Oh, there we go.

It's 4:30.

Perfect timing.

Thank you all for being here.

Um, this is our city council agenda session, uh, Tuesday, September 30th.

And for those of you who have um not uh been to an agenda session before, it is not a business meeting, so we are not taking action.

We are simply setting the agenda and going over the plan for next week's meeting, and next week is when the voting will happen.

So I will be let's go over the agenda.

And it looks like next week, the first item of business that we have is I'll be proclaiming it mental health awareness week.

And so thank you for the youth council for working with us on that.

And we'll also next week have a sales tax and monthly financial report from Stephen and uh Stephen Dotson, our chief financial officers.

We'll go through and read the items of consent.

We do our meeting minutes.

Uh, first item of consent um on the consent agenda now is the architectural contract for the aquatic center design with craft and toll of associates.

This was an RFQ.

Um that we are seeking to um authorize a professional architect uh textural contract with traffic and tall and a total amount of 232,524 for design of an aquatic facility.

Um and Wade, since can you go ahead and speak?

I know this is one that we may have a lot of questions about, and I'd love if you would speak to it.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Uh so yeah, the like the point of bringing this forward now is to this phase that was called a pre-bond phase, and the information gathered is gonna better inform the voters.

Uh what this will include, it will be an evaluation and refining of the water technology feasibility study.

It will determine what components can be included within the budget and which may be considered for future phases.

It will provide conceptual operations costs for the facility.

And we can use this information for cost share and operation costs negotiations with the Fayville School District.

Thanks, Wade.

I'm gonna I know we have questions on it, but before we get to those, I'm gonna go ahead and read A3 as well, since they're so tied together and let you speak to that, and then we can talk about both of them at the same time.

A three is the aquatic center pre-construction contract.

So same project.

This one um would be authorizing the contract with the construction manager at risk with CDI contractors in the amount of 39,999 for the construction base.

So uh CDI will help us establish conceptual cost of the facility.

Uh they will uh evaluate the cost of the revenue generating components.

And they can also use this information for payable school district negotiations.

So this seems like our uh be is on the first bond agenda, and so we'll be spending all over 250,000 on something that may not be included.

And um, so I would like to take it off consent and actually have it on our way that's next week so the opponent can ask a lot of questions uh about this.

I understand that you need to get uh better cost estimates, especially in negotiation, but it seems like a lot of money for something that has not been included by voters yet.

Right.

And I guess it's confusing to me, and I love to do Steve because I asked this question even last um time.

Why don't we construct um work on the construction of those streets and infrastructure as people are building, and it was because we didn't know if it was gonna be built, but we're putting this before we've even voted on the quadratic scenario.

So it's confusing how we'll do it for some and we won't do it for others.

So that's my question on the table as well.

Wait, can you kind of oh I'm sorry, she directed that at Stephen.

I apologize, Minister Jones.

I know Wade was gonna speak to that as well.

Well, I mean, I guess my response here is kind of echoes what Wade said.

When you're gonna go out to the voters, you you basically need to provide a structured approach to to what people would be voting on here.

And that's what the architectural contract and the CMR is going to provide us.

They're gonna provide us with uh like a fleshed out concept of what what you would actually see there, be able to develop the business plan accordingly, find out which components are revenue generators and which should be going in there.

And without uh without that kind of information prior to going out to the vote, we wouldn't be able to answer those questions.

It would basically just be a ballot question with not much behind it.

And so that's the reason why you would do this.

And this is what we've done with other things in the past as well.

I mean, we do studies all the time before we go out to a bond vote for them.

And then basically, you know, the way this is structured, these items basically would be refunded.

It would be paid for by the bond if the bond does go through and pass.

So it's part of the cost that you could capture uh with with the bond revenue.

I guess my question then happens what what if the bond doesn't pass?

That that's where I'm stuck in.

So what this is going to be a deliverable.

So we will have a product at the end of this phase.

And if and or when in there's a future attempt for this aquatic facility, we will have this information.

We won't have to pay for it again.

And you need it volume until NCD.

Yeah, CDI or the contractors, construction managers, they are the one that generate the cost.

I could probably add something to that.

To me, the details that we'll have with this kind of white version of the design is going to be critical for us to be able to design a facility uh that fits our needs, possibly some of the things that the school district wants to address.

And to me, the most critical thing is talking about cost recovery.

So when we go through this design, the design or architect has an aquatic consultant that's part of this team, and they're going to be focused on what how we can design this on this site and what we can build, have the most recovery of cost.

So when we're working on that, that can do that's going to kind of drive how we design this building, and then ultimately what we would take to the voter.

So it's uh to me, it's the number one thing is to reduce our operational cost and provide what our community you know is is wanting, what they've kind of showed that they want through our past year of our feasibility study that we did.

So this is it is a fair amount of money to spend, but it's really a critical component to get the details of what the programming is and what the facility is going to look like to where it's gonna cost us money now, but it's ultimately gonna save us money in the long run.

I agree.

I just saw it should be on.

I think it's just a lot of questions behind it.

Yeah.

That's fine.

If we're gonna have more information, you know, for the public to access it.

I I can't get all the numbers broken up, but I don't remember um when I scanned through this a couple of days ago that there was a lot of details in there, but the more we could do that, I think the better the discussion next Tuesday.

Yeah, so and then where do you all and that's both A2 and A3 moving to consent?

Do you want them at the do you have a preference?

They typically go at the beginning unless you specify us that the rest of the thing is.

Even the counselor saw it.

Okay.

Is that okay?

A battle bit from C or the C shaped.

Uh wait, I'm going to get my business.

Oh, I'm sorry.

It works for C maybe it's really probably for Steven.

Um, but on just on the um the capital professional services that were doing the budget adjustment, could we just have some details?

I I don't know, I don't know what the history was on if we had any our current budget that we were thinking that we potentially would have as a project that would would be there, or if this is then we've got something else or if something else didn't happen.

That's a considerable amount of money.

So I'm just trying to see how we have that plan.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's just under our professional services budget that we have.

Yeah.

Just the chunk of money that we have set aside.

So that should be a question.

Well, I mean, I can see where the comments about the the card before the ward, but I think it is what we're gonna give it.

Oh, please.

But wait, would it be also fair to say that uh yeah, this gives us the availability of giving the public full picture of what we're talking about?

That's exactly right.

We want to inform the voters the best we can.

And this is how we can do that.

Councilmember more one thing puzzle that I would add to that.

This isn't general fund money, this is parks development HMR money from that fund.

Okay.

So moving on to the next um item A4, which I guess will be A2.

Um contract for improvements to the Nolan Water Resource Recovery Facility.

A resolution to approve amendment number one to the contract with Garver LLC and an amount not to exceed one million nine one thousand seven hundred dollars for the preliminary design of improvements to the nolen water resource for recovery facility and to approve a budget.

Is Tim Peter?

I'm sorry, he may be okay.

There you go.

I apologize, Tim.

We're in the back.

Do you all have questions for Tim about this one?

I'm sorry he can come up, or is it the straight for a we will move on to A5?

Um purchase of transit stop enhancement materials.

I am so excited about this.

I want to say thank you to Chris and Matt Mahalovich and also Dane.

I can't see all, I don't know who all is back there.

Anyone else who I didn't name that worked on this?

This is just really exciting to me and something that is long overdue.

Um it is a resolution to weigh competitive bidding and approve the purchase of transit stop shelter structures and benches and a total amount of 269,700 plus any applicable sales taxes and shipping charges from Brasco International.

Um I said in January I want every bus stop to have a shelter and a bench, and let's start aggressively getting there.

And so this is part of that.

Um so thank you guys for working on that.

And and who is who can answer questions about it if council has them?

Is that Dane?

Okay.

Because not everybody is a transit uh transportation committee and hasn't probably heard how many if it's enough.

So can we do just a quick rundown for the public since this is going to be on consent about you know how many are planned between like ORC and research Panzer and kind of like what it's looking like for the outlook and how we actually the fitting to that number eventually.

Um sure.

So this is just a step toward the goal of having uh transit amenities.

Uh big thing is ADA accessibility is really a baseline and then ratching up there, looking at ridership.

Uh many people are waiting for the bus at different stops and prioritizing based on ridership, also constructability.

Some some areas are really easy that we've already done some of the work to have in a pad and a loading platform is already ready to go.

We call it a shelter ready.

So that's when when these uh six there's about a six-month re time on production with the shelters, which is a little unfortunate.

But as soon as those are available, uh, we'll be using the rest of the grant money to construct more uh concrete spaces for loading platforms for pads to go down benches to go down.

Um so trying to just be smart work ahead while those while the shelters are on their way.

And um uh about half half and half of the money is going to be going from ORT and Razorback.

But because a lot of the razor back stops are already in better, more shelter ready status, then we'll be able to do uh a few more of the razor back stops, but we'll be investing more uh about the same amount of money into the orbit, if that makes sense because we need to uh to move out more of uh services.

That's just a little bit, but I'm happy to answer questions.

I have a question.

