed to be encroached into but not the stream the streamside zone itself the closer one to the stream uh with the intent of allowing this property owner to to be able to make use of their property uh where it would otherwise uh not be feasible uh accordingly the uh applicant has submitted building permits on the property already and ultimately what this urban neighborhood zoning district intends to do is allow flexibility in selling those those future units uh with the narrower lot widths that the urban neighborhood zoning district allows and with that uh we are recommending in favor of staff uh the planning commission forwarded it unanimously to city council and state we've not received any public comment and mayor I have a two applicant uh portion to their side of things this time I have uh West Bates online and uh Tommy Davis Flowers here in person I'm not sure who's going for okay Miss Flowers would you like to come and speak or are you here for questions?

Oh okay great okay Mr.

Bates do you have anything you'd like to add yeah hey good evening um sorry I couldn't make it there tonight I had killed surgery today the doctor would not let me stand at the podium I have a few comments I wrote up we're here just on behalf of Tommy property owner there at Rock Street Tommy's a friend of ours she's developing the property herself and as Jonathan noted she already has permits in place for the units she plans to build there the rezoning will allow her to subdivide her lots so that the five units can be sold as individual townhomes rather than as condominiums change doesn't increase the number of units or alter the development plan simply provides future homeowners the opportunity to own their own homes outright which is more for more often more affordable and straightforward for financing it's also important to note that this area has historically supported mixed and uses until urban renewal shifted its character rezoning urban neighborhood helps bring back that original intent encouraging attainable housing options and strengthening the neighborhood fabric um the project's also great example of neighbors working together to support one another we are collaborating with Tommy on a shared water line which she has a cost share with the city on and that'll you know which just shows the kind of cooperative spirit this rezoning can help foster I'm here for any questions and I don't think Tommy has any comments but she's also there for questions.

Great thank you so much right do we have clarifying questions from the council for either Mr.

Bates or uh Miss Flowers or Mr.

Kurtz?

Dr.

Jones?

Uh yes, I do.

Tommy, good evening.

Um, how long have you been working on this project?

You don't have to.

And you don't have to, Miss Lars, if you don't want to, if you don't want to, I don't know.

I want to put you on the spot if you were planning for Miss Mr.

Bates to I've done work on the hey, this is Wes again.

Uh Tommy's been working on this project for for years and years, and her mother tried to develop this site.

Um, there's a long history on this site, um, especially with the city putting sewer um sewer means through her property, trying to um have her donate the property to the city.

So there is a long history here, and Tommy has finally been able to get uh her building permits, and so we're excited to see this move forward.

And you know, this new zone allows her to um get those uh townhouses on their own lots so that she can sell them fee simple.

That's all I have.

Uh I really appreciate this this being uh uh hopefully passed tonight, especially with the historical context, uh, how it benefits uh the Fayville community.

So I'm really excited about it being at this stage.

Uh it's been a while coming, and um our our community will certainly appreciate it as well.

Um this is progress and Tommy and West both thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we don't have any further questions, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have anybody in the room that would like to make a public comment on this item?

Keith, Zoom.

We do not.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to the council to council.

Ooh, I saw you both at the same time.

Council person more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to move to uh suspend the roles and go to the third reading.

Second uh I I'd just like to uh comment real quickly that uh uh uh I agree with council uh member Jones uh Dr.

Jones and and uh want to uh thank Tommy and and Wes for this.

I think it is gonna do a lot for affordability in the neighborhood.

I think it's gonna do a lot to bring back uh the historic character of the neighborhood.

I know you guys will do well and uh appreciate it.

Okay, we have a motion and clerk Paxton.

Were you able to record a second?

Okay, great.

Please call the roll.

Mr.

Wheedaker, yes, Mr.

Burnout, yes, Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk, yes, Mr.

Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

And our rezone the property describe a rezoning partition RZN 2025-28 for approximately four tenths of an acre located at 261 East Rock Street in Ward 1 from RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre to UN Urban Neighborhood.

Miss Moore, thank you, Mayor.

Um, I did want to echo the comments of my council members.

Um I've seen this new I uh zoning that's available, and especially in context to what's happening with the historical statement.

Um looking forward to to seeing that in conjunction with the park and the redevelopment there with uh the Yvonne Richardson Center, all in conjunction together.

So I appreciate the efforts on that, and especially that partnership too on the water line, neighbors helping neighbors.

So I think that's kind of what we envision uh some of this in that area.

So thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Jones.

Just had one question, I guess, um, about parking.

I didn't hear you say anything about that, Jonathan.

Does the applicant have anything on parking in the area?

Parking is not explicitly a zoning issue, it's tied to development.

Uh developing depending on what the development is, determines the ratio uh of how many parking spaces are required.

Uh, as this is a residential development, there are minimum parking requirements in Fable for residential, so how they end up developing the property will determine how much of that is required.

It could be based on a per unit or a per bed basis.

Okay.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheatinger.

Yes.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

And that passes.

Thank you.

Moving to the next item.

Uh C6, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025 24 for approximately 0.70 acres located south of 380 South Happy Hollow Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre.

Zoning 2, RSF 8, residential single family, 8 units per acre.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

We had ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description, exhibit B.

Both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8 residential single family, eight units per acre.

Section two.

At the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us a little bit further east from downtown Fayev, specifically to the southeast slope of Mount Sequoia, about 200 feet north of Happy Hollow and Fourth Street on the east side of Happy Hollow Road.

The question was asked at agenda session, even more specifically where this is.

Hopefully this helps Orient you seeing the aerial image.

This is there are effectively four single family homes in this corner of Fourth and Happy Hollow.

There's two at the hard corner that you'll see there.

There's an empty lot, which is the subject of this request, and then there are two more single family homes uh north of that.

So this is uh if there are five lots there, this is the middle one uh standing out between those.

As I noted, the existing property is undeveloped uh and it is zoned RSF4 residential single family four units per acre.

The applicant's request is to rezone it to RSF eight, residential single family eight units per acre.

Ultimately, uh the net effect of this would be it would allow uh the property given its size to be split one time to create two lots uh for uh development of the two houses with street frontage along Happy Hollow Road.

Uh when reviewing this from a land use compatibility uh perspective, uh staff does find it to be compatible.

Uh this area is almost exclusively single family in nature.

Uh while there can be found uh while some duplexes can be found further to the north, the uh public schools uh virtual academy in Happy Hollow, a few blocks to the east.

