All right.

This, as you all know, is a is the agenda session.

So it is not a business meeting.

We will not be voting.

We will be finalizing our agendas and having some presentations.

So the first up next week we'll have a nominating committee report, which I believe Stafford, you chair that committee, so you'll be delivering that report next week.

I hope so.

Okay.

Um and then we move into consent.

Um we have several um staff members here that are, you know, you've received information about all of these items that were placing on consent in your packet.

We also may give you the opportunity to talk about them more.

So if you want to go into more detail about any of them, we have people here who are ready to present.

So just say the word and don't be shy.

Um after we approve the meeting minutes, the next item will be a resolution to award an RIP to approve a contract with partwise.

It's in the amount of $125,000 to commission artist David Eaton to create the sculpture in Brock Depth for the upper ramble and to approve the related budget adjustment.

And Joanna, because we've already gotten some questions from council members.

Can you give us a refresher in this funding and how it came about?

Or this plan and this piece.

So this piece um tent was to be an interactive um playable art structure in the upper ramble, uh, in the sort of art garden area of the upper ramble.

Um and the idea is that we sought a national sort of we we went on a national search for an artist who would be capable of making a piece that was both durable to be interactive in our space in one of the most sort of public facing areas of our city.

Um so this is generally associated with the upper ramble project.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

Yes, I my question is this is this something that was on the budget.

Uh yes, this um is coming.

Um, the budget adjustment is because the project funds weren't quite sufficient enough to cover in it in the sculpture in its entirety.

So we are bringing funds from uh HMR reserves to cover the rest of the cost required.

What was the total cost?

Is the total cost 125?

Okay.

What was budgeted and what are you bringing in?

I guess.

Um, it was entirely budgeted as part of the upper ramble project, though some of those there were cost overruns elsewhere in the project by the time we got to the art commission.

And I think I think her question is something we can try to find out.

Um is the the additional amount, the overage amount.

Yeah, so the this piece was always envisioned to be 125,000.

However, the project ran out of funds before the art was able to be purchased.

There wasn't an overage in the art project.

There was an overage in the project as a whole, not leaving enough for the budgeted art.

Correct.

And I just want to double check the uh RFP one out and local artists had as much opportunity to uh apply or correct.

Despite as non-local.

So the project went through the RFP process, so it was publicized on all of the regular city channels, but then we specifically publicized it in additional places, including Americans for the arts, uh, Coda Works, which is a public art commissioning website, uh, and uh Creative West, which is another public art commissioning website.

So it was in all of the places where a firm uh capable of doing this scope of work would be able to see it.

And we did have uh applications from local firms as well as national firms.

And I'll just say that was on the selection committee, and um I believe this was a unanimous uh decision.

We were very excited about this particular piece.

Thanks, Joanne.

Great.

Um item A three is a resolution to authorize the termination of an agreement with prime sanitation for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville.

Anyone have questions for Peter about that?

Okay, and then um the next one, A4 is a resolution to award a bid and authorize a contract with Kinko contract uh constructors in the amount of 4,697,184, 184.26 cents for Walker Park Improvements Phase One to recognize Southeast Quadrant Park Land Dedication funds and the amount of $613,685 to approve a project contingency and the amount of $255,000 and to approve a budget.

Okay.

So that one.

Moving on to A5, a resolution to approve a three-year lease agreement with elite aircraft services, LLC.

They're doing this as EAS flight training.

It's uh for approximately 1,128 square feet of office space in the airport terminal building at Drake Field for approximately 1200 a month for the first year.

There it is here if we have questions about that lease.

Um the next two items are also other airport leases.

Um a six is a resolution to approve a three-year lease agreement with SkyDive Fayetteville for approximately 833 square feet of office space in the terminal building for 1,041.25 cents per month for the first year.

And then the third lease we'll be voting on is a three-year lease agreement with Scout Time Aviation LLC for approximately 297 square feet of office space in the terminal building for 437 per month for the first year.

Item A8 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the cost share agreement with greater productions in the amount of 160,729 for the installation of sanitary sewer and storm drainage upgrades to serve the park hotel and other downtown developments and to approve a budget adjustment.

I do have a question on that one.

What was the what was the original amount?

What's the adjustment on that?

We're making I'm just yeah, no, that's it.

Chris, can you speak to Chris or Wade or I'm not sure who's on that?

Um perfect.

Was the question the original?

What was the adjustment that was made to meet this $167,000, $60,000 agreement?

Well, the original agreement was um about a million dollars.

Um this went up to using round numbers, about $1.2 million.

Um, but the the cost that the original agreement was for sewer only.

Uh we actually reduced the cost of the sewer installation uh once we got into it, made some design changes.

But while we're installing the sewer, we identified some storm drain improvements that were needed.

And so that's the reason for the increase uh those storm drainage improvements that will be uh really under the the parking lot, the drive area near the hotel.

So we wanted to get those done um while the all the work was going on.

I guess my when you say that Mason uh had a conversation just with a citizen today once again about how things were prioritized with storm drainage improvements.

Is this one of the projects or is this a one-off that we're doing that's not part of your storm drain?

Yeah, this this is this is not really part of the the storm drain um uh the the prioritization process.

Yeah, this is this is really more of a cost-sharing project again.

While the work is going on, it was the time to get it done.

It would have been much more expensive to make this improvement later when all of the paving and everything is done.

Are they actually have the contractor being the contractor and we're just reimbursing them our that's correct?

We're right, we're not a party to the contract with the contractor.

This is just with the developer.

I didn't get that.

Could you try again?

One more time.

Okay, item A9 is a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $190,000 to move funds to the sales tax inventory items account within the water and sewer fund.

Either Stephen, you can probably speak to this if people have questions, right?

If Tim's not here, I don't know.

Am I overlooking Tim for CD?

Oh, there you were hiding from me.

Okay.

Does anybody have questions for Tim about this?

I guess Tim, if you could explain the adjustment on this one.

Certainly, it was projected that we didn't have enough funds remaining to pay what we think are going to be the sales tax for remaining purchases through the year.

So we needed to pull some money out of our capital projects, 190,000 for our projected coverage until the end of the year.

And I asked, and only because Steven is here.

So this is your anticipated going over from now through December 31st.

And you don't anticipate moving it again any time.

No, just this should be just this one time.

Okay.

Thank you.

And item A10 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the contract with Gaul's LLC for the purchase of uniforms, equipment, and quartermaster services.

Um Deputy Chief Scott, could you go ahead and explain a little bit about what this one is?

That would be great.

Thank you.

So we have what we call a quartermaster system, which is a carryover from the military, was an officer who's in charge of buying and giving out equipment essentially.

And that is how we distribute for the most part our uniforms and our equipment.

And what we do is each officer is allotted a certain amount of money each year to spend on this quartermaster system.

Our quartermaster system is through Gaul's Inc.

out of they're located out of Springdale.

And they they supply us with some of them, some of our equipment is very specific to they're the only supplier in the state.

So that is where we get our equipment from.

So we've done this since 2008.

In 2018, we had a contract.

We started a con we had a renewed contract with them.

And in 2022, there was a 5% increase inflationary increase, and they adjusted the price list.

So we came before the council with that amendment.

And then in 2023, we renewed the contract, and it was a one-year contract with four one year extensions.

There was a 28% inflationary increase with that contract.

And here we are two years into that contract.

