OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Fayetteville City Council Agenda Session - September 30, 2025

City Council — Tuesday, September 30, 2025
BodyFayetteville, Arkansas
SessionCity Council
DateTuesday, September 30, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:44:34

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Oh, there we go.

0:01

It's 4:30.

0:02

Perfect timing.

0:04

Thank you all for being here.

0:07

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

0:12

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.

0:23

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.

0:31

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

0:35

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

0:41

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

0:45

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

0:54

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

0:57

We do our meeting minutes.

0:59

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.

1:07

This was an RFQ.

1:09

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.

1:22

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

1:25

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

1:39

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

1:41

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.

1:55

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

2:04

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

2:12

It will provide conceptual operations costs for the facility.

2:22

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

2:31

Thanks, Wade.

2:32

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.

2:42

A three is the aquatic center pre-construction contract.

2:46

So same project.

2:48

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.

2:59

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

3:05

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

3:13

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

3:24

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.

3:38

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.

3:49

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.

3:59

Right.

4:00

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

4:06

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.

4:20

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

4:24

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

4:26

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

4:29

I apologize, Minister Jones.

4:30

I know Wade was gonna speak to that as well.

4:33

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

4:37

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.

4:45

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

4:49

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.

5:02

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

5:10

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

5:14

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

5:16

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

5:19

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

5:25

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

5:32

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

5:36

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

5:42

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

5:46

That that's where I'm stuck in.

5:47

So what this is going to be a deliverable.

5:50

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

5:54

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

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████████████19%
Zoning And Land Use██████████████████18%
Affordable Housing███████████████15%
Public Safety████████████12%
Public Transportation█████████9%
Procedural████4%
Public Facilities████4%
Water And Wastewater Management████4%
Parks and Recreation████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Fayetteville City Council Agenda Session - September 30, 2025

The Fayetteville City Council held an agenda session on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, at 4:30 PM. This was not a business meeting; no votes were taken. The purpose was to review and set the agenda for the upcoming business meeting on October 7, 2025. Several items were discussed in detail, including the proposed infrastructure bond, aquatic center design contracts, and a secure firearm storage resolution presented by youth council members.

Consent Calendar

  • Mental Health Awareness Week Proclamation – The mayor will proclaim Mental Health Awareness Week at the next meeting, in collaboration with the youth council.
  • Monthly Financial Report – CFO Stephen Dotson will present sales tax and monthly financial reports.
  • A2 & A3 – Aquatic Center Contracts – Originally on the consent agenda, these were moved to new business after Councilmember Jones expressed concerns about spending over $250,000 on design and pre-construction services before voters approve the bond. Discussion included the need for detailed cost estimates and operational plans to inform voters. The contracts are for architectural design (Craft and Toll Associates, $232,524) and construction manager at risk (CDI Contractors, $39,999). Staff argued the information is critical for voter education and bond preparation. Council agreed to move both to new business for further public discussion.
  • A4 – Nolen Water Resource Recovery Facility – Amendment to contract with Garver LLC for preliminary design (up to $1,901,700). No questions raised.
  • A5 – Transit Stop Enhancements (Brasco International) – Purchase of shelter structures and benches for $269,700. Funded by a 50-50 grant with Walk Family Foundation, city match ~$50,000. Priority based on ADA accessibility and ridership. Moved to consent.
  • A6 – Highway 112 Trail Project – Supplemental agreement with Burns & McDonnell for construction management ($929,515). No questions.
  • A7 – Child Care Assistance Program – Additional $24,690 from ARPA interest to extend assistance for current recipients. No questions.
  • A8 – North Street Improvements – Agreement with ARDOT for $300,000 federal aid ($75,000 local match). No capacity changes; focuses on sidewalks and pedestrian safety.
  • A9 – Fire Equipment Purchases – $38,000 budget adjustment from Act 833 funds.
  • A10 – Drake Field Pavement Crack Repair – $200,000 grant from Arkansas Department of Aeronautics; $29,000 for engineering services.
  • A11 – Central EMS Interlocal Agreement – Five-year agreement for ambulance services ($1,216,622 in 2026). Discussion on terms and flexibility to exit.
  • A12 – YRCC Roof Retrofit and Street Side Boulders – Change order for $123,948.50.
  • A13 – Sewer Connection at 371 N. Harvey Dowell Road – Allow sewer service beyond city limits.
  • A14 – REPL Road Trail Lighting Project – Additional $500,000 federal aid through Carbon Reduction Program (total $800,000). Lights in median from MLK to Persimmon, dark-sky friendly.
  • A15 – Water/Sewer Work Truck – Purchase of Ford Ranger for $36,695.
  • C2 – Secure Firearm Storage Resolution – Presented by youth council. Encourages safe storage education with no financial impact. Unanimously supported by youth council. Council expressed support; moved to consent for next week's vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Youth Council and Students Demand Action Club – Multiple student leaders (Blight, Harvard, Lily, Mira, Lucy) presented the secure firearm storage resolution. They emphasized it is a nonpartisan, educational initiative to reduce youth gun deaths, noting that 80% of underage shooters obtain firearms from home or acquaintances. They cited data: 13% fewer youth firearm fatalities in states with CAP laws, and comparable cities (Little Rock, Kansas City) have adopted similar resolutions. They requested the council prioritize secure storage to improve community safety. Councilmembers commended the presentation and asked about coordination with the school board (they had initial discussions but were asked for more research). The students agreed to the resolution being placed on consent.