Uh this immediate area is single family uh with varying lot sizes from uh 30 to 40 feet up to uh well over 100 to 200 feet on some of the larger lots that can be found.

Uh staff finds that RSF 8 fits between these, uh it's 50 foot lots that uh uh reflect the the general sense of the area from a long-range planning standpoint.

Uh there are a limited number of infill factors uh that are associated with this property between six and seven uh accordingly.

Uh we do find that uh a moderate increase in uh zoning entitlement from RSF four to RSF eight is appropriate and lines up with those long-range planning goals.

Uh similarly, we feel it's consistent with the residential neighborhood uh map designation, which uh supports as its name suggests residential uses uh with the uh intensity or density of them based appropriately on context.

When looking at wider issues, uh true preservation does reduce from RSF four to RSF eight from 25 to 20 percent.

And at the planning commission meeting, we did hear public comment uh from some neighbors.

Uh there were concerns expressed about uh fears that this would become rental housing, uh, that there might result in more than one uh single family dwelling on the house, and most prominently there were concerns about uh stormwater and flooding in this area.

I believe the council did receive some videos that were sent from one of those neighbors uh that ultimately uh contributed to this request denial by the planning commission.

Uh looking at it through the lens of a uh purely land use requests, uh staff was recommending approval.

Uh that additional information before the planning commission uh put them at unease and they did not feel that the degree of flood uh stormwater that they were seeing in some of those videos could be adequately addressed, and that no additional development in this area was appropriate accordingly.

They denied it.

And so the planning committee, or excuse me, the city council tonight is hearing this on appeal because of that denial.

Uh so Mr.

Williams may be able to say it more eloquently for you.

Uh but if the council is to support this appeal, that would overturn the planning commission and approve the rezoning.

If the city council votes to deny the appeal, then the planning commission's denial would stand, and this rezoning would not be approved.

Again, Mr.

Williams can probably put that more eloquently than me.

And mayor, I believe uh, I think I've Nathan Street uh down as the applicant for this one as well, if they'd like to speak.

Okay, yes, do we have the applicant?

Yes, okay.

And if you could please state your name again.

I know Jonathan said it.

I think we may have missed it.

Good evening.

I'm Nathan Street with Sitewall Civil Engineering.

Um to address some of the drainage concerns.

To address some of the drainage concerns, this site is at the bottom of Mount Sequoia.

There is a 30 plus acre drainage basin above us.

Runoff from Mount Sequoia spreads out.

It drains across Happy Hollow Road.

It is not contained within the road, even though there was a recent sidewalk and drainage improvement project constructed.

I had a meeting with our adjacent neighbor to the south that submitted the videos.

Couldn't be here tonight.

But also in attendance at that meeting with city engineering staff and we discussed the current conditions.

But they know it's a priority project and working towards some remediation in that area.

So we ask that uh you know, with the approval of the rezone, it'll allow my client to proceed with detailed design and engineering calculations that we can improve the drainage patterns for not only our site but for our neighbors downstream.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I don't know who this question is for, but you so it's 0.7 acres, so this would allow uh five single family uh units that the are you asking what rezoning it would allow?

Yeah specifically, yeah.

The lot has I believe it's just over a hundred feet of lot width on Happy Hollow Road, so rezoning it to RSF4 would allow two conventional lots to be subdivided on it with street frontage.

However, there is an allowance for tandem lots in Faiville, so there is the theoretical potential that lots, if the lot area is available, you could create four lots there.

Four lots, but you couldn't do five even though it has the acreage.

Correct.

Okay, that's that's good.

And I appreciate bringing forward and being upfront about the flooding issue.

Jonathan, can you bring up the flood map?

And and sir, you're correct.

This isn't the fault of your property because it's undeveloped, but right across the street from you, where they are doing a development up the hill.

Every time we have a significant rain, like you mentioned, that just comes right across Happy Hollow.

Then the new improvements don't catch it at all.

Um so I appreciate you.

I believe with that specific development, they're in a different drainage basin that goes to the east.

It shouldn't be coming south.

Yeah, that's well, the the one on the west uh as they go up the hill there, you can see where the road is uh like that one.

I noticed, like it seems like the water comes down there and a few of the other neighbors as well.

The water comes down behind their houses and just shoots right across Happy Hollow.

It's unfounded, I think at this point, or it's unstudied, I should say.

Yeah, but the recent earthwork uphill uh appears to have impacted some of the downstream neighbors as well.

Jonathan, could you pull up that flood map?

Councilman Stafford, this is the flood map.

This oh, I think the stormwater concerns are because if you if you go below Fourth Street, um further south down to Happy Hollow, that's where you see uh the flood, the flooding has grown there and comes all the way up to Happy Hollow now as we get towards uh Hudson Road, and then I believe you know, further south than that, our our fire station down there uh is actually just right at the bottom there, uh, is actually in the flood zone now.

Um so I am concerned I do have concerns about this, and I'm glad again that y'all wrote them up.

That was one of my big course concerns.

Um but uh and I appreciate the answers on how many units can go there because that sounds a lot better than what I first uh thought.

But um, I think the the flooding issues uh north of this project to Fiji Street and Gala.

Um they're gonna have to do some work there well as well.

Um I just want to make sure that we don't do something that's gonna add to the flood zone to the south and make that problem grow.

Or um, and this isn't necessarily your problem, this is a the city problem, but the more development we have the uh more that's gonna be an issue.

And kid, this is an appeal.

This is not just a is that right?

Well, as opposed to some of the things that come through you to you when it's a rezoning, rezoning requires five affirmative votes to pass it, and that's exactly what this is.

If you vote in favor of it, you'll be rezoning it.

You vote against it, it won't be rezoned.

Okay, so it's not like it okay.

Well, it's not gonna be confusing tonight.

It's it's like uh even if it would have been approved, it'd been presented the same way to you because it always takes five affirmative votes to approve a rezoning.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um I don't see any.

Oh, I was gonna go to public comment.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Well, I was gonna ask, I saw Chris uh sitting back in the back.

I was wondering since since uh applicant mentioned Chris and some concerns that he had addressed with Chris.

Maybe Chris can fill us in on uh you know kind of the his thinking on this area.

Sorry to put you on spot, but sure.

Yeah, this is a long-standing drainage problem.

It's always been classified as a private uh drainage that runs through this uh particular property.

Uh but with the stormwater utility, uh, that's something that we can begin looking at a little bit differently and uh look at potentially taking this system into our system.