And a similar situation, there's a 9% inflationary increase in their products from their suppliers.

And they are obviously passing that on to the consumers.

So they provided us with a new price list, and that is what this amendment is about.

Even what the 9% looks like for us.

So it's roughly $7,400, $7,500.

We budgeted 82,556 dollars.

So at the beginning of the year, we obviously for the budget, we we forecast what that's going to cost.

So our clothing allowance for the officers that utilize it or that are assigned a clothing allowance.

I'm sorry, the quartermaster.

We have a quartermaster system and a clothing allowance.

If you will, a quartermaster's uniformed officers, clothing allowance would be like your detectives that we're playing closing.

So we budgeted $82,556 at the beginning of the year.

We feel like we can make it through the rest of this year on that.

So any adjustments may come in the 2026 budget to you signed a four-year contract in 2023, which would have taken us to 2027.

So we really should see another adjustment to 27.

I hope so.

I it just depends on and when you go through their their list of their vendors, they they provide some supporting documentation anywhere from 2% for fuel costs to uh vendors to tariffs.

There, there's a host of reasons behind the increase to go from gall suppliers to them.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thanks.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um moving on, we do not have any old business this time.

I think it's the first time in a long time we did not have that.

I know.

Um shouldn't have said it now.

Now we go for the rest of the year.

So goodbye.

Um new business, item C1 is an ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the city of Bayetteville, Arkansas for the year 2026, fixing the rate thereof at 2.3 mils for general fund operations, four point four mils for the fireman's pension and relief fund, 0.4 mils for the policeman's pension and relief fund, 2.5 mils for Bayetteville Public Library, and 1.2 mils for the Fayetteville Public Library expansion, and certifying the same to the county clerk of Washington County.

And Stephen, I'd love for you to.

I know this is one that's routine to some people that have been on the council because it's done every year, but for those of us for whom this is the new thing, if you could kind of explain why we do this.

Yeah, no problem, Mayor.

Um, so each year the city has to approve an ordinance or new the levy of advilorum taxes on real and personal property within the city.

We bring this item forward to council every year right around this time, as we're required to provide an approved village levy to Washington County for inclusion and their consolidated levy ordinance.

So that has to be that has to go forward through their process in October.

The millage will be recommended this year is the same as last year.

That's the 6.8 mills that the mayor just read off.

Um and aside from one year, which was 2023, when we were required to roll back um the millage due to a countywide reassessment.

Aside from that year, this is the same village levy that we have been operating with since 2016.

Um according on a side note, um, according to the county assessor, our next county wide reappraisals in 2027.

So a millage rate rollback calculation would not be performed again until 2028.

Um and that's uh some information that I think uh Russell Hill talked about when he was here and he gave that presentation.

Um that was at the July 29th agenda session.

If you'll any of you missed that, you might want to go back and watch that one.

That was a good presentation.

Um, but that's uh in a nutshell what we've got here.

We're just uh approving the same millages we've had last year and 15 of the last 16 years.

Okay, thanks, David.

Um the next items are related, so if you could change it, because you we'll probably have questions about those too.

Um the first C2, and they'll be voted on separately, but we're gonna talk about them together tonight.

Item C2 is the resolution to establish a franchise fee special revenue fund.

Item C three is the resolution to approve the adjustment of um allocating up to 70,000 from that franchise fee fund contingent upon the Salvation Army successful award of the ESG grant.

Um may think, well, we just voted on this last week, and you kind of did because of their deadline.

We needed to vote to show our intent that we were moving forward with this, so they had that documented.

These two things, um, and I'm sorry it requires so many votes.

That's just the process.

This um I previewed it last week at council.

This sets up the franchise fee fund from which the money is gonna come from, and then votes to move it over.

Stephen, do you want to add to anything I may have missed on that?

Uh sure I can uh kind of add a little bit to that.

So uh with this item we're recommending the council adopt a resolution to establish that franchise fee special revenue fund at the July 15th council meeting.

You all adopted that resolution of intent to provide um to appropriate up to 450,000 for initiatives to address homelessness.

And 200,000 of that funding uh was allocated to the Fayetteville Housing Authority.

The city has the authority by law to make payments to the FHA from the general fund.

So we went ahead and did that.

We paid that from the general fund.

However, in consultation with our city attorney's office, we don't necessarily have the authority by law to make payments um to other outside agencies with funds that are commingled with tax revenues.

Does that sound uh did I hit that correctly?

Kit.

Yeah, I recommend it we do a franchise fee because the constitutional amendment that allows uh illegal exaction requires misuse of tax dollars.

And there are Supreme Court decisions that have said franchise fees are not tax dollars.

They're fees we charge for people using our right-of-way and they're treated differently, and therefore it protects us from the illegal exaction claim.

So uh therefore we need to establish this franchise fee fund um and make payments to these other agencies out of that fund.

An important point to note here.

Um, I think I pointed this out when we discussed it last time.

These franchise fee funds are not a new source of revenue.

Uh currently we receive around six 7.6 million in franchise fees annually.

Uh, we receipt those franchise fees into the general fund for usual general governmental expenses.

And so the plan here is to to basically fund the remainder of these housing initiative projects and then immediately have the rest of that funding go back to the general fund, just like it always has been before.

And I have a question that that may benefit other mission asking this as well.

Um, assuming that C2 and C3 pass next week, and you all vote to establish the franchise fee fund and you vote on the budget adjustment allocating that.

We do not then have to come back again.

It so we're doing this contingent upon their successful receipt of the grant.

But this is the once they do, they can simply we're clear to pay them.

We don't have to come back and vote again on the item.

Is that correct?

So, you know, we're doing the budget adjustment, we're setting up the fund.

We're good to go.

So franchise could be electric utilities, gas utilities, cable, telephones, um, could be trash haulers that use our streets.

Are those the entities that are paying franchise fees?

Yes, uh, primarily uh utility companies that use our right away, but but you're right, we've got the franchise haulers as well.

Makes sense.

Thank you.

I was gonna say uh as these two items are resolutions.

Um, if there's not objection, could we move these to consent?

Yeah, um often saying suggestion.

Okay, that's fine if the if the city park is able to do that.

Can you okay?

Um you said there was four and thousand in the franchise fee fund, and that was the right thing for homeless, but you came back and said that there is uh 7.6 million in fees.

Is that City and Joe general funds right now?

So the 450,000 for what you all provided that resolution of intent to assist homelessness.

So nothing was done at that time with that money.

So that's the total amount that we're looking for here.

Then you subtract the 200,000 from that, which is what we gave to FHA, leaving uh up to 250,000 left.

So nothing is currently in that franchise fee fund.

This would be a new fund we're setting up.

The 7.6 million is what we our annual receipts in franchise fees that routinely goes into the general fund to pay all of our general operating expenses of the city.

But after this passes next week, the 250 will go in there.

Yeah, after this passes, we'd put enough in there to fund these other two items if they assuming they pass.

Yeah, and then the rest of it would go back into the uh general fund just like it always has been.

Thank you.

We needed a separate fund like that because home angel, as we've been doing for many, many decades, the franchise fees with sales taxes, and they all have the protection of the sales tax.

And so we had to establish a separate fund, and we couldn't put any money in there until you all had approved that.

And so I because there is a um balance of 250,000 after we that goes back into general.

So what we'll have to do is bring another resolution whenever we get ready to pay another.