So is the U of A contributing or Razor Bank Transit contributing to this effort?

Right.

So in uh this project, there was uh a 50-50 grant from Walk Family Foundation that was administered through through North Sorry, so regional planning.

And so half of that match was provided by city, and half of that match was provided by um ORT and Razorback.

So that breakdown is in the in the memo.

25% is that a better way?

I mean, right.

They did 25, the ORT did 25.

So our contribution is uh a little over 50,000, and then each of the uh transit HPC is contributed a little over 25,000 to get us that match.

As far as an outlook, I guess that's one thing just for folks is that it just does test does take time, even though we're aggressively pursuing it.

So it's probably like several years down the road until we have that kind of three to five years.

So I think we'll see outlook the last time we get to discuss.

This is this project alone is over 400,000.

I have another tap grant that's also on the agenda that you'll see later.

Uh, that's another 150,000 investment to transit, which is the I mean, I've been here for over 200 years by far the biggest investment that we made for improving just the stops themselves.

So it's it's very uh very different from what we had done in the past.

Yeah, getting the matching funds has helped a lot.

Um the next item.

I'm just gonna read the numbers as they're on here.

I know those numbers will be different, but that way I don't have to keep suspecting to the map.

Um A6 contract with Burns and McDonald Engineering Incorporated for additional highway one trail project work.

It's a resolution to approve supplemental agreement number three to the contract with Burns and McDonald, and an amount not to exceed $929,515 for construction management and additional design services related to highway 112, and to approve a budget adjustment.

We have Chris here for questions and comments if if you all would like them.

Okay.

A seven is additional investment in the Fayetteville Child Care Assistance Program.

Um Steven can speak to this in more detail.

Um there's also the memo in your packets, but it's a resolution to commit 24,690 and approved interest.

These this can't come from ARPA funds, the American Rescue Plan Act funds, um, to the child care assistance program and to approve the budget adjustment.

We ended up with additional money due to interest, and so we want to reinvest it back into that program.

That question is just around execution of what we because I think we had a lot of applicants.

So how does that work?

Do we extend based on the current applicants we already were paying?

Do we extend that, or are we getting new folks with that many?

So basically we would extend the term for the people that we currently have up to the term length that um that we had originally started the program with, and then if we have extra funding, we would go out to the next person on the list, call them up, see if they still need the funding, and then provide that funding.

So it's just the end of the funding soon.

Didn't we have a pretty harsh deadline?

Yeah, so if you recall, so we received 17.9 million dollars, and some of it we provided to um nonprofit organizations in in the form of uh cost reimbursements for expenses that they had incurred during the COVID-19 uh situation.

Other organizations, other nonprofits, we engage them as subrecipient nonprofits, and so they're performing a service um basically for the city of Fayetteville.

So we have a number of nonprofits, including uh Seven Hills, Peace at Home Family Shelter, where we we awarded them ARPA funding, but we hold on to the funding and then they they draw it on a reimbursement basis.

So we have that money in our bank accounts earning interest until and until they completely spend how much we've committed to them.

We'll continue to earn interest on that amount in our bank account.

And every so often, maybe twice a year.

I come forward to you all, and you know, we have this this conversation about where to put it.

And I think the last time we did, we all had kind of tentatively agreed to maybe commit it to the child care assistance program, which is why I continue to bring these forward to you.

And so the deadline to spend the ARPA funds is December 31st of 2026.

And so it's likely I'll need to come forward a couple more times um as we accrue interest.

Thank you for that reminder of how that falls since floor.

Yeah, it's it's been a long, it's been a long process.

We've been doing this for a long time.

Thanks.

Uh thank you, Stephen.

Um A8, improvements to North Street.

This is from Garland College in partnership with Argot.

It's a resolution to authorize an agreement of understanding with the Arkansas Department of Transportation for the North Street Improvement Project, and to approve an associated budget adjustment recognizing $300,000 in federal aid funding, and then the required 20% local match of $75,000.

I have a I have a lot of questions.

Right.

Chris has a lot of answers.

Excellent.

Did you remind us about this politics?

And if if uh that children points can be bidden um along the street, or how is that going to be undertaken?

Um, okay, so North Street is one of our bond projects.

It has several different segments.

Um this agreement with Rot for the section of North Street.

It says um from Garland to college, but it's really from the Razorbank Greenway to college.

Um, and it's uh $300,000 with the $75,000 matching.

Um, and that will be to design that section of uh of improvements.

Um really there's not a lot of change in the in the capacity that was proposed as part of the conceptual design.

Uh there's adding sidewalks, um, improving some of the the pedestrian crossings and and safety.

Um and uh really that's just uh that's the the gist of there's not a lot of capacity changes there.

So there really won't be any blinding or anything on that.

Right.

Okay.

But that's that's what's proposed as part of this uh the conceptual design that was uh presented and uh what we're working off of did not have capacity improvements.

We're very excited about this project.

This 20% is 60,000.

So is it 75 or is it 20%?

Either works fine.

Yeah, I think uh you have to you have to do the math because uh it's it's it's an 8020 grant, so um it's really 20 percent of the total that we pay.

Um word it our wording was a little bit, it's not 20 percent of 300,000, it's 20 percent of the three of the 100% of the grant, which we're doing the correct.

Yes, thanks.

That too was a project supposed to be on this once is that moves forward.

Um, well, we will uh once this uh agreement is approved, we'll be able to select a consultant and start the design um you know within the next two to three months, and then once that design is done, I can move forward to construction.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

A9 recognize revenue from Act 833 to fund future fire equipment purchases.

A resolution to approve a $38,000 budget adjustment allocating Act 833 funds for the purchase of fire equipment.

Um A10 is to accept a $200,000 grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics to fund the pavement crack repair project.

This is specific to the airport.

It's a resolution to authorize acceptance of a grant from the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics and the amount of 200,000 to fund the Drake Field Pavement Crack Repair Project to approve task order number 13 and the amount of 29,000 for Garver LLC to provide engineering services for the project and to approve a budget adjustment.

Um I just have one question about that.

Is that's not part that's outside of the master plan that we're gonna have to airport, yes?

That's not a part of that second.

This this would be more of a just general operational.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Jared.

A11, continuation of central EMS services.

Um, we have an interlocal agreement with them every year, and this is a resolution to approve a five-year interlocal agreement for continuation of ambulance services through the Washington County Regional Ambulance Authority at a cost of 1,216,622 in 2026, and to authorize the ambulance authority to operate central EMS as the exclusive emergency and non-emergency ambulance service within the cities.

Um before I ask if there are questions, I want to thank um Chief Harden and also Councilperson Moore, Councilmember Moore for um being um our city representatives on this board.

They do a great job.

That is a tough um they get in, we get into a lot of good discussions on that board, and it's not always easy and it's not always straightforward.

And um councilperson Moore brings a lot of good topics to light in those discussions.

And I also want to thank Chief Harden for always trying to make sure that we are um that the bud that their funding model for central EMS is divided equitably and that Fayetteville is getting a good deal, but that we're also getting the services we need.

So um, and that's not always so.

I know Brad is here with questions if you have them.

So one question.

Um this is a five year agreement for simple.

It's it's a five-year agreement.

Um from when from now from putting these six.

Yes, from the time that we sign it, it actually I think takes up back January one.

I think we're through the end of this year, and then it is automatically reinities after five years uh with another five years if if we so choose.

Okay.

Um and then we can also, I think with a six-month written notice at any time we get back out of it, which I'm not disappointing, of course, but thank you.

You bet A12 roof roof.

It's a roof retrofit and street side boulders at YRCC.

Roof retrofit and street side boulders is not an easy thing to say quickly.

It's a resolution to approve change order number three to the contract with Mosure construction and the amount of 123,948.50 to retrofit the existing metal roof to provide street side folders and to approve a budget adjustment.

Wade can take your questions on that one if you have them.

I presume Alison might have added info as well.

Just didn't know if we had like an updated like timeline on that project.

That now it's getting close.

Yes, the uh the building expansion is uh rated to open items.

The uh strength side is I'm gonna say 50% footweight.

They they're putting in uh sidewalks and curvature found some real shallow gas lines of black hills and prepared the long item A13 is a sewer connection at 371 North Harvey Dowell Road.

It's a resolution to approve an allowance for sewer service connection beyond the city limits for property located at 371 North Harvey Dowell Road.

Um we do this fairly often, and I know Tim can answer questions for you if you have A14 is a partnership with RDOT and NWA Regional Planning Commission.

It's a resolution to approve a supplemental agreement letter with the Arkansas Department of Transportation and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission for an additional 500,000 in federal aid funding through the carbon reduction program for the REPL Road Trail Lighting Project and to approve a budget adjustment.

Item A15 is water and sewer work truck needs.

It's a resolution to approve the purchase of a Ford Ranger from Randall Ford, pursuant to ordinance 6491 in the amount of 36,695 dollars, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees, and to approve a budget adjustment.

Can you just go back to the trail writing project?

What is it?

Starting from the two.