Uh so we do have uh that's one of the the projects uh if you all remember you approved some on-call drainage services uh for consultants.

Uh we do have a consultant engaged and they'll be looking at this drainage area and looking at solutions to the existing drainage problem, uh, which uh is not the uh the development obviously hasn't caused it and really would not really contribute to it, um, but would as uh Mr.

Street stated it it is kind of um in the way of the of the drainage system, so they're being impacted by that system.

How's the person Turk?

Thank you, Mayor.

Chris, I have a follow-up.

So um if this is rezoned tonight, would you also be considering the potential impact with four up to four new houses or developments on there when you go in and actually assess and try and solve this stormwater um issue that we're having right now?

Yes, so the the requirements for a development uh they depend on the the size of the development.

Um so there would be at the very least some water quality requirements uh that the development would have to install or potentially some some other detention and uh features like that.

So it really depends on how large the development ends up being, uh, what they would be required to do.

I just ask one more.

Um so um if they go so I guess what I'm looking for is reassurance to the neighbors that um that this pro they will not have this problem at all, irrespective of the development if it passes tonight, because you all will be able to um uh accommodate that uh with your new stormwater um revisions that you're gonna do.

Yes, that the the design, when we get the design, we will have a solution to the problem.

Then the question becomes funding and priority, and that's something we're working on.

I think we've had several people ask about you know what what kind of what is our project list look like, and that's something that we're working on.

So then it becomes a matter of priority and when it gets done.

Minister Jones, thank you.

What do you what are you thinking on your timeline for the development of that?

When the development will occur.

No, your timeline for the development of your projects.

Oh, the the drainage.

Oh, the development of the overall list.

Um, we're getting a little off topic, but that's okay.

Um we we uh we're we're working on with this last rain on Thursday.

We had another round of of requests come in.

So we're still going out and evaluating all of those, uh, working on compiling our list.

We do have a uh another stormwater position that we're trying to fill, and that will be one of their first tasks is really developing that and the developing uh uh something that will be available for for public view so we can uh be much more transparent about where we are with projects.

Yeah, ums more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Chris, I just wanted to make sure that I um heard you say on this particular project with this rezone, you're not anticipating that this project is gonna increase any concerns around the drainage and discharge in regard to what's already occurring in that.

Is did I hear you correctly when you stated that?

That's correct.

It's it's really um this the drainage way comes through this property.

Uh some of the property actually does drain back to this location, but some of it drains the other direction.

Um so really the overall impact of this very small area as compared to the the entire drainage area um is is very small, and again, we have requirements that mitigate those impacts of development.

Thank you, Chris.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yeah, and Chris, thank you, Mayor.

Uh Chris, finally I know you've been up here last question.

So the the problem is on the the Mount Square side, the west side of Happy Hollow.

Are we gonna whatever we do?

Are we gonna be able to do that on the west side of Happy Hollow because or are we gonna let the water come across as it does and try to fix it after it comes across?

Yeah, uh well, that that'll be that'll be part of the review of the solution.

But my uh my initial thought is we'll take a pipe rather than taking it across the street and going kind of diagonal diagonally across these properties.

Uh we'll come down Happy Hollow to Fourth Street and then over.

So keep the drainage along the street right-of-way as opposed to going through the properties.

Okay, again, that's not that's not finalized.

I don't know the grades will work, but that's the initial thought.

That sounds like the right solution to me.

So thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Just please come up and state your name and address and be mindful of the three-minute time limit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Noah Jones.

My wife and I are actually the owners of this property that we are talking about tonight.

I currently live at 2781 West Auburn Drive in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

I just wanted to go ahead and address some of the concerns of the council members about the well when I guess the density, I believe, and please correct me, Mr.

Jonathan, if I'm incorrect.

As it is sits at the moment, I think by right, we have access to a tandem lot.

Our desire, I know we don't have a bullet insurance or anything, so only do two residential single family homes.

I heard you say that some of the public comments were were they going to be rental homes?

They are not.

I am actually the uh gonna be the contractor on the project as well.

We'll be building these homes to either essentially live in ourselves or to sell.

They will not be rental homes, and the max amount of homes that we will put on there is two homes because by putting them side by side, we think one it will look aesthetically better for the the community than our personal belief and be better for uh fire access as well instead of having homes, you know, right you know, one in front of the other.

So, yes, that is kind of our goal, and really that's that's all I have to say.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Do we have any anybody else that would like to make a comment or on Zoom?

Okay, I'll bring it back to the council.

I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third reading.

So we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Budge?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

And our rezone the property described a rezoning petition RZN 2025-24 for approximately 0.7 acres located south of 380 South Happy Hollow Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family, four units per acre to RSF 8.

Residential single family, eight units per acre.

Um, okay, uh, Councilperson Turk.

I I guess I have one final question for Chris before before we vote.

Um I guess I'm a little uncomfortable that we don't have a list uh of the stormwater um projects, and I know you're waiting to hire somebody, but in your mind, would this be in the top priority list of the stormwater projects?

Where would that kind of fall?

Because you know, this has been a ongoing long problem, and and I want to make sure that we are able, I know funds are limited, we'll have funding coming in, but um we've known about this project for or this problem for quite some time.

Yes, so um uh this is this is something that will be a collaborative process, but um as what what we've said before is um our priorities are to look at locations where we have water and structures.

Uh those are gonna be the highest priority.

Uh property damage would be secondary.

Um I believe this one has it has some property damage and some erosion and things like that, but I don't think we have water in structures.

So to say that it's you know at the top of the priority list may not be uh may not be quite correct.

Um it is one that we that we know uh has been a longstanding problem and is quite a bit of water.

We've had development upstream that that has made it worse.

So it's not the highest priority, but it definitely is is going to be one that we it was high enough priority that we wanted to do this the design work and begin moving on it.

So I'll say that.

Thank you, Chris.

Mr.

Stafford.

Uh I want to uh thank Councilmember Turk for asking those questions.

Um I do believe I wasn't necessarily ready to vote on this tonight, but here we are.

Uh, but I do believe that a lot of my uh concerns were answered.

I hope that this does as we see a lot of development going in in the Happy Hollow area.

Uh I I hope that that drainage does uh make it up to list to it to a good priority.

Um and with that uh I'm as ready to vote as I'll be.

Okay.

Uh Minister James.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, is this a zone in the flood area?