Uh is that right, mayor.

You have a if you have if there the committee has another recommendation around homelessness and housing, then we would have to come back again and move that back from general over to move it from general.

Once it hits general, it's uh untouchable.

But you if you intercept it before it goes to general by putting it in the franchise fee fund, then that's the money that is better protected if for house.

Okay, so the whole 450 can stay in there.

So there is no no 450.

Um 450.

Yeah, the the two the 200 went to FHA and that was paid out of the general fund because we're legally allowed to do that.

But that brought us down to 250.

That brought us down to 250.

So basically what's going to happen is we're gonna reseed in 250,000 of franchise fees when we receive those check or wire payments, and we're gonna deposit that directly to this new franchise fee fund.

So we're not gonna hit the general fund at all.

Okay, thank you.

And just uh a side note to that, it it's likely to be a couple of months until we have that built up enough to pay these items out, if assuming you pass them.

Um that's something that we all talked about before due to the timing of our franchise fee receipts.

Thank you.

Um the next item is also related to this, and it's our resolution authorizing us to sign a contract with SCR and West Arkansas.

Many people are more familiar with ZERV being known as a new beginner.

That's not doing business as for homelessness assistance services for a five-year period.

The amount of 150,000, um, but that also isn't an additional project contingency of 15,000.

So, really all in that is 165,000 if they were to use that contingency.

And it is for part of the memo for them to expand for those of you that are familiar with new beginnings, they have um tiny home pallet shelters, and this allows them to add five more so that they can have five more individuals that are housed full-time on that campus.

Um, and it includes the in engineering, grading, foundation, electrical, fencing, landscaping, all that associated with the expansion to add the five to two.

And the reason it says five-year period is because they're gonna have to maintain those in good shape for at least five years.

They expect that will last longer, but that we wanted to put at least that as a minimum on there so that we know someone moving into that home that has stable housing burden.

This this is just a little confusing to me because the city is funding something that's gonna be a permanent home for someone else, but it's not gonna be city property, it's still gonna be smooth.

It's property.

Yes, it's it is a non-profit.

It is uh it is public housing, we believe enough, so it should pass constitutional muster, but it is not uh public housing that we would own, but they it's for the public, and so we think that that is probably good enough.

Yeah, yeah.

I would be receptive to consider the fact that when uh new guinea scene was about two years ago.

That was more unfortunate.

We had this why didn't you build additional units on your side?

Yeah, so with that in mind, I would I would think we'll move this to consent.

You guys are I'm done with that, and then uh another uh question or point.

I believe new beginnings is uh not four minute housing but transitional house.

It really is forgive me, and I should have not used, I understand how they that is its own thing, and I shouldn't have I misspoke, so that's on me.

So thank you for calling that out, Bob.

I was meaning not a it's shelter that is not a is not a TS, and that was the transitional housing would have been a better way to say it, yes.

Forgive me.

And this is coming from general funding as well.

This would be from that new franchise fee fund.

So it's coming out before 15.

Okay.

Um and we're good with this on consent.

Yeah, that was item C5 is an ordinance to approve a vacation for property located at 322 South Walker Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.03 acres of general utility easements.

Jonathan is here to speak to the next Jonathan.

I know we're gonna have questions about at least some of them, and I think we have the next eight.

Is that right?

Seven.

So if you would like to just come join us at the table, that makes it much easier.

So um that was a pretty straightforward.

The next one, C6 is the ordinance to amend the Hulk village PCG.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's C5.

Did you know?

Yes, yeah, we could go back to it for sure.

Um the C5.

If you have questions about C5, Jonathan.

Well, I can run through just a general description of it.

This is uh just southeast of City Hall here.

Uh it's one lot north of Huntsville Road between Walker and Barton.

Uh it's about a two-third of an acre property, of which almost a fifth of it is encumbered by some sort of easement.

And the applicant would like to develop the property with an accessory dwelling unit, and as a part of it, they want to vacate about 1300 square feet of utility easement.

Uh, they've gotten all of their approvals from the franchise utilities, and we're recommending a favor of it.

Thank you.

Um C6 is an ordinance to amend the whole village PCD or plan zoning district in water four to adopt a new site plan to modify the acreage for neighborhood zones A and B and change the lot width minimum in neighborhood zone B.

Jonathan, since we don't often get amendments to PCDs, could you speak to the Slimpus?

Certainly, I'm happy to.

Uh, this is a PCD in Northwest Fayetteville.

It's between, or it's just north, excuse me, northwest of or northeast of Riple and Mount Comfort.

Uh, it's due east of Holt Middle School, hence the name Holt Village, uh, in close proximity.

The property is still undeveloped despite a PCD being approved by council in February of this year.

Uh, as they've gone through their development plans, they've identified uh two primary places where the PCD is uh PCD requirements that they propose propose are conflicting with what they want to do.

Uh the first relates to planning area one, uh, which this PCD is broken into two parts.

Planning area one is intended to be all single family, and that's part of that they had a mix of uh lots oriented towards streets and lots oriented towards green spaces.

Uh, and in some of those instances, they'd like to have conventional lots where the houses are oriented towards streets and not green spaces.

Um, so as a part of that, they're adjusting the size of that planning area to shrink it somewhat.

Um, the second change or second prominent change is to the second planning area of it, uh, and that's to reduce the lot widths from what they proposed as 24 feet in width to 22 feet in width.

Uh it's my understanding as part of their uh developing their project identified a townhome size that they'd like to propose on slightly narrower lots that would otherwise conflict with ordinance.

Um, other than that, as we were preparing for agenda session, uh, was looking at this with uh planning staff, and we did find some inconsistencies with the acreages on here.

Uh so if you do notice that that's something we're working with the applicant, so it may be that we uh come forward with revised legal descriptions to the council meeting next week to make sure that those are aligning uh correctly.

Uh right now it looks like they've increased the area they need for stormwater detention, but they forgot to actually assign that some zoning designation as a part of these moving parts.

Thank you.

Is um we're back in ward one, and it's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025 31 for approximately 9.9 acres located at 3900 Westmore Trail.

Um zoning it from NC, neighborhood conservation to CS community services.

Anyone has any questions about that one for Jonathan?

Great question.

It's it's addressed off of Dinsmore, uh, but it may be more prominently seen by you all off of RuPaul.

Uh it's about halfway between Owl Creek to the north and JLC, uh, John L.

Colbert to the south on the east side of Ruble.

Um, but in case you have concern.

Yes, yeah, ward one kind of comes up uh on the up in that west side of town.

I forget where ward four starts over there, but it is pretty close.

And in case you all have any notification concerns, despite it being uh addressed off Densmore, we did require them to post signs on Ruby Bull, understanding that that is very much where most people would interact with the property.

Thank you.

So this is just north of uh John L.

Colvert.

Correct.

Monique, I also thought that was four when I saw it.

I asked the clock that was a tie cap for it was not.

I forget that you know everything came out correct.

Yes, uh staff is recommending favorite and the planning commission forwarded it unanimously, also recommending approval.

Item C eight is an ordinance to approve a residential land zoning district or PCD um for approximately 49.2 acres located on North Raven Lane, and this one is in Warfall.

So there's some parts from ward two that we'd be having to donate to Ward.

That one's that one's a yes, staff recommended in favor of that as well.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it unanimously.

Uh it may be worth just a brief uh brief discussion of that mayor, if I if you can indulge me.