Matt, can you tell us a little bit more about the what part of REPL that um that covers yeah?

Sure, yes.

Um, this is a project we've been working on for a while, and we didn't quite have enough money.

So we will get an additional grant funding, 500,000.

So total of 800,000 now.

It's 1.8 miles of it of from MLK all the way to percent.

So that whole section, the lights will be in the median, so it'll light both lanes and the trail.

It'll be a little bit taller polls, like 20 feet feet, and uh still full cutoff lights, dark sky friendly, all that.

And that's and that's one that I have heard.

I don't know if our with the Ward 4 council members if you get these two, but I have gotten an uncommon number of emails from residents in that area asking for lighting improvements.

I mean, yeah, probably just since January several.

So it seems like something that has been that they're excited about and has been in the round of speed without too.

Thank you.

We're we're moving forward with the design.

We're really close to like 60% on the side getting through the federal process.

So we'll make two on the core box there for always.

Do we know?

Do you have any sort of sense that I don't mean to put you on the spot?

We're we're making good progress.

Thanks, Matt.

I read the work trip uh truck one for the water and sewer work trip.

Does anyone have any questions about that one?

Then we will move to reading the unfinished business.

We have several items.

I don't know if I've seen the meeting with this many items of unfinished business before.

If I have it, it's gone a while.

So unfinished business.

The first one is a P uh a PCD of North Double Springs Road and West.

Tipton Road.

It's an ordinance to approve a residential planet zoning district and titled PCD 2025-2 for approximately 66.78 acres located southeast of North Double Springs Road and West.

Jonathan, I'm gonna request that you just come sit up here because one three, four, the next five are all yours.

And I know that we will have questions about several, if not all of them.

So dot Tipton is the first one.

And will you let us know as we go through these stuff and if there are any that the applicant has requested be tabled, I know that sometimes happened.

I don't know that that's gonna happen, but if it is, will you let us know?

Certainly.

And would you like me to proactively offer updates on each of these as well?

Okay, I'll try to be brief and please ask me if you have additional questions.

Uh we did hear from the applicant uh just before lunch today that they have met with the neighbors in this area at least twice.

I don't know to what extent that has happened or not.

Twice since the last since it was tabled last correct okay, and as a reminder to council too, it's been a full month since you all have seen this one.

It was not left on a reading for one meeting or tabled for one meeting, they requested it for full weeks, which I guess is five weeks at this point between the meetings.

Um what the council may anticipate at the meeting is they the advocate may be proposing an amendment to their PGD request to commit to certain improvements.

Uh council will recall the I think the biggest concern that staff has with this request.

It's a public you all heard from both presidents farming to the farming to the West Fayeville residents that are adjacent to this property is the adequacy of the infrastructure.

Dot Tippins very narrow, Double Springs isn't a fully built-out road.

Um so they the applicant has work on what they can commit to on the front end of the project, understanding that even after they go through development, there may be additional items that they have to uh approve upon to make the project feasible, safe, and meet our standards.

Uh and also as a reminder on this one, uh, since it's been a month, the planning commission did forward it too.

Also, it's not here on appeal.

It was forwarded by the planning commission seven to two, uh and staff did not recommend in favor of it, or does not recommend in favor of it in its current state.

Uh your recommended file taking consideration the potential amendment that there might be you haven't actually seen it yet.

The latter, uh, I don't think we've seen enough specificity to be able to make an informed decision on whether it changes our recommendation or not, unfortunately.

When that information might be coming, do we have any indication?

Not for certain.

I hope uh hopefully it's something that we can make available to you all before the final agenda goes out, but not certain.

This one then this one has a bill of assurance that we have discussed too.

It does not, but it is a PCD, which is unique from a typical uh straight rezoning, if you will, where conditions can be applied to it where a we cannot condition a typical rezoning request.

An applicant would have to offer a bill of assurance.

Not have to if they want.

That's right, right, right.

Okay, and the next piece uh the next one is also a PCD on North Ray is on North Raven Lane, and it's an ordinance to approve a PCD entitled PCD 2025-3 for approximately 49.2 acres located on North Raven Lane in Ward.

And this was just at the last meeting when this one was left.

Jonathan, can we refresh our memories?

That's correct, Mayor.

Uh I the main updates for you all is if you are looking at the agenda and it's uh civic clerk format, you'll see that there are five new attachments to it.

Uh there's a new staff memo in there that responds to a updated uh booklet.

That's the the plan zoning district standards.

Uh the applicant has provided a narrative letter uh to act as the the cover letter for that PCD booklet.

If you don't have a chance to read through the entire dozen page PCD booklet, that narrative letter does a fairly good job summarizing it.

Uh there's also an exhibit showing where the public streets are proposed.

Councilmember Turk, I believe that was a request you had made at the meeting, so that's also included there.

And then finally, uh they had proactively done an initial traffic impact analysis that's in there as well.

Uh so as a reminder on this one, also uh staff is recommending favor uh of this request, and it came to you all from the uh uh planning commission uh by unanimous six to zero vote.

Okay, B3 is an annexation 25-1 on West Lyarley Lane.

It's an ordinance to annex that property described the annexation petition A and X 25-1 submitted by RNP LLT for property located on West Lyrary Lane adjacent to ward four, containing approximately 19.92 acres.

This is one that we didn't hear a presentation on at the last meeting because the applicant before we even got to it recommended that we table it or leave it on the first or we haven't heard about yet.

So that's that's correct.

And that mayor, that's consistent for the next item as well.

It is the rezoning associated with this annexation.

They're requested both be tabled the staff presentation.

Uh so I will be offering that on Tuesday.

Um, and I don't have any updates other than that.

I don't have an indication of why the applicant requested it be tabled.

So I don't expect there to be a change as of today.

Oh, you you're I want to make sure I understood you're expecting that they will ask for an initial an additional table.

No, I was just yeah, I was repeating what you said.

I'm sorry if that was confused to me.

They did ask last meeting.

I was reiterating what you did.

There was no clarity to for staff on why they had made that request, though.

So I as of today, I'm not certain they're gonna propose any uh changes requests to either the annexation or the rezonance.

Okay, thank you.

Um related to that is before, which is the same property, and it is presuming that it if it were to be annexed, then this is the uh ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-32 for approximately 19.2 acres located on West Lyarley Lane in Ward 4 from RA, residential agricultural to NC neighborhood conservation.

Do you all have further questions about that?

Um item B5 is RZN 2025-27, West Mount Comfort Road.

This is an appeal of a planning commission denial.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-27 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 3070 West Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to NSG, neighborhood services general.

The only update I have on this one, Mayor, is that they are the app and is still contemplating possibly amending the requests that could look like an entirely different zoning district, or they could be brief for a bill of assurance that restricts the allowed uses under the existing requests, which is for neighborhood services general.

Well, that's all I have, Mayor.

Okay.

That brings us to new business.

Um we'll start with the aquatic center items, which we've already read.

Those will be on new business, and then that will lead us into what is listed here as C1, an R dot grant agreement for transit stop enhancements.

This is related to the why is this forgive me.

This resolution is on is there a reason why this one for transit stop enhancements is on uh new business and the other one for transit stop enhancements is on consent.

Because are they the same project?

No, they are not the same project policy.

Uh discrete from one another.

This is just uh acceptance of the grant funding that are uh abide for previously got okay.

A resolution to authorize an agreement of understanding with the Arkansas Department of Transportation for the Transit Stop Enhancements Project and to approve a budget adjustment recognizing 150,000 in federal aid funding.

Any reason we can't put this on consent in that yeah, wonderful.

Okay, great.

Hold on.

Thank you, Dane.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

Item C2, say secure firearm storage.

This is a resolution to encourage secure firearm storage and gun safety awareness for all residents.

And uh if you all will allow me, uh Chance in the clerk's office has been working with the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council and the Students Demand Action Club.

And they have a brief presentation they would like to give you on this item.

So as Mayor Roll said, I'm Chansey.

Um I'm a staff contract for the Youth Advisory Council.

Here tonight, we have Blight, who is the chair of the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council.

We have Harvard with students demand action.

We have um Lily, Mira, and Lucy here to uh present to you all.

Um this was recommended for approval by the youth council unanimously.

Um I'm really proud of all of them.

They have worked really hard on this, and they're gonna take it from there.

Yeah, thank you.

First of all, thank you all so much for being here for coming to listen to us.

We've been working on this for a very long time, and we hope that it's something that you guys um will favorably on.

I don't know.

Um, we have some information packets, we can just pass them down.

Um, I think we should have a National Assembly ball in the audience today.

So I'll take this.

So um, as they've said, we are the Fayetteville High School chapter of students demand action, um, which is a youth-led organization for um gun violence prevention and gun safety.

And this is our secure storage resolution.

So basically what we'll oh okay.

Sorry.

No, it's okay.

Um, we can yeah, go ahead and start with what is a secure or safe storage resolution.

So basically, it would hopefully send home information to families in Fayetteville, um, in the Fayetteville Public School District, or just in the city in general, and just information on how to store firearms in a way that is secure that won't end up in the wrong hands.