No, this property is not in a FEMA designated floodplain.

These are drainage ways that have formed either over time or I think as Mr.

Brown referenced because of increased development uphill.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, Clerk Pax.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Burnett.

I just want to clarify since this is an appeal, a vote yes is in support of the appeal and the rezoning would pass.

A vote no would be denying the appeal.

Oh yes, is to approve the rezoning.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

And we will move on.

Thank you to those who came and spoke.

And we will move on to item C7, a resolution to approve a memorandum of agreement with the City of Fayetteville Public School District outlining their participation in the stormwater utility credit program.

Mr.

Brown, Chris.

Thank you.

As you all know, we uh passed the stormwater utility late last year.

We began begun uh began implementing uh all of the elements of that getting ready to begin billing, and that billing has begun as of uh as of a couple of weeks ago.

Uh as part of that uh stormwater utility, we developed a stormwater credit program, and I believe there's a copy of that credit framework in your packet.

Uh one of the items is a uh a credit for uh public institutions that uh establish a memorandum of agreement with the city.

Uh so that's what we have today with the Federal Public Schools.

Um they have uh the the agreement establishes a 20% credit for the first year uh reflecting existing programs that the this school district manages, um, and then another 10% credit for 2026 to reflect some additional programming that they're proposing.

Um, and then up to a 50% credit for uh some future retrofits that that may occur on the school's uh properties.

Um again, there's a there are a whole list of uh things that the school district is working on, and uh mayor, if it's okay, I'd like to have the school district come up.

Uh Dr.

Julie Williams and Justin Keene are here, and they can talk in more detail about some of the things they're working on.

Yes, uh Dr.

Williams and Mr.

King, if you'd like to come speak.

Madam Mayor, member of the council.

Uh on behalf of Fayetteville Public Schools, we are very pleased with the opportunity to enter into an MOA with the City of Fayetteville.

This partnership represents a meaningful step forward in our shared commitment to sustainability, water quality, and community education.

Through this agreement, Fayetteville Public Schools will not only strengthen our stormwater management practices across campuses, but also expand hands-on learning opportunities for students from elementary through high school.

By collaborating with organizations such as the Beaver Water District, the Illinois River Watershed Partnership, the Watershed Conservation Resource Center, and the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service.

We are equipping our students and families with the knowledge and skills to be active stewards of our community's natural resources.

The city support, including recognition of our existing and future efforts through stormwater utility fee credits, ensures that we can reinvest in sustainable products and projects.

We can retrofit older campuses and continue to model best practices and environmental responsibility.

Together, we are demonstrating how schools and the city can work side by side to make a lasting impact on water quality, reduce the burden on our drainage systems, and inspire the next generation of environmental leaders.

Fayetteville Public Schools is a proud partnership and grateful for the city's council support as we continue to build a greener, healthier future for our students and community.

I now would like to introduce you to Justin Keene, the district sustainability, an outdoor education leader.

He will present some of the district's efforts which can be found in the requested appendix B.

Good evening.

Do y'all have any questions for me, or would you like me to see Appendix B, you'll see some of the programs we're on that we have currently in the schools.

I think over the last years, you can see dedication to building community partnerships and getting our kids access to authentic learning experiences through these community partnerships.

Last year we had three schools designated as schools of conservation leadership.

One of the required elements there is stream team partnership with Game and Fish, so they're actively participating in water quality monitoring and stream management practices for appropriate for their grade level here in our community.

This year we're expanding four campuses into that program, which will inquire require that teachers are trained to work with students in those campuses on those same projects looking at waters around their campuses as well.

Those are Asvell Alps route and FHS.

We're beginning plans with WCRC, the Watershed Conservation Resource Center.

We have an entire grade band of happy hollow students that work there every year to learn about wetlands, wetland protections, and the work that we're doing here in our community and how they can play a part in that, and they do through seed collection and propagating native plants.

We have deepened our learning through this process with the city, and we appreciate that.

And we do value ourselves as a learning institution.

We're meeting September 12th with the University Extension Office with these specific to stormwater issues and education and how we might expand that throughout our curriculum and grade levels.

Myself, Dr.

Williams, our uh landscape coordinator, and then the science director will be there.

The science director offered teacher training at our Flex Day teacher event this year where teachers could choose, they were able to choose and they were loaded onto a bus with Beaver Water District and taken on a tour of those facilities and showing how they might better integrate that into their daily practices and teach kids about where our drinking water from and how we can become good stewards of that.

Science director is working with us to create a K-7 focus on those experiences.

If you look at appendix B, you do see we have all of those partners at our elementaries, a lot of times at parent nights or engaging with stakeholders, but we want to make sure that we're getting that in all of those grade band trips and experiences as well.

I think we have a passion of being good environmental stewards and creating those types of learners here in Fayetteville.

We appreciate the city's efforts.

Without you, I wouldn't have the incredible environmental educators I have that help me every day that expand a lot of these programs, and it's your staff and those collaborations that oftentimes make this feasible for us.

Um, but I do hope that you see that we're deepening that quest and looking for more ways to get our kids hands-on out in the field and solving some of these problems.

Um, one of them we're excited about this year.

We're gonna have um FHS ag programs working to create a rain garden to stop erosion on our administration annex.

We've um given them a budget line for that this year, and so that's just one uh example of this year how we've expanded those projects and putting the kids in charge to make the changes in the community.

Any questions for okay?

Great.

Thank you, Justin.

Does anybody have questions for Mr.

Kurth or Mr.

Keene or Dr.

Williams?

Miss Moore.

Oh, sorry, I didn't catch them.

Sorry, Justin.

So sorry.

Um, I was looking at appendix B, and thank you for covering what you you've done and are currently have in the schools.

There are some let's say recommendations for adding to programming.

Yes.

And so I just didn't know if those were fully confirmed that those were moving forward or if you could help us to kind of understand on those particular things.

And so we have that meeting set for next week, September 12th.

So that one is in process.

We're meeting with that team to see how we can work together to support and what we can learn from them and what services they have to offer us.

Stakeholder engagement, we have a lot of that going on already.

Um if you saw like the family nights, that's we're trying to see gaps where we did not have those available, and we would like to see um some specific, maybe like um if you look at the feeder pattern, I would like to have some specific ways we could engage the public on what they could do at their homes to mitigate these things.

Again, we're viewing ourselves as a learning institution, and we see that that is a part of our part of our um responsibility as well.