This request uh came through in tandem with a request to also modify our master street plan to remove a public street from our master street plan that uh would travel through this property from Crystal Springs subdivision to the south and then hook eastward towards Dean Solomon and create a public street um that that connects those subdivisions because there's not a lot of connectivity in that part of the city.

Uh staff did not recommend in favor that master street plan and uh the planning commission denied it as well uh ultimately.

So that's why what you're seeing here includes a condition of approval that they maintain at least one public street as a part of this project so the public can move through the subdivision and back through Undrowood Park towards Dean Solomon in the future.

Any um public comment on this one?

Yes, uh we did.

Uh there was a mix of concerns about uh traffic, which we've heard quite a bit in this area because of the exact that that that connectivity concern I was describing.

Uh, there's also some concern expressed by I think it was from residents of Crystal Springs phase four to the south that they didn't want to lose that that green space to the north of them.

Government, is there an address so I can see where this is or across the street?

Oh no, unfortunately, I think uh if you look up Raven Lane, uh if you go to the northernmost end of that, that will put you at the southernmost part of the property.

Um if you go to Raven Lane.

Uh above Feather Rock and uh below Salem.

Okay.

It's it's south of Claver Creek.

Oh, south of Primark Creek.

Yes, it's okay.

It's uh southwest of the Underwood Park uh property.

Okay, and it's gonna have uh park access trail.

Uh that's a good question.

I I'd have to double check.

I know they wanted to have as many interactions with the park as possible, but I don't know if that's confirmed with the PZD.

I can look into that though.

What was the inputs for on this one?

This one, I believe it was mixed because of the size of the property.

It was between two and six for the overall property.

When you get towards the northern reaches of the property, it's far away from anything water sewer, uh, like you would get with many properties of this size.

But as you move south towards Crystal Springs subdivision, that's where there's water connections, sewer connections and street connections that are laid out in anticipation of development northward.

Developer would have to uh improve the infrastructure anyway, right?

Even words six correct to tie into it, yes.

When we determine if there becomes shared costs in that, especially when that big gap in that infill score to be six, how do we as a city determine when do we start doing cost share?

That's a good question.

Uh you've probably heard me opine on it a few times with rezoning because it's a very difficult point to do it because the project has some details, but not all the details at that point.

A cost share would typically come forward during the development review process.

So they would go through zoning entitlement and then submit the project.

At that point, staff would evaluate any public infrastructure needs or requirements.

If any of those exceeded a the proportional impact of that project on the city, uh they have the ability to approach the city and propose cost shares for streets or water sewer, and those ultimately come to city council since uh you all are responsible for our treasury.

Thank you.

Um that brings us to C9, which is an order that's to annex property described in annexation petition 25-1, submitted by R N E L L D for property located on West Lyarley Lane, adjacent to Ward 4, um, containing approximately 19.92 acres.

Why don't you go ahead and give us a little bit of this one is uh equally challenging to describe where it is.

It's also northwest Fayville, it's about halfway between RuPaul to the east and Mont for the west.

Uh if you were to go uh go towards the Humont Village subdivision and follow Human around till it's an east-west street that turns into Lyarley, and as right before Lyry goes back northward, deeper into the county to the south of that, there's a gap between the uh Larry Lane subdivision and the Magnolia Park subdivision.

And it's a 20-acre rectangular piece of property uh that's being proposed to be annexed with this.

So if you look at the aerial, uh you'll see that our development codes have anticipated development here.

There are water, sewer, and street stub outs to this property.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the uh annexation, and the planning commission uh forwarded it as well by unanimous vote.

And again, if I may take the liberty, that is the next next item is exactly associated with this.

Um more often than not when the city council sees annexation requests, they come in tan them with a rezoning request because when properties are annexed in the Fayetteville, they get a default zoning of a default agricultural zoning designation, which there's not much vested interest for most properties owners to be in the city if they can't develop it.

So the next item, C10 on the agenda, is a request to rezone the property from RA, which it would be assigned if annexed, to NC, neighborhood conservation.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of that one as well.

Uh the planning commission was split on that.

Uh, there were some concerns uh that that was too much density, uh, since there are some lower density zoning designations to the east, west, and south.

Um, but ultimately the the majority of the commission supported the uh neighborhood conservation zoning designation, and so it came to you with that recommendation.

Annexation, do you do the infill score at that time?

Uh we do.

I mean, especially with this one, it was associated because the rezoning was associated with it, it's in there.

Uh, for this, because it's in that northwest quadrant of the city, getting away from some services, the infill score varies from about two to four on that property.

Jonathan, um the last couple of these have been on the the west side.

Um I know we're talking past about how we're hitting some uh roadblocks up there infrastructure-wise.

Is this is this area?

Um, do we have the the infrastructure capacity to handle this?

That's a good question.

I mean, you'll you'll see noted in the staff report that there is a wet weather capacity concern downstream from this project.

I think it's it's several thousand feet downstream.

If I'm not mistaken, it's associated with the Cliver Creek lift station.

If you sit on water and sewer, you know you've you've probably heard uh um some instances of where there have been wet weather overflow issues, which is when we get big rainstorms and the pipe uh water lines fill up.

Um that poses less of a concern for staff when we get scales of project like this, where they could potentially have a uh a more realistic role in upgrading the size of those facilities as opposed to getting smaller projects that can't contribute much and may aggravate the capacity issue without being large enough to contribute to making those capacity upgrades.

Okay.

Thank you.

But I can speak more to that as well on Tuesday.

It sounds like that may be helpful.

And then the last item, so that's C9 and DC 10.

And I'm assuming if well, I mean, this goes with I think without saying if C9 were to fail or be table, we would automatically, if it were to be tabled, we would automatically table 10.

We can't move forward in voting with C10 until nothing.

We can't reason as a thing that we have.

So C11 is our island rezoning out of the evening, and it's um 0.4 acres, 0.40 acres located at 3070 west Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4, rezoning from RSF 4, four units per acre to NSG neighborhood services general.

And Jonathan, would you want to?

This one's a little bit more straightforward, but would you like to um actually no, it's not, I'm sorry.

So would you like to go ahead and stinks?

Forget what I said.

I I'm happy to, thank you, Mayor.

This is a appeal of a planning commission denial.

Uh we were staying in Northwest Fail for this one.

It is a the northwest corner of Mount Comfort and Gooseberry.

Uh it's about a 0.40 acre piece of property uh developed with a single family home.

Uh as Mary noted, the request was to rezone it to neighborhood services general as a part of that, which is one of our mid-tier mixed use zoning districts that allows single to three and four family dwellings and also uh medium to small scale uh non-residential uses.

Uh the planning commission, when they heard it, they ultimately recommended denial by vote of three to six.

So it's with you all on an appeal.

Uh, if you have been able to consider your email over the last week, you probably saw some correspondence from the neighborhood.

Uh, they have been uh conferring with the developer who has indicated that they plan on bringing an amended request to you all when this is heard on Tuesday.

Until that happens, I can't guarantee that they will do it.

Uh, but my understanding now is that they would like to amend their requests from NSG Neighborhood Services General to RSF 18 residential single family 18 units per acre, which is a purely single family zoning district uh by right.

And so they were they would take away their right to do commercial.

That's correct.

And by right, it most of our single family districts do have a conditional use option for small scale uh non-residential activities, commercial activities.