Um, and so yeah, and so it's a very much a knowledge-based thing.

It's not forcing anything upon anybody, it's just to spread awareness and hopefully improve general city safety.

And so these are just a few reasons why we believe this is something that should be kind of considered an urgent matter.

Um first is that from the past decade or so gun deaths among children uh increased over 100%, and that Arkansas is ranked towards the very bottom of the country in terms of gun loss strength.

Um, also that firearms have become the leading cause of death for children and teens.

And 80% of underage shooters obtain those firearms from their home or that of someone they know.

And so we believe that implementing resolutions like this help prevent just a few more of those accidents from occurring, and would really help kind of bring a general sense of safety in terms of how to store those firearms and how to make that just a little safer.

So um secure storage um would reduce gun injuries and death, um, prevent guns from being stolen or um diverted into illegal markets.

Um and like most importantly, it would decrease risk for suicide and um harming of other people or themselves among young people, because like we said before, um 80% of um gun violence um in youth is acquired by the firearmers acquired um a family member or within their own home.

Um so like we believe that this is kind of a very like a compromise and a nonpartisan aspect and kind of angle.

Um, you know, this isn't a restriction on people's firearms, um, it's just information on how people can properly and appropriately store their own firearm um as to protect their children and their own lives.

So here's just um a few more statistics about why a safe storage resolution is the effective.

Um a lot of other states have passed um laws known as CAP laws or child access prevention laws, um, which works to a safe storage resolution where they essentially just require guns to be safely stored.

Um our resolution would just be suggesting it and providing information on how you can um safely store your firearms.

Um, but in states with cap laws, um, as you can see, there are 13% less firearm fatalities and youth, um, 15% less firearm-related homicides, and 31% less um firearms suicide and accidental death rates.

So this is just a quick look at where else um in the country has had these safe storage resolutions passed either through their school board or through their city council.

So if any of you guys want to take a look at that real quick, we can um leave that up, or we'll also zooming in on some places on the next slide.

Okay, that's so if we take a look at these cities, these are comparable city to cities to ours, like in the south slash like midwestern, I guess, if that's what you consider it.

Um, and these um cities have both adopted these resolutions in 2022, and um, these are some statistics that um are associated with that.

So Little Rock sent home these letters um both in English and Spanish.

Um they, you know, was they were able to do this with no financial impact.

Um, and they included in this information, safe storage information in their school district's um student handbook.

Um, and this was this was also an initiative in Little Rock that was influenced by moms demand action and students demand action, and that was comparable comparable information in Kansas City as well.

So thank you so much again.

This is basically the gist of it.

Um, as you can see, we have some four different, I think, research um packets or articles that we distributed.

Um, and then the last couple sheets is just an overview of facts from various sources as to why we think that this would be effective and a great, again, just nonpartisan, helpful safety improving um tool for our community and like maybe a stepping board for other initiatives.

And so what we really want from this and from the city council is hopefully just to make secure storage a city priority because especially, you know, with suicide prevention and all of those other things, we truly believe it would be an essential part of that because you know, it's getting to the root cause, it's increasing information.

Um it coincides with like mental health awareness and and other initiatives that um Fayetteville has deemed important and Babel has uh sought to um you know spread awareness too.

So this is just another aspect of that.

Um it's uh it's a tragedy, unfortunately.

It's a health crisis that affects um the youth in our country, and you know, this isn't us trying to impose any kind of restrictions or um you know overstep any boundaries, but just starting with this fundamental education and information.

Um you know, if it could save one life, then we'd be doing our job.

And um, you know, a lot of people who who don't secure their own firearms safely, it's not coming out of being malicious or or willingly ignorant, it just people don't generally know, you know.

So that's what we're aiming to do.

Yeah, and hopefully, again, it wouldn't have a any really financial impact whatsoever.

This could all be done digitally um through the website or social media or other kinds of campaigns like that.

Um, there are also like um students demand action or every town provides um free gun locks that can be distributed or something like that.

So there are lots of very good free informative resources that are available.

Any questions?

Thank you all so much.

Do you have anything from the East Council that you want to ask?

Um not much.

I mean, they did a beautiful job presenting, obviously.

Uh we all were thought it was a great idea.

And I mean, as students in really anywhere in the country, there's a lot of fear around gun violence, and this is such a great way to um approach it.

And I'm just I've been so impressed by them, and obviously it was a unanimous vote.

All of us agreed to support this.

So thank you so much.

Do we have questions?

Have you um talked to the school board or the superintendent about about this?

Yeah, so we initially started, we were trying to go to the superintendent um because we have to speak with him and a couple other of the staff members first to go to the school board.

Um, but they wanted us to come back with more research.

Um, however, there wasn't a lot of research specifically about safe storage resolutions at the time.

Most of it was like um and some of the research that we handed you basically says whenever letters are sent home, there's a proven impact on um students' education.

So if you send a letter home that's saying um that's talking about your students' education education, um, there's research that proves those letters make an impact.

Um, and we also I talked about the CAP laws um and also some other schools that have been been implementing um safe storage resolutions, um, but they wanted more um research.

So we have now yes, also I mean, we do like while this is something that is very important for students, it can it affects everyone really.

Like, you know, there was the Washington County Fair shooting um a few years ago that was really just a community impact.

It wasn't only affecting the school board.

So really I think that this would be a good initiative for the city because you know, there are people in like Huss Hall or the new school or like other like that, or even at the university.

So, like just to have a wider umbrella, I think would have a greater impact, and that would be really effective.

Well, do we have other questions?

I guess if I really appreciate you bringing it forward, I really appreciate that you talked about this being real low barrier that this isn't a lot of you know cost involved and also getting to the root cause.

But then if you could bring that forward, so I think we try a lot of things that um become kind of really burdensome and are costly too um trying to tackle this.

And so thank you for bringing towards something that again is like very easy to implement, just creating education awareness.

Um I'd like to buffer up and curious about my colleagues.

Digital is great, but I also think exposure is important.

So these are people's hands that involve out, you know, in their folders, et cetera, or seeing you know, pamphlets, et cetera.

And so I'd love to explore what opportunities we have in the city to make sure that we really get materials out.

Um, so people are aware, and especially to connect them to that resource because we have parts of our population that can't afford a gun lock potentially.

And so trying to get them connected to to the resource that gets them gun lots for free and things like that.

So thank you for having support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

But question is this resolution.

Are we wanting them to present it council?

Then wanting to present.

So what we what we talked with them about doing, we wanted them to get the chance to present.

And because it was a resolution, we asked them present the to present this evening so that they, you know, maybe could have avoid a three four plus hour council meeting and not present twice.

But it is it is certainly up to you all.

And we anticipated it being put on consent, which is why we asked them to present this evening.

Um, but they both understood that the vote would be next week.

Yes, yes.

Um we, you know, I think we're all um willing and enthusiastic to come present again.

Um this is an issue that is very important to us.

And we've obviously been working on this for so long and you know, finally seeing it through.

So we're we're completely committed to uh they will do whatever's asked to them.

They've been very excited and they've been working on this since January.

So actually actually since sophomore year.

Yeah, yes.

Yeah, um, but they knew it might be an opportunity to just present this week and then also come and witness the vote next week, but not have to do the either way.

I mean they've done a great job, and and I think everybody's on board with it.

I think I mean if they just witness the vote, I think that's sufficient.

I mean, at least my keeps them from having to sit there for three or four five hours.

It's gonna be a late late and you know, we we're open to any feedback changes or um anything that you guys might deem appropriate to add or um subtract from it.

We really wanna work with the city council and everyone here um to get this effort moving forward.

So thank you all so much.

Thank you, Champion.

Yeah, I think that's how we just I think that's what we decided, but I wanna make sure the downside is we don't get one exposure out there to even just read it for the vote.

That's the only having to be but let's talk about how we can do that and what other stuff I mean.

Um, C three.

This is a big one.

Resolution of intent to call for an to call for an infrastructure bond election, a resolution of intention to call an election and request that pay it the voters approved will of the front sales and use 1% tax for financing a capital project seeded by our both focus.

Um I one thing I I wanna add mayor and um Stephen and I are both and Ether, we're several of us are here and can talk about this.

I wanna just re-explain why we are asking for a resolution of intent and what it does and what it doesn't do.

Um this is not the um when we are finalizing what a ballot what the ballot leads actually look like.

That is an ordinance, and that is when you have ordinance language and it goes through three readings and it is binding and it becomes official.

That is not what this is.

This is simply a resolution of intent that allows us as staff to see are we all generally in the same direction?

Do we intend to move forward and continue to do the work required to get this bond on the on the ballot?

And so I wanted to just make sure because I know residents don't always know when they see resolution of intent to call for an election.

I want to make it clear that that doesn't mean that it is all said and done.

There is a vote then for the ordinance to actually put it on the ballot, and that is at a later date.

Um I wanted to just state that for the record and for anybody that might be watching it home or and not and not be clear on that.

And so I think it's good.