Watch week is something we are hoping to put inside of Earth Week this year.

That's with the science curriculum director, Leslie Merritt.

Um, there's twofold there.

We we do want to pilot that program.

We got that from a mountain or um neighboring district that I work with through the Game Efficient Mountain Home.

They have uh kind of Buffalo River Week.

And so I would like to do that.

We have a complex watershed map in Fayetteville, and we would like we're working hard for our kids to know where they are in the watershed, but also to find ways to celebrate that in the curriculum.

I think this year putting it within Earth Day makes it a feasible goal to launch that and to bring awareness around it with that programming.

All schools stream team trained.

I'm not sure will be feasible due to the lack of stream team trainings.

We do have our first training up October 24th.

So that one I will be working with John Burden, the straight the state director, but there are a limited number of those trainings, and that would be the limiting factor is if we can get all 17 campuses there.

Um conservation art projects.

This is one that we have taught.

We do not have this planned yet.

This is something that we used to do in Fayetteville.

You've seen before where we celebrated those and brought them up.

We did build our first um G uh GIS map projects around storm drains last year, and that's an area that we're starting to develop programming in that works well with outdoor ed.

And so Happy Hollow piloted that for us where they learned about their um stormwater and where it goes from their campus.

Thank you.

I think we have a volunteer speaker.

If you ever wanted somebody from staff, Justin to come and talk to the kids about the GIS project.

I am uh a couple of us got very excited when they heard that.

Sure, yeah, that's uh thing game if it's great.

Um council person staffer, do you have questions?

Yeah, I have a few things for Chris or for Mr.

Keene.

I think for the city.

Okay.

Um, and I don't know if this is for Chris or for Jonathan.

What I accidentally said Jonathan earlier, that was my fault.

I meant Chris.

So I think this is you know Chris.

For for our res for our residents, what's the maximum?

Say I put out rain barrels, uh but you know, uh uh swales and everything, and I I keep water on my property, I don't let it off.

Uh reuse it.

How much is my what's my maximum that that I get credited?

Yeah, that's typically maximum is 40 percent.

I'm sorry, 40 percent.

Oh, 40 percent.

Okay, so we we do allow pretty decent reductions if people uh jump through some hoops, yes, rainwater collection and swales and so forth.

Right, yeah, there are the the framework uh is is in there as a as appendix A.

Uh, there are there are several ways um that you can achieve um credits and their percentages for for those various items.

Okay, and you can't get up to 40 percent.

Okay, that that's higher than I thought.

Um, for this, we're gonna give uh 20% off the bat, and then an extra 10% for educational uh programs to teach the rest of us how to keep water from causing a problem.

Yeah, so it's generally it's 20% for their existing programs and then some of the the pro the new programming that uh Justin just mentioned.

So it's 20%.

We're doing it by like per school or whatever.

It's 20% across the board for the school district.

Do they have I mean are we rewarding things they have they done stuff to keep water on the property that were that justifies that reward?

Well yeah, they can they can probably answer that better than I, but okay.

Yeah, I want to know like because if we're gonna give you like an off the bat 20%, what what are we done?

We have um, you know, uh, and there's people that can speak better to this that we have made efforts, and you'll go around um uh let's see, I was at Lewis complex is an area you can see where we put a lot of impoundments in.

We have a new impoundment put on the Leverett campus over the summer, so there's a small pond there that's catching some of that water.

It's not we can't even use it with kids yet, it's that fresh, no fence around it.

So we're working to do that.

Um, all the newer buildings, of course, have underground water storage and um things like that.

Uh your older buildings, some of them have catchment systems, um, and then some of them we couldn't make improvements for sure.

Okay, and then the the ones that go forward to make improvements or new projects, that's where they'll get that final 20 percent um to bring them up to 50 percent, but that'll be based on actual well, the 10 percent will be based on educational programs once they do them, and then the 20 percent will be based on actual improvements.

Additional retrofits, yes, and it's it's left kind of intentionally vague in there so we can we can work with the school district to on what those look like and how um you know what the what the credits look like as we go forward.

Uh just to just to reiterate our our um program, any development that is built today that meets our our storm drainage criteria would not be eligible for credit.

So we're really talking about uh just because you build something and you and you build it to meet our current standards, um, that's not part of the credit programs.

Really going back and looking at properties that were built prior to our current requirements, if you then retrofit those areas.

Uh so we're we're really talking about going above and beyond the requirements that were in place at the time of you know whatever the development occurred.

The letter is an example of that, yeah.

But a hundred twenty-five-year-old building before we're going back in and making an investment property that we already know the pay water.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

And just my biggest concern is I just want to make sure we're not giving away, you know, see, I don't want somebody else to come to me and say, Well, they got this, why not me?

You know, right.

So thank you for answering those questions.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Chris, um, how why the disparity residents only get up to 40% credit, and you're gonna allow the schools to get up to 50%.

And I don't recall that kind of conversation we had when we were trying to build a credit program.

Yeah, I think I think the big thing about um the the school district and other um though types of uh of educational facilities is that educational reach that they have that the typical resident doesn't, so there's a credit um for all of that work that they do, and uh I I do think that's really important having the education just just so um our citizens, our younger citizens as they um go through the educational system, they understand the importance of water quality, and uh so that that's the reason why.

So if there was a private school that came through that was not the favorable public, not a public school, you would apply the same kind of uh conditions, I guess, or or you would allow up to 50 percent potentially.

Yes, but potentially uh there also are some educational um uh line items in the credit framework, so that without doing the MOA, you can still get the educational credit.

Um, so that there are two different ways to get that educational credit.

Um, couple more questions.

How are you going to monitor uh any new retrofits?

Um so I guess you propose 10% for 2026, or are you gonna go through and um itemize those sorts of improvements?

Yeah, I I think the intent with the school district with we would meet with them on a regular basis and and look at their programs that the things that they're doing from uh from a programming and educational standpoint.

Um retrofits uh wouldn't uh we would review those plans.

Um we would be part of that uh construction process to make sure it was installed properly.

Um, and then we would be making decisions collaboratively with the school district as to you know what that credit should be for that particular location.

And then finally, just to kind of reiterate um and make sure I understood that any new project going forward is not eligible for this credit because they will have to adhere to our our new standards.

Uh it if they are only meeting our current standards, no.

If they're going above and beyond um doing doing something that's above and beyond our current requirements, then that could be eligible for a credit.

And what would what would that look like?