And then is uh staff recommending approval the appeal uh with that mind or we did recommend in favor of neighborhood services general.

We feel that the scale of the services would be beneficial to an area that is largely in any uh neighborhood has a different perspective of that, as you'll likely hear.

Um I think we we have just discussed the developer, the potential for RSF-18.

So I think we'll be better prepared to discuss if we have any concerns with that on Tuesday.

Okay.

Thank you all.

And if we don't have any proposed additions to our agenda, we have some presentations, and we'll start first.

Um good afternoon, Peter Neargarden, environmental director with um City of Fayeville.

Um, with this month's energy report, uh, I'm gonna take the opportunity to update you on the SWEPCO rate case.

Um I talked to you, Lisa briefly about uh progress on our climate action plan and then um update you on our 2024 greenhouse gas inventory.

Um so starting with the SWEPCO rate case, council um hopefully recalls back in uh May.

You all approved a resolution um uh supporting uh the city to intervene in the uh proposed uh SWEPCO rate case that they proposed back in March.

Um intervening in the rate case simply means that we have the ability to file official public testimony uh to the Arkansas Public Service Commission.

Um that rate case that SWEPCO filed back in um March uh was for a 27.3% rate increase to residential rates.

Um the impact of that rate increase on the average residential customer um is approximately $30.46 cents per month on their electric bill, um, which is significant.

And then um noteworthy within um the rate request from SWEPCCO is uh 31 million dollars for uh improvements for recovery of improvements um that they've made to the Flint Creek coal plant, which is located in Benton County.

We worked with the city attorney's office and last month submitted our official testimony on behalf of the city in that rate case.

In short, our testimony said that we uh didn't do not believe that the improvements at the Flint Creek Coal Plant were in the best interest of ratepayers.

We pointed out a number of uh structural flaws that we believe uh SWEPCO has in their analysis, um, particularly that their analysis didn't accurately consider alternatives to the improvements at the Flint Creek coal plant.

Um, those improvements um uh that we suggested that they analyze further uh transmission um connections to uh clean energy supply, mainly wind and solar coming from um the West.

Um there there will be a number of uh additional steps in the rate rate case, including rebuttal and sur rebuttal.

Um, and then there's a public comment hearing um scheduled for December 4th here in Fayetteville.

Um it is noteworthy that the rate case uh has been in the news um in the print media in the Northwest Arkansas Times.

Um the Arkansas uh Arkansas Times has also covered the uh story online, and then a couple of local TV stations have also picked up and reported on the rating kit rate case and the impact of the rate increase.

Um I would anticipate that there will be uh additional media coverage on this as it continues to build towards that uh public comment period in December.

Um next, I want to move to our climate action plan.

Um council will recall that we um that you all adopted the city's new climate action plan um just about a year ago is in uh July of 2024.

Um that new climate action plan has uh two primary focus uh areas emission reduction strategies and nature-based solutions.

Um the emission reduction strategies area uh is a um was a refresh and an update of our 2018 energy action plan um that focused on reducing the drivers of climate change in the areas of energy, transportation, waste, and water.

Then the nature-based solution folk uh area focused more on ecosystem services, um, ecosystem resilience and carbon sequestration and how our natural lands can help buffer impacts of climate change.

Um climate equity is the component um that links the two together and helps um identify opportunities to reduce um disparities of impact um that we uh envision with the extreme weather driven by climate change.

Um the uh the climate action plan did have a total of 82 actions uh that are recommended in it.

And I'm happy to report that we have completed 12 of those 82 actions.

Um another 42 actions are either ongoing or in progress, and then we have 28 actions that have not yet been started.

Um one of the uh completed actions I wanted to draw attention to are the retrofit of city government um facilities to make them more energy efficient to our energy performance contract project that we worked with Johnson Controls on.

Um that project today has saved about 142,000 in um reduced utility expenditures.

It's also reduced our carbon emissions um by uh nine hundred over 900 tons of uh carbon dioxide.

Um that project primarily focused on lighting, um, HVAC and building weatherization improvements um to city facilities.

Um another project and one point to that's ongoing um is the development and implementation of our residential curbside food waste composting program.

Um we launched that in January of this year, and so far this year have collected 11 and a half tons of uh food waste and have diverted that from the landfill and mixed it in with our compost program.

We've extended that pilot through the end of this year and are currently working with Ozark Compost, um, who's the vendor on the project to grow the program to a thousand households in 2026 and cut the cost in half of participating in that program.

Um we also have launched three new uh drop-off locations for food waste across the city.

We have one at um Bryce Davis Park out in West Fayetteville, um, one at uh Veterans Park in North Fayetteville, and then another one at the library in downtown Fayetteville.

So now we have a total of seven um food waste drop-off locations.

It's the same one again, Bryce Davis and Bryce Davis Veterans Park, um, just on the south side of Lake Fayetteville.

Yep.

Okay.

And then at the library.

Peter, is there's like a special container so you don't get like uh rats and they are.

They're um weatherproof and critter proof, and they actually have uh um these these three new ones that we've added have a um a uh code that you have to have in order to open the container and put the food waste in.

So there's a uh QR code on the container that you can scan and uh sign an agreement that says you're only gonna put food waste in, and then we give you the code to open it up to put your food waste in.

So it's an honor.

Figure out you know, the group of people might have done it.

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly.

And then we monitor for contamination, of course.

They um they are uh 64 gallon containers, which I believe is the size that we have.

Thank you.

Uh and then an uh the final ongoing project I wanted to uh update you all on is our solar array project um that is uh being constructed right now in southwest Arkansas near um Waldron.

And this is in um Swepco territory.

Um it's about a 21 acre site.

Um this is a 3.77 megawatt um solar array grounded project.

Um it'll produce um 6.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity uh per year going forward and help us move to 93% clean electricity by offsetting much of our SWEPCO electricity consumption at at city buildings and city facilities.

Um as you may recall, we have a hundred percent clean electricity goal by 2030.

So 93%, we're getting pretty close, although that last seven percent is gonna be the hardest seven percent to close the gap on.

Um the uh the project is being billed at no upfront cost um to the city and uh through a solar services agreement that we have with integrity energy partners.

That's a 25-year um agreement.

It'll save the city uh about $7 million over the life of the project and 100,000 uh metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Um the goal is to have it online by the end of this year.

And um, I should uh I want to note that this project provides um really good um insulation or protection for the city from the SWEPCO rate increases because we have a fixed uh we have a we have a uh a rate guarantee over the 25 year life of that project with an escalator built into it um that'll go up much slower than 27 and a half uh 27.3 percent.

Um so as an example, that that rate increase that SWEPCO is proposing.

Uh, if we did not have this solar array, our um our rates would go up next year by 196,000 um as a result of that increase that's city government.

Um, but because of the solar array, they'll only go up 17,000.

So um that's the the the one of the primary benefits, um, major benefits that um we've seen from um from our investment in solar.

We've seen very similar benefit um in terms of our investment at the wastewater treatment plant solar project.

And so uh Peter, I'm gonna ask a ignorant question, probably.

No, no, there's no such thing.

Um test meets uh you know, this is all the way down near the Washington National Forge.

Uh-huh.

So does it work like they measure the power that's being created, that goes into the grid, and we're getting like credit for that power.

Yeah, it's a great question.

So it it um the process you're describing is called aggregate net metering.

Okay.