I guess it is a resolution.

I think it is good though that it remains on new business rather than our consent because that allows members of the public to speak about it and us to think the goal is to have more opportunities.

We're really working to have more opportunities to have this in front of you and also in front of the public.

I do have questions and wanted to put out considerations.

And so if this is the appropriate time, I have had you know resident feedback and have gone.

I know in our initial conversation where we went over it came up in discussion about housing and the possibility, possibility of including that.

And I appreciate thank you, um, Kit's office and CUTAC who have done uh some initial um feedback that I saw that we got late today.

So you may not have been able to digest it.

I'm fairly divested it, but I do appreciate it.

Then it's printed.

Yeah, and I should say if you don't have a printed copy.

I don't know.

Oh, okay.

This should be well, we can get you one of them.

That's but uh what I wanted to check to see was um to understand uh what considerations in the event that we um to further clarify if we wanted to look at the inclusion uh the possibility that we you know how to fund that we'd be able to do city-owned housing towards you know income resident.

Um and then uh a secondary question totally offside of housing was um I was asked, um they understood that we were looking at just doing the one cent, and we've been able with revenue to be able to pay those back more quickly.

But there was a question about the impact that would be made and whether or not we might consider anybody might have three orders um instead of a whole cent to do a slight reduction, and so that would be a slower payback, I guess.

And so I just didn't know that makes sense.

Just reduce it by I think it's a whole continuous saying, and I got an email about that too.

Your question was about reducing instead of a continuation of the one cent reducing it to three quarter cent or to a half cent, right?

Keeping the bond amount the same, and could we still pay it back?

Thank you.

You yes, yeah.

That's the two counting and then the potential one like what in tax.

So what consideration should we be making if that's something that we wanted to potentially look at?

Well, I think uh moving out to the voters for a one cent tax to basically run sales tax bonds.

So you're talking about something entirely different.

If you're talking about reducing that to three quarters of a cent.

And I think that's the the question that we have gotten is is to figure out the um, you know, she has a bit so we got the the emails that we got from the residents were you know, can you if you reduce it, can you still have the bond amount the same and and pay it off?

So that's the first question.

But the let's take them in order because the first question was about housing.

And I apologize for misleading everyone.

This printed thing that you have has nothing to do with that.

So um, but so if you haven't checked your inboxes in a little bit, um Kitten did send out something later about the legality of including housing that I know you can speak to.

And basically uh you can uh do that, it is remains to be owned by the city, and of course it doesn't have any money for operations, and if you had a public housing development that you were wanting to sponsor, then there might be operational costs on that.

I I just uh you I let the uh our finance people talk about it reduced the amount, but what I was planning on doing is uh without reducing it is uh doing an extension of the current uh sales tax uh, which is a slightly different way than beginning a new one.

And that's what we did last time.

We just extended the one that we had, and so there was no break in that's how we were able to fund a lot of stuff.

Obviously, if you take away a quarter of the uh amount of money going in, then we have to add flash of it when you project screen.

Is this already uh what is the how many years is this schedule for?

So your question is is off early, though.

I believe less than we had a smaller amount last time, but what what was the number of years that we were planning on having this new bond?

This is a 20-year bond.

20 years, so you can see that uh you would have to send it out dramatically, and and at that point you also be getting uh so your question is is we changed what our revenue projections are because you're saying that you we're paying it off early.

Correct.

And I know we had kind of unusual conditions where we were having pretty strong weather, and I don't know that we're gonna maybe have that same outlook.

I don't know, but we have been looking to pay the the current bond off early.

So the question had just been posed.

Have we considered it taking us a little bit longer and being able to slightly more do this?

The one the one set.

That's all that's all and still being within the payback that we would need.

And I just and I don't know based on what your projections are, and I have no idea.

We haven't we haven't considered that, and really, you know, to kids point here.

If you're talking about reducing the amount of money that we're collecting to pay off these bonds, you're talking about either a lesser amount or extending the time frame out significantly.

So that's not something we've considered.

I think people are pretty comfortable with the one set sales tax.

That's what you're you you nail it.

That's what you would do in that scenario is you it would be increasing the revenue.

That's what I'm gonna say.

Just adding to that, I think this is Steve and I is together in the mayor's first full year when we went through our CIP discussions and how many projects that we've had to cut and there were hard decisions on how to cut when you go through this bond discussion, how many projects that we had to cut that were good projects.

A lot of these projects have been we were either part of a master plan or things that we've been talking about for eight or ten years.

Um so then you look at uh going through our operations budget, how tight that is, and we're trying to get in the Mary's direction is we're trying to get to a balanced budget as soon as possible, you know.

Um these are tough budget decisions.

So if you look at decreasing our revenue with the amount of needs that we've seen that we've already had to cut um before this, it just seems like it would we only have so many revenue sources in that one cent does support a lot of things.

One thing that I and I'm I'm genuinely asking here because I I want to make sure I understand my understanding is that the law is that it is that it is one cent.

And so changing that is a separate election entirely, is my understanding.

Is that correct?

Yeah, we would not be extending it like we did last time.

Instead, we'd be this one would be ending and we're putting in a new one at three quarters.

Right.

So it would be an extra wrong question too.

So it'd be confusing as far as that goes.

I mean, my understanding is it would be an entire different election to a set to a to have a three quarter cent sales tax is my understanding, but I want it as the has to be a new election, and you'd have to decide are you gonna try to extend it out for a way long time, or are you gonna remove a quarter of all the uh projects that that that is in it now?

I heard the two-part questions.

So on housing, I'd rather not own housing.

If we're gonna go that route, I'd rather assist the payable housing authority and let them own.

And if we were to go down that road, I'd rather make investments with them or matching rants with winds.

The other one on the reducing plus Arkansas is a sales tax state.

There's so much that we fund by sales tax.

I would be uncomfortable lowering the amount because 20 years from now, 18 years from now, that city council will then be bound by our decision.

And they may very well say, gee, we wish that we were continuing that one cent because if you want housing, you want infrastructure, you want all those things that go with it.

So I'm personally would really prefer to see us just continue the one set by set.

And if my member is correct, correct one in the first question on the the ballot that you want to extend the one percent.

So well, yeah, first question has to be answered.

We have to redeem all or pay off all the current bonds that we have in order to be able to issue a new uh serial on an end of the 1%.

Right, right.

So we've changed the whole without index of the one of the big issues I think that we're facing is that we have substantial required costs for wastewater.

Uh it's not really an option.

It's not like uh some of these are options, but the wastewater improvement is not much of an option.

It's the largest amount of money in this whole thing, so that it has to remain basically unless you want to raise sewer rates very, very dramatically, which is the other way you can finance it.

And in fact, the first time we had this new capital penny was when we were back in the 80 late 90s, and then finally into early 2000s, we're facing having to build a second wastewater plant in the West.

And also new listations and also the upgrade the uh Nolan plant, and that was going to cost supply about 175 million dollars.

But that's when the uh issue was first presented to the citizens, and they chose to finance it with capital sales tax as opposed to having people's sewer rates go up 30, 40 percent or whatever they would have had to do.

A very dramatic increase.

And so that's how it first came about, because every now and then you hit these major costs.

If you don't do it with sales tax, then you're gonna have to pay for the sewer rates.

The other reason I support this because that's okay.

That's all it is.

And again, you know, rates by rate peers is free of deal in our water district, our sewer district.

But I like the bond, which which I don't generally like, but I like it for Arkansas because our daytime population, you know, is 200,000 people instead of 100,000.

So if you're driving on our roads and you're flushing your toilet while you're at work and pay it bill, you should be contributing towards the infrastructure that we use to work here, even if you don't live here.

So I'm all in favor of capturing that fair share contribution from visitors on the bill or work pay a bill.

That's my watch.

We need to support any um bond measures for infrastructure.

And thank you, Kara and Courtney Bird Crane.

I think our water routes are gonna go up.

Uh and so we don't want our sewer rates to go up at the same time because we're gonna have to pay for the increase of water charge by being for water industry.

So if we don't, if we don't take this bond, then the sewer rates will grow up dramatically because we've gotta refinance or we've got to re-repair the doll plan and upgrade that.

So we have to do that.

Um I got the same emails I think you all did too.

And so it was really intriguing to kind of think about it.

But um, I'm not sure we can afford uh reducing that very much because this is the only mechanism we really have to fund large projects or large repairs.

Uh a second comment or question is really about the housing.

So if we were able to fund housing and the city purchased it, would there be the opportunity or the legal legally availability to transfer that over to Fayetteville Housing Authority in terms of them operating it?

How would that I think that uh we would be allowed to have them operate, we would have to maintain ownership until the bonds are all paid off.

Okay, according to what Gordon has said our council that one thing that I would like to weigh in on just so that you understand what the administration said, not to shut down questions, but so that you understand what the discussions that we have had.

Um which thank you, Kara, for passing out.

This is the right one this time, talks about the legality of housing in a bond.