Can you give me kind of an idea of what you might be considering?

Yeah, it could be uh you know, a simple uh for instance is there's an existing drainage problem, a lot of water comes down through through a site.

Uh they overdetain that so they they not only detain uh and mitigate the impacts of their uh development, but they also overdetain or reduce the the water coming to them on site.

So uh that's a simple example.

That's a nice incentive.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this agreement?

Okay, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Okay.

Okay, so I'm bringing it back to the council.

Councilperson Burning.

Mayor and make a motion, pass resolution as presented.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to pass the resolution.

Um we please call the roll.

Mr.

Weaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Turn.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Great.

So that passed.

Thank you all for being here to talk about that.

And we're gonna go right into item C eight, a resolution to approve a budget adjustment recognizing funding from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's office and the amount of $350,000 for the fourth judicial district drug task force.

Chief.

Good evening, Mayor Council.

If I could, could I ask a favor?

And my favorite would be could we combine um item C eight and item C9?

It would be a little easier for me to explain both at the same time.

I believe and I believe just to clarify what you're asking, you can certainly present and talk about both, though you do know that we'd have to have two separate votes and motions and yes, ma'am.

Okay, you're just asking to present about both at the same time.

That is fine with me.

Okay, okay.

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you, Council.

So I'm gonna start with the latter.

I'd like to start with C9.

And so as the as uh you've seen in the past, uh, this is a funding uh source that comes forward to council uh every year, each and every year.

We've talked about it in depth, and so it's a resolution to uh approve that annual funding uh for the drug task force from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, and that amount is $56,559, and it's combined with the state drug crime enforcement and prosecution grant, which is an amount of $169,676.

The combined state and federal grant award for that is $226,235 with the local in-kind match of $46,066.

So that gets you to the total of $272,301.

So the uh city of Fayetteville share of that grant is approximately $135,148, with that local match being $27,000,518 and 86 cents.

So as a reminder, uh this council has already approved this in-kind match in the 2025 budget, and so that's with personnel expenses that we make that match.

Uh the fit is the city of Fayetteville has also been the fiduciary of this grant for about 30 years or longer.

Uh and the remaining funds of 109,634 and 14 cents is dispersed to the cities of Springdale, Washington County, and also Elkins.

Um, the City of Fayetteville is the subgrantee of these uh grant funds uh from the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Coordinating Council, and uh as I've mentioned in the past, these grant uh funds can only be utilized for salary and benefits to personnel that are assigned to the fourth judicial district drug task force.

So if approved, these grant funds will help cover uh the DTF personnel expenses through June 30th of 2026, just as a reminder, the fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th, and then also uh this grant would cover about 21 percent of the total DTF budget for the city of Fayetteville.

So I'm gonna go back to item C eight now.

And so if I could uh that uh is the DTF grant, as the the mayor mentioned, uh, that we're considering tonight for $350,000.

There's no matching grant or no matching funds associated with this particular grant from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's office.

Um this is the second year in the row that we've got this grant or received this grant.

Our governor allocated four million dollars last year, and she allocated another four million dollars this year to help reduce the financial burden uh that local agencies uh experience uh from participating in the 19 drug task forces throughout the state of Arkansas.

Uh so this year the uh fourth judicial district drug task force was allocated $350,000 of the $4 million to make up for the 2025-2026 anticipated shortfall for the entire drug task force, and that combines not only Fayetteville and combined uh Springdale and Washington County and Elkins as well, and that combined shortfall is six hundred and twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-five dollars, which is funded uh through our general fund.

Uh our portion is funded through our general fund.

Let me explain what our portion is.

So the city of Fayetteville shortfall of these funds is approximately two hundred and nine thousand and eighty-two dollars.

There's one other grant that I bring before you every year that helps fund the DTF as well, and this is the Heide Gantt grant.

You've heard me talk about HIDA, the acronym high intensity drug trafficking area.

It's a non-matching grant, and for the last several years, it's been $147,000, and that uh goes directly to the city of Fayetteville.

So I want to talk about the uh three grants and what they mean to our budget.

So the the JAG and the state drug crime enforcement and prosecution grant, which is item C9.

Uh I mentioned that that makes up 21% uh of our funding.

Um so the total budget for Fayetteville is $652,239.

Um this grant covers, as I mentioned, $135,148.

The second grant, uh, item C8, uh, this grant is from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinators Office, and it covers about 32% of our total annual budget, uh, which is 209,082.

And the height of grant, which I just mentioned, uh we anticipate getting that one in a few weeks, and it makes up 23% of the annual funding, which is I mentioned was the 147,020.

So our general fund covers uh 24% of our annual DTF budget.

So out of our general fund, you see $160,000 nine.

I'm I'm sorry, $160,000.

So when you combine the total of the three grants, uh they account for $491,250, which is $76% of our annual funding, and then the remaining, as I mentioned, uh remaining 24% is covered through our general fund.

I think there was some questions, uh, Minister Jones about you know historical funding, and so I've got uh a couple of things that I'd like to share, and I hope I'm able to answer your questions uh with the data that I'm gonna provide.

So I'm gonna go all the way back to 2006 and 2007 real quick.

Um so the grant funds covered 39 percent of the DTF budget in 2006 and 2007, and general fund covered 61 percent.

Uh fast forward 10 more years ahead, 2016 and 2017, uh general fund was about uh 50 percent.

I'm sorry, grant funds were about 50 percent, I apologize, and general fund was about 50 percent, so a 50-50 split.

Let's fast forward to 2024, 2025, which was last year, that was the first year that we got the shortfall money.

Uh, we saw that grant funds accounted for 94 percent of the total annual budget for the DTF, and the general fund made up that 6%.

And so, as I mentioned this year, it's 76% and 24% split.

Um, I want to give you the total DTF budget for the last three years just for the city of Fayetteville.

So in 2022 and 2023, the total budget was $509,527, and that was because we had one vacancy for that entire year that we weren't able to fill due to staffing shortages, and then in 2023 and 2024, the total budget for the city of Fayetteville was $688,197.

That's with three officers and one secretary that's assigned to one administrative assistant that's assigned to the task force for the entire year.

And we had more tenured detectives and a more tenured supervisor there, so the personnel expenses were a little bit higher.

We've had some turnover in the uh drug task force, and so this year's budget, our yeah, 20 uh 24, 2025 budget went down to 577,922.