So we aggregate all of our meters together here in Fayetteville, and then um the electricity that is produced at this solar array offsets um that aggregated uh demand um that we have here because it's all within the SWEPCO service territory.

Yeah.

Um that's how that's how that accounting works.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Great question.

All right.

So on to our greenhouse gas inventory.

Um we do a uh greenhouse gas inventory every year.

We just completed the the 2024 um analysis, and this is for um the entire community of Fayetteville, so all the citizens uh and businesses across the entire city, and we we measure our greenhouse gases um in in uh six different areas electricity, VMT stands for vehicle miles traveled, um, natural gas, that's the yellow, landfill waste emissions, uh, wastewater, and then um carbon sequestration.

Um very happy to report that overall citywide, the city uh um has seen a six percent um decrease in community wide greenhouse gas uh emissions.

Um that's a it's the breakdown on that is two percent reduction in um the VMT area, uh three percent decrease in natural gas, electricity is down nine percent, and then um landfill emissions are down 20%.

This is from 2023 to 2024.

So this is just one year.

Um so uh the the thing that is um uh more interesting, I think to me, is that our uh emissions are down 22 and a half percent um as compared to our baseline year, which is uh 2010.

Um and so a 22 and a half percent reduction since 2010 in overall emissions when we've seen populant population growth towards uh since 2010 um means that our per capita emissions uh are down 45 percent um since 2010.

So it's the the per person impact.

So we're getting more efficient as we add uh more people is essentially what that means.

Um just the breakdown on the per capita emissions in 2010 uh we had 19.2 um metric tons per person.

So we were above the US average, but now we're below the US average here at Basil, which is um I think really positive.

Is this the emissions that the whole city is generating or just the city of Fayel government?

This is the entire city of Faith.

I'll show you city government here in just in a second.

Yep.

Um so uh just a little more detail.

Um 2010 versus uh 2024 um our vehicle emissions are actually up.

Um city's gotten larger, we've got more people, more driving happening.

Um so that's the explanation there.

Oops.

Oh wrong direction, sorry.

Uh natural gas emissions are down, so we're using net less natural gas overall, even as we've added population.

Um our uh landfill waste emissions are up.

So as we've added population, we've generated more waste and um emissions in that sector are up.

Wastewater is down.

This is primarily due to the investment in solar at the wastewater treatment plants, and then um in the electricity sector, we're also down.

Um this is mainly due to cleaner grid and reduced um electricity consumption.

So that's the we we can our 2010 is our baseline year, so we're constantly comparing back to the the baseline in terms of our annual uh performance.

All right, and so um council member stafford here is city government operations um greenhouse gas inventory.

So again, each year we do the inventory, we only measure in four areas um for city government operations.

That's electricity, natural gas, fleet fuel, and wastewater.

Um let's see, where's my numbers here?

The um uh emissions um 2024 compared to the previous year 2023, we're down 29 percent.

Um, so that's a pretty significant reduction, and something I think to be really proud of in terms of government operations.

Um, you'll see a pretty decent drop on the screen between 2019 and 2020 in overall city city government emissions.

That's primarily due to the addition of the 10 megawatts of solar at the wastewater treatment plant.

Um prior to 2019, so 2018 going back, you can see our emissions were fairly flat.

Um, but that that solar project has definitely helped us um reduce emissions.

So here's the um the comparison uh compared again back to the baseline year.

So we're down 78 percent in terms of government operations as compared to our uh baseline natural gas um electricity and wastewater emissions are all down.

The only area that we're up in terms of government operations um are our fleet fuels.

Um back in 2010, you can see the biggest area of emissions, the biggest sector was wastewater.

Today fleet fuel is now our biggest sector, which represents our greatest opportunity to continue to reduce our emissions and um to continue to work with uh fleet and other divisions and departments on right sizing vehicles and ensure we got the right vehicle for the job and not not oversizing vehicles.

Um we're focused on purchasing um hybrids and electric vehicles where we can find the right vehicle to do the job.

Of course, the electric vehicle purchase um has to be in compliance with new state law requirements now that put restrictions on city government's ability to buy electric vehicles, so we have to monitor that.

And then for larger trucks, um we're looking at uh hydrogen fuels and and other alternative fuels for for our larger vehicles.

Can you talk about the restrictions that they're placing on the yes?

There's a there was a bill passed in the legislature this last session um that uh targeted uh government entities across the state and and put um restrictions with respect to constituent parts in uh electric vehicles, and that so uh they had to have uh the the vehicles, uh the vehicle manufacturer has to produce a sworn statement that no constituent parts in the vehicles come from any um uh forced labor or uh slave labor um facilities uh around the world, um, which is a uh has been a difficult supply chain requirement to meet um has been the feedback that we've gotten from electric vehicle manufacturers.

So we're working to try to figure out um how to uh how to um you know get that sworn statement um from electric vehicle manufacturers, you know, in order to meet that that requirement to be in compliance with that.

So thank you.

And um that's all I've got.

We don't have to take any questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's great.

Yep.

Okay, the next presentation.

We have um, so Lee and Allison are here.

I think Lee Farmer from Park City here, you're starting this out.

And we also have our sense here as well to talk about the um aquatic feasibility set.

And it's I'm sorry for not introducing you.

It's Mr.

Whitaker, right?

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you, Council.

Uh Lee Farmer, I'm the recreation superintendent.

Uh pleased to be here tonight to unveil our findings from our recent aquatic feasibility study.

I know the mayor just introduced uh Doug Whitaker with water technology.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to him to lead us to this presentation.

Okay, thank you, Lee.

Well, the the findings of this study is Fayetteville feasibility for an aquatic center.

And it was really remarkable the public input and engagement that we had.

It was it was it was really kind of uh uh a fun process, and I really want to um acknowledge the fact that we we uh it's it's a feasibility study.

This that has no harsh designs, these are all projected performers and things like that to kind of understand if it's feasible for Fayetteville to develop a new aquatic center.

And so um okay.

Okay, so our agenda tonight, this is this was an 18-month study.

It took a lot of time to kind of accomplish that to get everything kind of moving in the right direction.

So basically, this is our agenda for tonight, but this we talk about the process, public anal or market analysis, operational performance, site selection criteria, some kind of conceptual ideas that the community seemed to embrace, and then program recommendations, and then any kind of discussion.

And so team introduction uh on Doug Woodaker with water technology.

We have the team lead.

Thank you, Mayor, for introducing me.

But I was surrounded by a great team.

And I really want to acknowledge also the great work that the staff did from the parks and rec department, but also the uh um steering committee.

We also had great input from the parks board, and then tremendous outreach in the community from the public engagement process.

Um, I was joined by uh Scott Karen from uh Barker Rinker, excuse me, Ballard King and Associates, and they're a financial feasibility uh consultant that really Scott was uh many years in the uh um the recreational department, so he really understands the operations.

Also from an architectural perspective, we had um SFS architecture, both Allison Van Dever, and Brian Garvey were with us, and then site planning was Confluence, who did a lot of land planning and PJ Novak and Hank Moyers were part of our team as well.

So kind of uh moving on, you we had a lot of great uh you can kind of see some of the public interest.

This was a fun uh pop-up uh example we had at um uh Wilson Park Pool at one day.

But our you know, we had a lot of that was kind of a fun process because not only did we have the children um looking at some of the concepts, but also their parents.