We as a staff are the reason that we didn't include it in this bond directly in the way you all are talking about, isn't because we were concerned about the legality of it, it's because that's not the tool that we felt was best to use this time for housing.

So I just want to make sure that that we weren't we it's not as if we were sitting here going there's a legal hurdle to including it.

Let's figure out how to get over that.

We felt that the other things that we were doing, which I have you know, not to sound like a broken record, um, the things that we are just starting with more to come have an impact on have a positive impact on housing.

We also feel that the items in this bond, specifically the transportation and the water and sewer set the stage for more housing expansion, particularly in those areas.

Um, and then the fire the additional fire department too.

And so um we believe that this I get it that this bond doesn't build a home or build shelter.

This bond sets the stage for us to be able to do more of that.

And we think the other initiatives that we're doing, which you all have been so supportive of, like the housing authority and the things that we're gonna continue to do, do that better and more effectively and faster than then we could in the bond.

And I mean to that because building a quadrant similar at that rate at that amount, I think we should also be looking at options for housing.

I just think we the bond is there, we're talking about it, and I agree with you.

Everything that make it to the table, some things got cut out, and that's fine.

But what we have in front of us is we're asking our city and our members' house city to give continuously give this one percent tax for a bond issues that you said can last more than 20 years, and in that 20 years, we're saying we're not gonna invest right now in this bond in housing.

I I'm just this is money talking.

Reading this, there's some opportunities that we could do in housing, and I think we just need to visit.

I think we need to revisit what we can do, how it can happen, and I agree with you.

There's some operational that we don't need to get involved with, but I see us give a lot of funding to individuals that don't bring back key performance indicators.

They're not telling us that they're having goals and objectives, but I think this is our way of controlling if it's actually happening.

What is the return we're getting on our investment?

But right now, I've seen I see things going out and I see things going out and I see things going out, but no one's coming back to us and say we're able to uh house more, we're able to do this more.

They're not there's no reporting back.

And I think if we own something that we give away to somebody else that's managing, has a responsibility of telling us how this is helping our housing market.

I can tell you right now, I went to an event at the um for the veterans, and two of the veteran housing have now been bought out, and they're they're in this doubling.

What are we doing as a city to protect our seniors, our veterans and our most vulnerable community members that are being pushed out of their housing?

And we can't say I'm giving you a quiet pool.

That's not I'm done.

I would have done that.

And I want to acknowledge there are a lot of things since you've come in that that are happening.

Yeah, we did declare a housing crisis.

And so I see these as all different vehicles.

You know, our RFP is gonna open up things, right?

Or exactly what exactly what Minister Jones is talking about, city owned land to be able to say to someone, you know, work with us.

Here is this land.

What can you build in terms of affordable housing?

And that is already out the door, and that can happen quicker than a bond that would one, we would have to prepare and design a question around, which we do not have the time to do by March.

It would then have to go to the ballot, and then we couldn't even begin to draw on it till September as a program to which we have already started and launched now that can move questions.

So I don't understand I don't disagree that housing is a priority.

I disagree that putting it in the bond is the only way for us to demonstrate that it is a priority.

I didn't uh finish.

So what I was trying to say is I just think it's part of a portfolio.

I think that there's a myriad of things, right?

That are all gonna potentially take time.

It's like death by a thousand cuts and it's added by many in a multitude.

And so the opportunity that I see that this presents, like as we look at public facilities boards and other avenues that we're gonna keep looking at, those are revenue bonds.

We have to figure out what the revenue is for those.

And so there are a lot of things, you know.

Hope hopefully that becomes a housing trust fund or something.

We have to set up the rules that's gonna take time, and it's a runway of a different timeline to head down.

But this bond in particular, I'm not um fearful of the city potentially owning housing.

In fact, I think that we are gonna have to get creative and being some days that make us a bit uncomfortable because we're staring at um a lot of headwinds when we look at in particular, there are a number of historically affordable properties that are losing their federal protections, and those are gonna go to market.

And it doesn't matter how much we put into our infrastructure for the market rate stuff that's gonna come on, our historical stuff is gonna get gobbled up and try to be built into purposeful student housing, et cetera.

And so the thought is that this gives us one more avenue mechanism.

Either it helps to establish a housing trust fund, it becomes a talking point because we don't have to dial it in exactly right this moment.

That's part of trying to be in discussion with everyone about what are the things that we think are still gonna be a gap, even with all of those other things that we have as an avenue.

I still think, you know, we're we have the potential of these losing very quickly over the next several years, several hundred units of historically affordable housing that I think that the city of Gable potentially with this bond has an avenue to pursue.

Um, and so or other other or other projects.

And so that's why I wanted to bring that forward to discuss it as um, you know, I've you know gotten the privilege of getting to be in these different conversations that are happening about these other mechanisms.

They also too just have um you know certain lead times and certain structures that have to be put in place.

And so it's just trying to think about how we can be added, thinking about protecting certain stock in certain ways, creating additional stock in certain ways.

And so it's just gonna be complimentary.

Um I honestly am asked by a lot of residents since we've announced our bond and by individuals that we all interact with every day that are you know a part of these types of discussions, they have said, you know, what about housing in this bond?

And so I wanted to bring that forward for us to discuss.

And, you know, that could be something the voters decide.

You know, if we put it into the package, they don't have to click the box on it.

If they like counseling member whatever and they don't want the city to own housing, they can say no.

But to give the option for residents that do want to say yes.

And I just want to speak quickly to the development piece.

Um, I've also gotten feedback from community members to say that the land that we're offering at a reduced price is going to be only available to someone that has a lot of capital unless there's incentives offered on the end, it's gonna be difficult for them to develop in those areas.

And I think it was another um opportunity that he said there's gonna have to be much negotiation with the city, and I'm not sure we're in a position that we can negotiate something that we've already um reduced because we're talking about developers wanting to build affordable housing.

That means they're not gonna make a whole lot of money on this, therefore they're gonna have to invest a lot of money.

And so what you'll find is the smaller developers are not gonna go after this.

They're they can't afford to, they don't have a capital to.

And so what you'll find is other larger developers to go after it, get the land, and then flip it, and it's not gonna be affordable house, unless we have, which I've been talking about is unless we have some type of locked zoning um to say that if you develop this, this has to include a portional, a portion of affordable housing, then a larger developer is gonna buy it and they're gonna develop it, and it's not gonna be affordable housing.

Then we wouldn't sell to them.

They're required for it to be not a portion, it's all affordable house, not a portion of it.

And and then we will see what the response is.

What we have heard, the initial feedback is that there are small developers that are interested in it.

But if we don't have developers that come forward or organizations that come forward and are able to show us that they're putting a truly affordable housing on it, then we don't move work.

So I have a couple follow-up questions on that.

So within the agreement that we would have with the developer, would it be like a 20 year or 30 year agreement or in perpetuity that they would have to provide affordable housing or this affordability bracket?

So I want to switch back to, I mean, I I don't want to dodge that question.

That's a very good question.

And I want to propose that maybe we add to a future agenda the the the point the point person on that project is not it's not here, and I don't want to mess it up, and I don't want to confuse the public over what this item C3 is.

But yeah.

So I'll go back to C3 more directly.

Um, so in this resolution of intent, which I'm sorry, I haven't read the I haven't read it yet, but I will.

Um what if we pass uh we've logged into only those items that we've been talking about, for example, would we not be able to add something about the housing if we chose to do so within that interrupt time?

Because I know you're not voting to um go to the bond elections, but this is the intent you're trying to you're trying to make sure the city council is interested in this.

You can you can amend it at that night.

I mean, this resolution is your resolution from the city council, it's been sponsored by the administration.

We're gonna do reflect their recommendations to you, but uh it can be amended before it's passed too if there are if the city council wants to do that.

So it can be amended, obviously with the resolution of intent, but when we if we pass this and then there's more discussion and there's more items that we would like included in the bond, can we amend it at that time too?

Well, we plan to draft the bond ordinance from the approval of the city council because we will be asked to approve the bond ordinance, and so that's why it's being presented to you early, so you can see what is being recommended and see if whether or not that is meets your approval.

Okay, yeah, if that's something I'd appreciate if you'd reach out to me and we can talk about that prior to the meeting because we've spent many, many hours and a lot of this, as I mentioned, it's this coming from master plans or feasibility study that we spent over a year on that the voters, you know, people in the community have asked for these things, and that's what we feel like this bond proposal that we're bringing to you is indicative of what the community's asked.

So if there's something that's I don't know if you and I have talked about Collins Park, so that's one thing that we've been talking offline about that, and hopefully continue those conversations.

But if there's something that you're interested in, give us a heads up to talk about that before the meeting because we really feel that this bond project sets us up to support housing.

If you look at the report that came out, the skyline report, one of the things they specifically said today is communities in North East Arkansas housing is gonna be constricted or restricted by infrastructure.

So that's why this bond is so heavy on infrastructure, so we can support housing.

And I think Fayevill's in one of the better places in Northwest Arkansas from other communities, but if we don't have the water and we don't have a sewer, we're not gonna be able to support housing.