Um these three uh DTF grants are presented uh solely to the city council uh just to accept the award.

So, in other terms, uh the city council, I never come forward to city council and ask to apply for this particular grant.

Uh and the question maybe well, why don't you do that, Chief?

And it's because the mayor approves all applications of grants uh with in-kind budgeted funds, or where there's no matching money associated with that.

So I'm gonna give you a couple examples that you see every year.

You see our JAG grant, you see our certainly our Department of Public Safety Equipment Grant, and then also our selective traffic enforcement program grant as well, and those are ones that we have in-kind matching funds that have already been approved, or there's no match associated with it.

So we don't come forward and ask counsel for the approval to apply.

On the flip side, what you just saw a few months ago was I came forward and asked for your permission to apply for the COPS hiring grant for two more SROs.

That's because it requires matching funds above, I believe $20,000, which is covered uh in the city's uh grant review policy.

I believe that's uh AD 10, if I remember correctly.

So with that uh Minister Jones, I'd be happy to answer any question, other questions you may have.

Okay.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do have a couple other questions.

Um, what I heard you say, and you can correct me was this current grant is specifically a hundred percent just for staffing.

That's correct.

The when I say this particular grant, what I'm referring to is is is specifically for personnel expenses is item C9, which is before you, which is the 226,235 dollars.

Now the shortfall grant, which is item C eight, can be used for all drug task force expenses.

And that includes um personnel equipment training, community outreach.

Um I'm not sure if it could be utilized for community outreach.

I mean, certainly our financial uh analyst uh Willie Newman is here, he could probably be better suited to get down in the weeds and answer exactly what that money could be used for.

Okay, so be happy to call that.

That is one of the questions I have.

Yeah, absolutely.

Willie, would you mind?

Thank you.

I'm Willie Newman.

I'm the sport services manager for the police department.

Um the question was public outreach for this funding.

It's for the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's office grant that they'll be funding the 350,000.

Can it be used for personnel equipment training and community outreach, or is that specific to use questions?

It would not include community outreach.

Okay, it can go for travel and training uh operations and maintenance like uh fuel office supplies, minor equipment, things like that.

Is there any part of the funding for prevention or rehabilitation efforts?

Yeah, no, ma'am.

So uh I mentioned the uh the drug council is the fiduciary um and we're the subgrantee of that, so those funds are dispersed at that level, and so in I believe it was 2024.

I looked into that, and approximately, if I remember correctly, it was uh a little over maybe a little under five million dollars came to Washington and Benton County for treatment and prevention programs, and so roughly about 90 percent of the money allocated in the state of Arkansas goes to pre prevention and treatment, and about 10 percent goes to enforcement, but we don't have the ability at our level uh to disperse those funds for treatment and prevention that's done uh with the uh drug uh drug abuse council.

Okay, uh and then what matrix are you using to measure the effectiveness of your funding?

Is it staffing?

Is it um because I noticed you said you had three full-time staff and one secretary?

Are you just trying to get additional staff for DTF?

No, no additional staff.

I was just trying to fulfill the staff that we had allocated for that, and so we have three detectives assigned to the drug task force, and those three detectives are from Fayetteville, uh, and then we have an administrative assistant as well, and one of those detectives is a supervisor, the sergeant that's over the entire unit, which consists of Springdale, Washington County, and Elkins as well.

And you say you're still not fully staffed?

No, we're fully staffed, yes, ma'am.

Um, and then how does the funding align with your broader community goals as it relates to public health and the drug task force being using these funds?

I specifically am asking about is the funds just for drug task force only.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

So I mean, you know, they're specifically for enforcement of uh violation of drug crimes.

That's what these funds are for, yes, ma'am.

And that and I'm because we keep going back and forth.

Are we talking about C9?

We're not talking about C8, right?

We're talking about both.

Okay.

Yeah, all of these funds are used for drug enforcement.

And then you referred to when you first came up here that the resolution was approved in advance.

Do you know the resolution number where the C9 grant was already approved?

No, ma'am.

I didn't say the resolution was approved in advance.

Let me, I'm sorry, let me clarify.

I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself.

What was approved was the budgeted funds in 2025 for the in-kind match, and so that's part of part of the personnel expenses.

Okay.

I had noted that when you started talking about C9, you specifically said you're presenting it because this resolution has already been approved, and we were just responding to the grant funds coming in.

I was just wondering, so I was going to go back and reference what resolution we approved in the no, that's not what I said.

And let me clarify that.

What I said was that the council doesn't get the ability to approve the application for the grant because of our policy, our city policy.

Okay.

Uh the only thing that I said that we've already have budgeted in there is the in-kind money.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chief, at agenda session, one of the questions I asked was to get um if if I understand the goal of drug task force is to get the big guys, is what I've been told, the big um drug trafficking organizations.

And one of the questions that I had on the disposition of those asset forfeiture cases was to understand what the average amount was and what some of those lower amounts um additionally had been in most recent 12 months of the drug task force activity, and was hoping you might be able to go over that tonight.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

I wanted to answer the budgeted questions first.

So I was informed that you did ask the question about asset forfeitures.

And so I went back and did three years of asset forfeitures.

So in 2023, we had 30 forfeitures that totaled 152,998.

Uh the low was $763, and the high was $22,768 for the average, which would be $6,000.

In 2024, we had 30 seizures again in that same year.

Um 136,399 was the total, $774 was the low, $20,344 was the high, and $4,547 was the average.

So on a move to 2025, once again, the fiscal year runs from July 1st to June 30th.

So this is a full 12 months on all three of these that I'm giving you.

We had 22 forfeitures in 2025 for a total of $63,421.

Uh the low was $861, and the high was $5,762 for an average of $2,883.

Um so I mentioned that I I know that uh you have interest in attending our our monthly drug task force meetings, uh, council member more.

And at our last meeting, I mentioned that the prosecutor always has a threshold that he or she establishes before we make a seizure.

Uh, when I was at the drug task force many, many moons ago, it was a thousand dollars.

Um, I think it got as high as $1,500.

Currently, our prosecutor uh Brandon Carter has put that threshold at $750.

Thank you for those updates and for going back over those years as well.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, you're very welcome.

Additionally, um, I know that we've um talked about with the enforcement action uh the possibility, and I think Mr.

Councilmember Monique Jones uh spoke about um and asked the question about uh preventative or treatment, etc.

Sure.