And they kind of came in two groups because for the kids were in the water, the parents came over, which is really fun.

Well, we well, we got our goals and objectives.

I don't know, I'm not doing very good that we know.

This was our goals and objectives.

We wanted to evaluate opportunities to expand, you know, for diversified aquatic offerings in the community.

We wanted to define the community needs and priorities, and we got we got a lot of input on that.

We want to plan for multi-purpose use and inclusive programming to get the youth of all ages involved in in aquatics, and then put an action plan forward that could uh look at development.

The next kind of things we we did have a lot of good input.

And this is like oh, seven years of input starting in 2018 through 2025.

And so we really had a lot of good data to really sift through to be able to understand what the community's needs and how they might even migrate, you know, to what they want today.

So again, just kind of we had uh we we had the public surveys back in 2018 and 2021.

We had public and kickoff meeting and and we listened to the community, we showed them a lot of different options and listened to their input.

We took, you know, there's a first public survey that kind of came out, then we had stakeholder discussions and looking at the program development.

We had the pop-up survey at a public engagement.

And one thing I will you'll talk about this later, but the public survey too, it was actually had over uh I want to say 12,000.

It was it was the initial survey we did had over 1500 responses.

Um, and then the most recent one we did um had about 1300, close to 3,000 survey responses for this project.

And every time I came to Fayetteville, I'd sit next to somebody different on an airplane, and they would all say, Oh, yeah, we took the survey.

We really are excited about understanding that.

So what we found out in these surveys in 2024, what people wanted was recreational and play aquatic facility.

They also wanted leisure and recreation.

They also wanted to see some lap swimming and kind of fitness and competition swimming.

Um, there's also uh a desire for natural swimming in the community, and then um, you know, the other part was thrill and adventure, and that kind of talks about the youthful um in participation.

The next um information that we got in 2024, they wanted to build a combination indoor and outdoor facility to have a regional attendance throughout the community and beyond.

They wanted to build an indoor um uh aquatic facility so they could use it year-round, and they also wanted something I mean, everybody loves Wilson Park Pool, but they wanted something that has a little bit more of a leisure experience to them.

So the next image kind of shows um this is kind of an infographic that we put together to kind of show all those results, but it was really amazing to see all the information that people wanted.

They had they they wanted to have a lot of participation, they wanted um something as as uh um convenient as it could possibly be, but they didn't want to take away from Wilson Park and the um experience they had there.

The next um survey kind of was in 2025, and what we kind of had started to develop some ideas, and we heard that the community really wanted to see both an indoor and aquatic um aquatic facility, but also include maybe some indoor recreational components in that facility.

And over 42 or 44 percent of the pop survey um um uh respondents requested that.

They wanted to have an outdoor uh leisure facility with a lazy river and water slide, they wanted indoor lap and competition swimming for fitness, they also wanted the indoor warm water kind of um uh facility that would appeal to youthful users, but also us older youthful users that could enjoy that for um wellness.

And so that was a well-rounded survey.

And one of the things that we see in kind of going forward is the fact that a lot of this information had a consistent trend.

People want a year-round indoor pool that has an interest in not only the pool portion of it, but other recreational center components.

An outdoor leisure pool that features the laser river and uh water slides, and then a year-round competition lap pool and warm water recreational lifestyle pool.

And I use the room lifestyle because that's it's something that can be used for learn to swim programs, but also for active um wellness programs.

And so when we look at the market analysis, this was done by Ballard King Associates who wanted to look at local and national trends.

We wanted to look at local and national benchmarks, kind of recreational benchmarks from the National Sporting Goods Association, and then local partnerships.

And so what we see from here's the kind of the area that we surveyed.

This is the um Fayetteville City Limits.

And one of the things you'll notice here is the only really public facility that's available is Wilson Park Pool, and it's a seasonal pool.

The others are um uh private or um membership-based facilities that have a little bit more difficulty having public access to.

The next image kind of talks about the um, you know, the summary of the market.

And we're seeing the population of around 100,000 uh users in the population.

The median age is 28.6, which is kind of low.

And then we have um the average per household, you know, um, people per household is 2.2.

And it kind of goes through the demographics of male and female participants and what is some of the other national trends.

So the next one kind of shows kind of a summary of all that.

When we look at who are who are the people that responded and who are the people that are in our population?

And this is the tapestry of our population.

There's a c it's a college town, they have, and it's kind of talked about as young and restless.

40 46.8% of the population is impulsive, and they want new experiences.

So they're looking for something fun and exciting.

The other is the in-style uh up and coming families, and that's 25.7% of the population, and they're planners.

They want to be able to have family activities, and so they want something that appeals to that um active group.

So the next thing we have is a kind of a what does that mean for um Fayetteville?

Well, we we see that the population is more than sufficient to support a new indoor and outdoor aquatic facilities.

And you have a high growth rate of 5.5% of population growth.

The median age is lower.

What does that mean?

That means that our families are growing.

They want something to do for the youth in the community.

The medium income is a little bit lower.

And what does that mean?

Well, we need to make this as a as a public entity.

We need to make this affordable.

So it's within access of all families in the community.

And then so the tapestries kind of show that active market seeking recreational things, but also we want to make sure that there's very we also know that's very limited public providers in the city of Fayetteville.

So the next image kind of shows some of the benchmarks.

We looked at around the country of other communities that are maybe similar to Fayetteville that have similar populations and similar college communities and things of that nature.

And what we saw that, you know, one of the things that's unique is that Fayetteville with Wilson Park Pool has great attendance.

It has 70% cost recovery.

Now you wouldn't see that in another community with other types of pools that have kind of the kind of the limited amenities out there.

Your staff does a great job of making this a great facility for programs and things of that nature.

But when you start looking at you know, Fayetteville versus Lawrence, Kansas versus Columbia and Rogers, you know, there's they have more recreational components with their pools.

So, you know, nationally indoors, you see indoor pools of 1.7 for similar size communities, outdoor pools, you have 2.2, his flash pads you have 1.9.

And here you don't have those kind of numbers.

You only have one outdoor pool.

So the next um image kind of shows, so we really look at base demand based programming.

And that factors in the statistics of the market from the demographics, the candidators, all the public forums and community input that we had, all the other providers in the community from municipal, private, collegiate, and nonprofit, and then membership, but also the programs.

We looked at the the facility programs that communities wanted, like learn to swim, water exercise, the support spaces that would be needed.

What kind of a footprint would this be needed?

And what are the revenue generators that help give that great cost recovery?

And so the next image kind of shows what we looked at as the performer.

We looked at staffing.

You guys do a great job with your participation with staff, great customer service.

I mean, all the times I've came to the community, everybody was really excited about what they what they have.

We want to look at operational expenses, want to make sure that we keep that in line so we're not having a large carbon footprint, and we want to make sure the revenues help support cost recoverage in the same kind of level that Wilson Park pools are.

Um, but again, usually indoor pools don't achieve that level.

So the next slide kind of shows kind of some of those things.

Want to make sure we look at best practices that you guys are already doing.

You guys have great staff.

Um, you know, Wilson Park Pool is a great example of how how well that pool looks over this many years that it's been in operation.

Fayetteville is going to be the operator.

You're not going to sub this out to some other entity to operate the pools.

We want to look at um uh um revenues and expenditures to kind of keep the cost recovery very um uh in line.

And it's a conservative approach.