And this has a it goes a long ways uh to support support that I don't think that's the um the objection.

I think we're we're not talking about not supporting housing or sewer.

That's that's that's an everybody agrees to that.

I think it's the other stuff that we're saying we're gonna put in this bond that we don't want to be bound to, knowing that we haven't had the further discussion.

I want to make sure we're having a discussion with all the the facts too, and so we'll be prepared.

I know we're gonna talk about it more.

I'm assuming based on this, we're leaving it on new business.

So I know we'll just talk more about it next week, but I want to make sure that you all understand that it that my understanding is correct.

So I want Steven from the your backup to tell me if I'm mistaken, and then also I want to make sure the council understands that if we like said, okay, let's put housing in the bond, it you know, we can't just have a sentence that says let's put housing in the bond.

You know, we can't just have a sentence that says, let's put housing in the bond.

We have to have, I mean, the for example, take the sewer, and I know you're not putting them against each other.

That's not what I'm saying, but there is a master plan, there is a study, there has been years of planning for that, and we have adequate cost assessments.

I mean, we spent all summer figuring out like, is it 120 million?

Is it 110?

What it was going to cost.

And so I think the reality of the conversation is if you all don't, if you all want to add a housing item to the next bond, I don't think you have a bond initiative in 2026 because you've got to work to then figure out what does that look like?

Where is it?

How much money, what study do you have to back it up?

Because, you know, I can't, I can't say to the public, like, give me money for housing and then trust me.

We have to have a plan with it.

And I don't know how we I don't want to sound like I'm holding it.

I'm not, I know we've talked about that being really clear that that's not what we're doing, but I don't know a pathway forward to be able to meet the timeline that I understood that we all wanted to be on to go out and spread.

So I want us to just be honest with each other about that, about the pro and the con if we want to change what's in there.

Thank you.

Because that lens in my next comment is if we're gonna spend money for CDI to look at contracts, pre-contracts for the aquatic center.

If we're gonna be spending money back, stolen associates.

Why aren't we looking for individuals to go out and give us information about housing?

We are let me finish.

You said we don't have that.

They don't have it either.

But guess what?

We're putting it in for the product center.

They're going out and getting funding to in order to pay someone to come back and tell us what operational costs, with design costs, same exact thing.

Why aren't we then triggering or making a right or left to say maybe we need to also be going out and looking for bids to talk about this as well?

And it should be off the table because they don't have it either.

Right.

And we are we I wanna I want to answer that because we are doing exactly that at housing, but we didn't just decide, hey, call crafting and toll.

We went through an aquatics fees with that example specifically, an aquatics feasibility study that was in the works for well over a year.

Um, we then went and developed, got a committee together to develop an RFP and went back for months to figure out what is this RFP and RFQ gonna say.

We then put that out, we then collected bids.

And so even saying, let's go out tomorrow and study housing and do what we're doing, like with Crafting and Toll with the CMAR or with the um architectural services, that's a year away.

And so I'm not saying we can't do that.

I'm saying it's not like I can do that and then bring that at the next meeting.

And what I'm saying is we have a housing task force setting that for the youth.

I'm let you finish, let me finish.

I'm just saying we should be, we should have something to start with.

There is not a point A that we should be starting at with housing.

We just we just took up our community's time for a full year.

What came out of that?

And how are we not getting a return on investment or passing people to spend their time for a year and you're saying we can have nothing?

I beg to differ that something can't be developed that we can go ahead and contract out and say what can we do differently to continue to move this needle forward.

And I don't think it takes five years, I don't think it takes 10 years.

People do what they want to do when they want to do it.

I would like to address the notion that we don't have anything to show for the housing task force.

So as you all know, I was not a part of that before January.

And so I'm not gonna spend time speaking to what did or didn't happen in previous administration.

I can tell you that we have seen things happen because of the housing crisis task force.

We had a presentation on it, and it resulted in us getting and securing funding for the first ever chief housing officer, a complete overhaul of that department, a complete overhaul in the way we look at C D C D VG funds based on conversations that you and I had, Minister Jones, a complete different approach to how we look at outside agency funding because you are exactly right.

Those organizations that provide direct human service to that we were just that we were giving money to and not requiring things to come back, we do that differently now, and we do require things to come back.

Um we are broadening who we contract with, so now it's no longer just one provider.

It's the provider that we put forward in the um 450,000 that we developed franchise fees for.

I mean, we've had these discussions, and so I just want to be I I hear you, but where I where I want to just say it, and then I won't say anything else that I feel on behalf of my team.

I see how hard they are working day in and day out to change the conversation around housing.

I see how hard they are trying to do things differently and to really make a meaningful impact.

And so I just want to make sure that I'm standing up for them when I'm saying when I am saying that it is not fair to them to say that nothing has come out of that.

Nobody said that.

Let me be very clear.

I never said that.

I'm talking about getting professional services, the um pay to do the work in order to establish goals and objectives to move forward.

I'm looking about professional services.

I let me be very clear and to the staff.

I've never said, and we'll not indicate that our staff is not doing anything.

That's not what's on the tape.

That is not what I was asking for.

But I'm specifically asking for professional services dedicated to looking at long-term planning around housing.

I'm not asking about housing management.

Yeah, I'm talking about dedicated services that talk about operational costs, long-term sustainability plans.

I'm talking about stuff like that.

I'm not talking about anything that this set has or has not done correctly incorrect.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I would prefer.

Well, I don't necessarily want this bond, this city to own the housing.

I would be interested in this having education on the public facilities board.

Which is specifically created under state law or rural Arkansas originally for hospitals and housing and is still able to do housing in bond for the construction of housing for low-income residents.

Because to be honest, maybe we haven't that board hasn't been active in so long it was active previously.

And I think it would be helping for us to revisit it.

It's a legal bonding entity that can construct housing for low-income individuals.

To me, that's the tool, the resource.

And it's just my bias and my personal reference.

I like the Fayetteville Housing Authority, I like the public facilities board.

And those are the two entities, the two courses I would prefer to ride.

They're completely separate, I believe, as far as the bond schedule as well.

They're bonds, they can run without us.

Um and so I think that's something I would at least want to get better educated on if we could mayor.

Thank you.

That would help me out personally.

Sorry, and I'm happy to at some point skip if the rest of the council would like that to have them come and do a presentation at an agenda session at some point.

We've just begun working with that group again.

And it's been there's some good people on that board.

Yeah.

I don't want to shut questions down.

So I'm gonna move on to the next one, but I don't want to be a lively discussion.

I'm moving on to the next one.

Okay.

Um flexible marina operations and lake access fee modifications for Lake Fayetteville, Sequoia, and Wilson.

It's an ordinance to modify the fee structure for lake use and access and allow for more flexible marina operations by section 97.070 recreational activities at Lake Fayetteville, Sequoia and Lake Wilson of the Fayetteville City Coat.

I guess we'll hear more about it.

You will, but we can also hear more about it now if you would like.

I leave that.

I defer to you all.

Lee and Lee and or Allison are happy to speak to it this evening.

Mayor.

Um, in summary, the uh ordinance amendments will essentially change the language to allow the marina office to have more flexible hours.

Um based on public demand and weather conditions.

The current ordinance stipulates that the marina, including the marina office, um be open to the public from sunrise to sunset for 48 weeks of the year, and that's just not a very sustainable model.

Um additional changes to this ordinance amendment include removing the fee structure from ordinance.

Um I will mention that we are not recommending any increases to fee structures, but instead um gaining some efficiencies with the future adjustments to be handled administratively, and lastly, transitioning those daily permits to like access fees.

And by doing that, we gain efficiencies with partnership with Arkansas Game and Fish to tap into many of their programs, specifically their community fishing program, which allows them to come and stalk Lake Fayetteville currently because we charge for fishing permits.

We do not qualify for that community fishing program and are not able to benefit from that um stalking program.

We need to change that.

Proposal for the new hours.

Um proposal for the new hours is very flexible.

We are looking to do uh kind of a peak season hours.

Um, because right now, like I mentioned, it is sunrise to sunset.

So that this is a contracted um marina office.

Um by ordinance, the contractor is stipulated to be there from sunrise to sunset, and many days out of the winter months, there's nobody there until 10 a.m.

or later.

So we're proposing for peak hours to be, I believe 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

Um non-peak hours, which essentially is like February, um November through February to be more traditional, 10 a.m., maybe 11 a.m.

to four or five p.m.

Um, but notification for that will be announced through the website.

We'll have signage at the facility, and we'll send out through our distribution list to let our constituents know.

But just the city on the building that the that's house to include.

That's correct.

We just contract out the um marina operation, which has some concession sales, so they're selling bait tackle concessionary items.

They do some boat rentals and bike rentals as well, and they also collect these fees that are included in the um current ordinance.

And you say we do collect lake access fees now.

We have many fees um included in the current ordinance.

They're everything from daily to annual fishing boating permits.

There's different fees for seniors, youth, general uh um adults.

The goal with this is to streamline that, um, make the fee structure a lot more simplified, help the public just understand what the fee is.