Um, is there any tracking mechanism today that's happening within the drug task force about um any possible um pathways that are happening for folks for either recovery journeys or um alternative like treatment?

Yeah, you know, like like you and I have discussed in the past is you know, our lane is pretty much the uh you know the enforcement lane, and so that's where our responsibility lies is to enforce the the laws of the state of Arkansas, and then as far as the you know what happens as far as the adjudication goes of the individual that's arrested is left up to the prosecutor, and so as we mentioned and talked about in the past, that would be a mechanism that I feel that they would track as far as treatment and prevention as far as drug court, as far as mental health court, veterans court, um, you know, whatever restorative uh measures that they're utilizing, but but to answer your question in short, no, it's not something that the Fayetteville Police Department tracks.

Thank you.

And I have one other question, and I'll release the floor.

Um we recognize that 60% of our um Fayetteville households are renters, um, and I you know know with enforcement actions that happen from drug task force in the city of Fayetteville, um, that oftentimes these are rental situations with um households that contain multiple um individuals that are not necessarily the target of direct task force operations.

Um, do we track a two-part question?

Do we track um the amount of direct task force interaction with households that have uh roommate situations where we're going after one target and maybe there's two or three roommates or another roommate?

And then secondarily, especially in these multifamily developments, um uh apartment complexes that have children and other people present who potentially have serious mental illness and other traumas they've undergone.

Um, I would like to understand how we're addressing the aftercare and how um we're following up with those parties, especially in those roommate situations that were not a part of that.

You know, when we bust in a door and it no longer shuts and locks, and there's another female that lives there.

Um, how do we follow up to create care and safety and well being for uh all of our community members?

Yeah, yeah, we we certainly uh try to do the very best job that we can, as you can imagine.

It's a very difficult job, you know, in what we do.

Sometimes it can be very ugly what we what we do, and when I say that, it's just what we what we deal with.

So it's it's hard to provide you know a great uh customer satisfaction when when you're arresting individuals, but we want to do the best job that we can uh to um enforce the law, you know, equitably, and then we also try to do the best job that we can to establish uh the most evidence that we can against individuals that we arrest.

So if we go into a household where there's multiple folks there, um, you know, what kind of intel do we have?

Do we have any type of controlled buys off the individuals that are in there?

Is this something that's constructive possession or is it something that's isolated to one room in a residence?

So and so that's what we try to do.

I should I would say that the only mechanism that we have to deal with those that may have been traumatized by people that are dealing drugs or using drugs would be our crisis intervention response team and certainly calling our social workers to try to assist in that nature, and then beyond that, uh certainly offering wraparound services that they're connected with as well.

I just have a clarifying question to that.

And so did I hear then we don't track then when there's multiple roommate situations with an interaction in a Fayetteville household.

Yeah, I I don't have any numbers that track that specific issue.

And then do we have tracking for how much follow-up care?

I understand you said we have CIT and we have social workers.

Are we tracking what that interaction is for that trauma care afterwards?

Our crisis intervention response team obviously tracks a lot of data, specifically the data that you're asking for.

Um I wouldn't know that off the top of my head.

I could look and see what data they have to share with you, um, but they track a lot of data, obviously.

Um, you know, we've talked in the past, uh, they've been published in numerous times through the University of Arkansas School of Social Work on the amount of data that they they do track and they do possess.

So I'll look into that for you.

You're very welcome.

Dr.

Jones.

Chief Reynolds, thank you for your transparency and giving us all of this information tonight.

I'm I'm glad that you were prepared to as always to do it.

I make a resolution that we uh uh I make a motion rather that we pass the resolution.

And I appreciate it.

I'll call on you very shortly, but we should do public comment.

We should do public comment because okay, all right, but go back to that.

Um thank you.

Um at this time I'll take public comment if there's any in the room.

Or any um any on Zoom.

There is not, Mayor.

Okay, then I will bring it back to Dr.

Jones.

Now I'm going to make a motion to pass the resolution to approve a budget adjustment recognizing funding from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's office.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the role?

And this is just for clarity, this is for C eight.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turge?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore.

No.

Okay.

So that passes, and we will move on to C9.

We have had a presentation and questions, but I'm going to open it up for public comment on C9 specifically.

If we have members of the public that would like to comment on item C9.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the council, and you all have your lights on for comments.

And so I'm going to start down here with Council Person Bunch.

I was going to make a motion that we pass the resolution.

Second.

We have a motion and a second, but go ahead with your comment, then we'll do the roll call.

Thank you.

You know, I appreciate and understand that there's probably a majority of it to move this forward, but I'm going to say this until I'm blewing the face.

So we're on drugs as a failed policy.

We are progressive in this in the city of Fayetteville and usually are leading on things.

But to me, it's disappointing because there is no there's no evidence to really say that ultimately drug task is making drug task forces are making us safer in our communities.

There's a lot of compelling evidence that the more aggressive interactions and law enforcement interactions cause additional violence, that individuals too that face arrests that are users, which is oftentimes who are interacting with locally.

And I know this from speaking specifically to individuals, that they have a higher propensity for overdose after being jailed in our local agile systems.

Also where we put them in our overcrowded facility where people unfortunately lose their lives in Washington County detention center.

And so my concern is to have more robust and meaningful conversations about harm reduction and our investments that are around doing the things like making sure that there's educational opportunities for end users, creating safe uh situations for uh needle disposal and giving folks um access to recovery services in the way that they need them met.

Um when you talk to individuals who have been detained in Washington County, they report a high amount of not being able to get access to recovery beds, um, not having those available, not being able to afford them.

And so I appreciate you hearing my comments tonight.

Um, and I will continue every time this comes up.

Um I don't see any compelling evidence, and and I'm open to hearing and seeing anything at any time, but especially when you look at this from a public health perspective, uh, there's actually more convincing evidence that this is incredibly harmful to our public health.

So I will be a no tonight.

Thank you.

So now we have a motion, a second on the I just want to say this.

Uh being on the Fayetteville Board of Health, I'm and as a council member, I'm going to challenge all of us to work in conjunction in collaboration with helping find resources and finding these opportunities.

Our police department is doing a great job.

They're leading in so many areas.

And so uh working together collectively as you described tonight, it's a really big problem, and it's going to require a lot of uh different solutions.

And so I appreciate what they are doing with uh social services, but uh there are a lot of other things that we as a council can look at at supporting.

So thank you, Dr.

Jones.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Verna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

No.

Okay.

Do you we have many interpretations?