We want to have high-level operational plans, lots of programs for the appeal to a lot of different uh users, but also have a market penetration rate of 1.6 um households in the primary service area to really get a lot of people involved.

The other thing that's really important is having participation from other community entities like school districts for the competition swimming and lane rentals, and we want to make sure we have a uh future allocation to make sure that we have funds available for any replacement equipment that might occur so it's not an emergency.

So when we start looking at this, this helped inform what size footprint that we needed to uh allow for this kind of facility and site selection.

We looked at the parameters, look at some different sites, what we'd recommend and the characteristics of those sites.

So when we started this, we kind of initially identified 18 sites with all the staff input and community input, you know, land availability, ownership, you know, tree canopy, topography, suitability for public use is really important to be able to have uh um uh utilities close by and also um close to major uh transportation corridors so people can get to it in bike trails and things of that nature.

We actually reviewed 15 sites and looked at all these demographics and all these characteristics and parameters to kind of help arrive at one site that was kind of rose to the top.

And this was a Lewis soccer complex.

It had a good location and a lot of the characteristics that we analyzed to for parking, availability, um circuit pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation.

This one kind of rose to the top of uh the different types of recommendations, and we're recommending this site as a good option that could be also expanded in the future.

So, what about the program and development?

Again, all this was based on public engagement.

They wanted to develop year-round programs and seasonal programs.

We so we based, we come up, we came up with a base and comprehensive model.

The base model kind of helps get everybody going and into the water, so to speak.

The comprehensive is something that could be added on to into the future to to develop a final concept.

So the next image kind of shows what we we started with throughout the public engagement process.

We showed a lot of different examples.

People are visual, they want to see things.

They don't start talking about well, we want a 50-meter pool and a leisure pool.

They don't understand that, but if they can see it, they say, Oh, yeah, that's exactly what we want.

So we went and went through a lot of different um ideas of what kind of concepts might be available, both indoors and outdoors.

The next slide kind of shows um kind of what we came back with.

We heard from the community they wanted an indoor 25-yard by 25 meter competition pool.

They wanted an indoor lifestyle, multi-use uh pool with warm water.

They wanted indoor water slides, they wanted outdoor leisure pool, the river.

They want one of the things that people wanted.

We love children, but it'd kind of be nice to have an adult resort style pool where we could just kind of sit and enjoy time together without so many kids running around.

So that was one of the things that was discussed.

The other thing that we heard from the community is they wanted something iconic like a surf simulator.

They wanted to have, and these are really popular for um all users because they're really uh good for fitness, but they're also the hard to appeal to teenage group, it really appeals to that user group.

And then we talked about a splash pad that could have extended use.

So we took all this information, kind of came up with a couple different concepts.

One with a little bit longer lazy river, one with a little shorter lazy river.

And when we took this out back to the community, what we heard next was that we we really want to um look at um a couple of different things, but the shorter lazy river was popular, and we looked at um from um SFS architecture, looked at a couple of different configurations of how to enter the building, how on the placement of the um locker rooms and change rooms and all the support staff areas could be accommodated.

So it could be expanded in the future.

You could have a base plan and you could expand it in the future without um creating any bottlenecks or uh challenges.

So we came up with the program and recommendations.

We looked at again uh the next slide kind of shows Lewis Park.

It's kind of an idea.

The base program would include uh uh 50,000 square foot aquatic facility that would have both an indoor 25-yard 25-meter pool and also an um indoor lifestyle pool, but an outdoor leisure pool with a water slide complex.

Um, the next image kind of showed, okay.

Well, if we develop that more, we could add all the different aquatic components, but maybe we bring back some of the um soccer fields that were there for different um user groups, but also maybe there's a um indoor uh expansion that would include like a gymnasium or fit expanded fitness there, and all of these concepts will be developed at the next phase of this project.

Is these are just ideas we heard from the community to make sure that we can put together some um understanding what the community would support.

So, in the in the in the base program, again, it's a 50,000 square foot indoor facility that has that 25-yard by 25 meter indoor lap pool, and then a smaller um wellness um lifestyle pool than then it's actually shown there just to be able to kind of start at the beginning, and then having an outdoor um leisure pool that would have a water slide, lazy river, and all the features that people really wanted that we heard.

The more comprehensive model would include a much larger indoor lifestyle pool, the competition pool, but then the outdoor amenities of the um uh adult resort style pool, maybe a surf simulator, the splash pad, and then we would also include some of that recreational components that the um community said they wanted to see in a fit in a new uh aquatic center.

So again, it was it was um this these are just ideas, they're placeholders to be able to understand what the community would support, what they needed, and they and it's been kind of a trend.

And again, I want to congratulate your staff for such a great job of bringing people out, participating in this and helping us understand what the community would like to see in the future.

So I'll kind of open it up for any questions you might have um in this um presentation.

I didn't just have one question.

Your out your first plan has a 50,000 square foot inside um indoor facility.

What was the square foot um footage on the outdoor on that?

12,000.

12,000 that would have that would that would include the leisure pool, but also it would include the decking and the shade structures and all the different types of circulation zones for for the exterior pool.

Thank you.

And then I want to be can you go back?

I think it's two slides where you're developing one more around it where they one more, this course and is that kind of long term set.

So any recommendations just an op I can comment on that.

So when the they did provide us kind of budgetary quotes uh with that, and I think when you look at our possible you know, bond discussion that we've been talking about, really what we can afford is the base.

So the comprehensive plan, we would love to do some things in there.

One of the things we'd love to do is the recreation center that we talked about, which is kind of that offshore offshoot part of it, and uh the really the only way we'd be able to afford that is when we start going to the next design steps, as you mentioned, is just trying to figure out what we can fit on the location, what we can afford, and really focusing on revenue generating items.

Yeah, so that's one thing.

WTI is a great aquatic feasibility and aquatic consultant.

Yeah, and with the selection that we just just made or about to make on our architect uh with Crafton Toll, is they're also partnered with uh uh another name, or very I guess what do you say, one of the those there's a couple different top aquatic consultants out there, WTI being one of them, and Councilman Hunsacker is another one.

So they'll be given a second set of eyes looking at this, and one of the things that impressed us with their presentation was their focus on revenue generating items.

So they kind of had three columns that talked about what can we do in an aquatic center to generate revenue to offset operational costs.

So when we dive deeper into the design, we'll be trying to see if we could move in that aquatic center, add on to the aquatic center with something like you know, basketball courts, volleyball courts, maybe a fitness area, because those are high revenue generating things you could have you know year-round.

Of course, sustainability revenue revenue sustainability and additionally, they were high requests throughout the survey results that we uh produced.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

And I know we may have um a couple more comments.

One I just want to say thank you for your work on this for being so engaged in our community.

I think that's one of the things I'm those our residents love suggestions to participate and give their um opinions.

And so I'm glad they thank you for acknowledging that and recognizing that.

And I just invite everybody to see this as a starting point for the conversation.

This is data and that we have collected.

This is you know what we have heard from our community.

Um, it's the it isn't our destination, it's part of the data.

It's our first step towards planning that planning for satisfaction.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Link.

Yeah, thank you, everyone.

Appreciate it.

Okay, we don't think anything else, Mr.

Jones.

Yes.

We can have a water and sewer committee meeting after this on a separate link.

And here, you know, be here, correct?

And is that a separate Zoom link if you are given her?

Thank you all for.