So um not anticipating any fee changes or fee increases, it's just changing more to a lake access fee.

Then we'll get some more fish, maybe.

So hopefully, yeah, we've already been in contact with Game and Fish, and um, they completely support this and have give us verbal commitment to include us in this probe in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have any additional questions from anyone for staff.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh on to our next item, which is C5 C5, unless the agenda's been changed.

Okay.

C5, rezone of uh 8538 with South Connors Avenue.

Jonathan, you have that, is that correct?

Yes, Mayor.

If council would like, I can uh go through the details tonight, or I can do the full presentation on Tuesday.

Well, the desires of the county station presentation tonight, or for that full deal on Tuesday.

Let's get the preview.

Yeah, okay.

I'll I'll keep it brief.

Five cent tour.

I'll do a best.

This is just southeast of downtown.

It's about midway between Huntsville to the north and fourth street to the south.

It's a through lot, meaning it touches uh two different streets on two different sides.

House fronts uh combs to the west, but it backs up to Willow on the east.

The request is to rezone it from uh NC neighborhood conservation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff is recommending in favor.

The council or the excuse me, the commission forwarded it to you all unanimously.

And to date we've received one piece of public comment, which was in favor of the request.

Um could you try your best?

And I know this will be hard, but the how the maximum vaccine will change, especially because it's a through lot creates some opportunities and also some other interesting things.

Okay, I will do that.

Thank you for the advanced notice.

And and is that um the lot uh that was used on the program neighborhood, or was it an adjacent to that that had urban neighborhood and soops?

Yeah, if it's if we're thinking about the same piece of property, two are recently rezoned to urban neighborhood and they were further north.

Uh, one was south of the Yvonne Richardson Center, and the other one was immediately southeast of that fronting on the willow.

Thank you.

So a few blocks to the north.

Thank you.

Is that correct?

Okay.

And I'm going to read C6.

A rezoning 2025-37 on West Hughes Street, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025 37 for approximately 0.29 acres, located at 902 and 908, nine and 908 West Hughes Street in Ward 2 from RMF 40 residential multifamily 40 units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan, do you want to tell us a little bit about this one, please?

Happy to.

This is several blocks north of the main university of Arkansas campus, uh, certainly closer to North Street.

It's about a block south of that at the northwest corner of Hughes and store.

Uh was the location of a house formerly, which was uh since been demolished.

As Mayor noted, the request is to rezone it from the existing RMF 40 residential multifamily 40 units per acre designation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh, we've seen that happen uh many times in this area, where instead of building larger multifamily buildings, uh the intent has been to build townhouses or something a little bit more scaled to the single family in the neighborhood.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request and the planning commission forwarded it to you all unanimously.

And to date, I don't believe we've had any public comment on this item.

And then what's the difference between this?

How many stores you can be in a building your RMF 40 versus your RIU?

Good question.

RMF 40 allows five-story buildings, RIU allows up to three.

Uh immediately adjacent to the street, though, it only allows up to two stories.

So it's it's intended to be a stair step back to try to better fit into areas of lower slung buildings.

Thank you.

And Jonathan, right to the north of this property, isn't that zone that we rezoned recently and is under construction?

Uh believe for like a dentist, correct.

Yes, yep.

And what did we rezone that to I don't believe that property was rezoned?

I think there was a vacation request that the council can do because yeah, Oakland Avenue was plowed to run all the way to North Street despite it hitting like a 30 or 40% slope, but now I'm feeling self-doubt.

So I'll I'll confirm that.

I'll confirm that what the video I think it was a vacation, but there's a lot of activity going on right there.

So it just made me think about that.

I was just gonna be surprised that it would remain in RMF 40.

So that that's the other kind of thought process.

It's a good question.

Yeah, I'll turn that for Tuesday.

Okay, uh pardon me.

C7, RZN 2025-36.

This one's on North Maxwell Drive.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition 2025-36 for approximately 0.3 acres, located at 1146 North Maxwell Drive in Ward 2 from RSF4, residential single family, four units per acre, to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

I think these are because there's so many, I think it's good to go over and proactive just because we got a lot of the rezone heavy stuff.

Uh this property is in North Central Fayetteville, it's a little a ways northwest of the last request.

If you're not familiar with Maxwell, as you uh leave Dean Street and go south on Garland, it's actually a horseshoe street that represents a horseshoe-shaped street that actually connects to Garland at two different places.

So you'll see Maxwell and then you'll see Maxwell again.

This specific property is off that northern intersection of Maxwell as soon as you leave Dean, and it's on the north side of Maxwell, if that hopefully orients you somewhat.

Towards Glowland.

Uh it's on the north side of Maxwell as you're entering Maxwell from Garland.

Uh, if alternatively, if you've taken the midtown trail recently, uh, the midtown trail actually goes through the backyard of this property, uh, since most of that trail exists within trail easement rather than public right-of-way.

Um, the request is to rezone it, as Mary noted from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this one.

Uh, it came to city council by a split vote.

Uh it was a six to two, or excuse me, yes, six to two vote.

Uh, we did hear public comment both in favor and against this item.

Uh those with concerns largely expressed uh fears that this was uh, if I can characterize it well, uh encroaching rental and student properties uh that have been moving north from campus and and an assertion that this is largely a they owned or or permanent resident-occupied neighborhood and some of the associated concerns with that, such as parking.

Um people who spoke or spoke in favor of it, including uh the commissioners felt that uh where this is located because could support some additional housing types, especially uh with its adjacency to trail, which brings me to a final nuance of this request, which is with the uh ordinance change earlier this year to allow property subdivision where it's adjacent to alley or uh trails, this could theoretically be subdivided.

Of course, there are a few developing or development standards around that to that could make it a reality or not, including whether they have uh water and sewer access, which when I looked at this uh previously, the water and sewer is only in Maxwell.

So um they would have to there'd there'd be some lock configuration considerations that probably go beyond uh uh a zoning decision.

Jonathan, I don't remember seeing uh a rezoning quite like this that was next to a trail.

So what's the can you give us an idea if it is rezoned to RIU?

What kind of setbacks would or distances between the trail would be required?

If so, again, the way the property is oriented is as Maxwell to the south and the trail is again on the property itself to the north.

And with the RIU zoning district, it has a build to zone, which is the inverse of a setback instead of requiring a building to be pushed further back, it requires a building to be closer.

So with R you having a zero to 25 foot build to zones, uh building could be built right up to the property line, either on Maxwell to the south or to the trail on the north.

I do believe if I can on a public works director for one, we do have a shyness that's requirement from trails of two feet.

Three feet, thank you.

So there is some inherent setback requirement.

Okay, uh, if they chose to go all that way forward.

Yeah, so I'll try to, and since this is, I mean, I I do plan on talking a little bit more in depth on this in Tuesday, since this is absolutely the first time council is considered a rezoning, or I think the applicant's express intent is to try to do trail-oriented housing like this.

That would be great.

So available.

Okay, that brings us to our last new business item um on East Joyce Boulevard.

Um, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-34 for approximately 4.01 acres located at 3066 East Joyce Boulevard in Ward 3 from RI-12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre, and NSG, neighborhood services general, to CS Community Services.

This property is in Northeast Fayeville.

Uh it's part of a larger nine-acre property that extends from crossover to the west to Joyce on the side of the property.

Uh those council members who have uh been a part of this August body since 2022 may recall it was zoned at that time.

Uh previously it was agricultural, it had an agricultural zoning district, and in 2022 it was split zoned with community services facing crossover, and then residential intermediate 12 units per acre and neighborhood services general facing Joyce.

So it got a three-way split zoning.

Uh what the applicant is requesting today is to make a uniform zoning designation across the site of community services.

Um there's uh I think one of the biggest considerations with that, both from the developer side and I think from the planning commission's consideration and staff's recommendation, both of which were affirmative, is that the property to the east is where the new Woodland Junior High is being developed, which includes uh as a component of that the realignment of Joyce uh into uh unincorporated Washington County.

Uh again, we are recommending in favor of this request.

It came to you all from the planning commission by unanimous eight to zero vote.

And I don't believe we've heard any public comment on this item today.

And can you remind oh sorry, somebody to have a hand raised?

Um I was just gonna jump in and ask the the old choice once the new choice is re-aloged, what's the plan in the old choice or the existing choice?

The the district would like to abandon it so vacate that property and it would become incorporated as a part of their school's uh circulation.

Uh, but I can I'll go into the plans and confirm that as well and make sure that's clear on Tuesday before you all make your decision.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

Um do we have any proposed agenda additional?

Just a reminder, um, Dr.

DeAndre Jones is sponsoring the um as working city staff to for us to proclaim and acknowledge um mental this week.

And so if you are so inclined and want to wear green um next week to council members or to council meeting to show your support for um mental health awareness and advocacy, please we won't pinch you if not, say you are welcome to those are just we have a transportation bond meeting uh directly after this meeting in the spring, correct?

Okay, oh sorry, you're that's me.

Uh adjust, forgive me.