Discussion Items

  • Aquatic Center Contracts (A2 & A3) – Councilmember Jones questioned spending over $250,000 before a bond vote, comparing to past decisions on infrastructure. Staff (Wade, Stephen, Mayor) explained the pre-design is essential for voter education, cost recovery analysis, and negotiations with the school district. If the bond fails, the deliverables can be used for future attempts. The items were moved to new business for the next meeting.
  • Infrastructure Bond Resolution (C3) – The mayor clarified this is a resolution of intent, not a final ballot ordinance. Council discussed two main topics:
    • Including City-Owned Housing in the Bond – Councilmember Jones and Councilmember Moore argued for including housing as a tool to preserve affordability. The mayor and staff noted the bond is heavily focused on infrastructure (water/sewer, transportation) to support housing development, and that other initiatives (RFP for city-owned land, housing authority partnerships) are already underway. Legal opinion (from attorney Gordon) suggested housing could be included if owned by the city until bonds are paid off, but operational costs would need funding. Councilmember Turk expressed preference for using the Public Facilities Board or Fayetteville Housing Authority rather than direct city ownership.
    • Reducing the Sales Tax Rate – A resident asked about reducing from 1% to 0.75% or 0.5% while keeping the same bond amount. CFO Stephen Dotson explained that would extend the payback period significantly (from 20 years to much longer) and reduce revenue for other needs. Councilmember Bunch noted the one-cent tax captures revenue from non-residents who use city infrastructure, and that sewer projects (Nolan plant upgrades) require substantial funding; without the bond, sewer rates would increase dramatically.
    • Outcome: The resolution will remain on new business for further discussion next week. Several councilmembers indicated support for the bond but wanted more conversation on housing inclusion and the tax rate.
  • Lake Fayetteville Fee Modifications (C4) – Ordinance to allow flexible marina hours and simplify fee structure to a lake access fee. No fee increases; changes enable partnership with Arkansas Game and Fish for fish stocking. Supported by staff and council.
  • Rezoning Items (C5–C8) – Multiple rezoning requests were previewed:
    • C5 – 8538 S. Connors Ave – From NC to RIU; staff recommends approval; one public comment in favor.
    • C6 – West Hughes Street – From RMF40 to RIU; staff recommends approval; no public comment.
    • C7 – North Maxwell Drive – From RSF4 to RIU; split vote at commission (6-2); public comment both for and against, with concerns about rental/student encroachment and parking. Adjacent to Midtown Trail; trial-oriented housing potential discussed.
    • C8 – East Joyce Boulevard – From RI-12/NSG to CS; uniform zoning requested; adjacent to new Woodland Junior High and realignment of Joyce Boulevard; unanimous commission approval.

Key Outcomes

  • Consent Agenda Items – All items except A2 and A3 were placed on the consent agenda for next week's vote. The secure firearm storage resolution (C2) was also moved to consent.
  • Aquatic Center Contracts – Moved to new business for further public discussion and a vote next week.
  • Infrastructure Bond Resolution – Remains on new business; council will continue discussion next week. No final decision on inclusion of housing or tax rate changes.
  • Lake Fee Ordinance – To be voted on next week.
  • All Rezoning Items (C5-C8) – To be presented in full on Tuesday and voted on next week.
  • Transportation Bond Meeting – Scheduled immediately after this agenda session.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com