Okay, good evening.

And I would like to call the Tuesday, October 21st meeting of the Fayetteville City Council to order.

Please join me.

Um oh, not yet.

I'm so sorry.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones.

President.

Mr.

Stafford.

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Ms.

Moore.

Here.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna.

Here.

Ms.

Bunch.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, welcome everybody.

Before we get started, I want to recognize that we do have a journalism class in the room.

So thank you all for being here.

I hope it is fun and informative for you.

Um, and I don't think we have any other proclamations or announcements, so I'm going to move on to the consent agenda.

Item A one, approval of document destruction lists.

A two, the I-49 Stephen Carr Interchange, professional services.

Item A3, water sewer work truck replacements through Olatha Fleet.

A4, police training division vehicle replacement through National Auto Fleet Group.

Item A5, resolution to purchase from Galls through Sourcewell Cooperative Contract number 011124-GAL.

Item A6, the Hamstring Trail Bridge Purchase.

A7, the FY 2026 Historic Preservation Grant Application.

And item A8, approval of agreement with the Advertising and Promotion Commission.

I would move to accept the consent agenda is red.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay, great.

That moves us to unfinished unfinished business section B of our agenda.

First up is item B1, um, a PCD 2025-003 on North Raven Lane.

And I believe we have a request from the applicant to table this.

And so um, Mr.

Williams, in that event, do you still read the ordinance if we are having the request from the applicant to table?

No, it can be tabled before the reading if you want to, Mayor.

Okay.

Got it.

Uh Mr.

Kurth, am I correct that we're that they've requested a that is correct, Mayor, to the November 4th meeting, please.

I'll make the motion to table this November 14th meeting.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a couple of different seconds to table item B1 to the November 4th meeting.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

And before we move to item B2, as a courtesy to those in the audience, um, I'm gonna ask Mr.

Kirth to correct me, but it's my understanding that we have a request from an applicant on an item of new business to do a um to do a tabling.

Is that item C5?

That's correct, Mayor.

It's uh rezoning 2533 on East Rockwood Trail.

Got it.

So since that will be um that was going to be the last item of business for this evening, and that is much later in the evening.

If you were here hoping to speak about or hear about item C5, it is in all likelihood that you will not get to do that this evening.

So okay, moving back to item B2, RZN 2025-27 West Mount Comfort Road.

This is an appeal of a planning commission denial.

Kit Okay.

N SG Neighborhood Services General and RS18, residential single family 18 units per acre.

And section two, that's the city council of the city of Fayetteville Arks are here by men's official zoning map of the city of Fayette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurt, Development Services Department.

The only item I wanted to highlight for the council tonight is uh the reminder that I mentioned at your agenda session, which is at your last meeting when you heard this earlier in October, uh the request was amended so that the property which was previously proposed to be zoned to NSG neighborhood services general overall uh was divided so that the northern portion, roughly the northern half, uh would be re is proposed to be rezoned to RSF 18 residential single family 18 units per acre, with the southern portion uh adjacent to Mount Comfort Road being proposed to rezone to NSG neighborhood services general.

Uh staff does recommend in favor of the request, and when the planning commission heard the original request for NSG across the whole property, uh that is where their recommendation of denial came from, and that's why it's at the council on appeal.

Uh otherwise, Mayor, I believe the or the applicants have a presentation uh to share this evening.

Wonderful.

Okay, great.

If the applicants would like to come forward, good evening.

Uh we're gonna try to keep it really short tonight.

Um I think we have six slides, so you can count count down.

Um the picture on the right is uh Instagram or TikTok video somebody sent me, which uh it's kind of good timing because it talks a lot about um this kind of commercial buffer and how a lot of our residential neighborhoods or historic neighborhoods will have a kind of this commercial buffer, and you can have these um, you know, sometimes dead end residential streets um where the the commercial buildings actually you know calm traffic and um help with noise because and the tighter the buildings get together, um it actually helps noise more.

Um but I wanted to highlight that you know, if if anything gets built on this property at 3070 West Mount Comfort, um it'll be the only project on the street that's actually up to modern standards, and it'd be designed to meet you know today's code for stormwater access and setbacks and you know, really want to highlight um access.

Again, like you guys know who we are, we're small, local.

Uh this is not speculative investment.

These are the types of projects we're doing all over town.

Um and we're focused on stewardship and it's not just about change for change sake, but it's it's because we're trying to do what's right and what what's in line with the city 20 um 40 plan.

Next slide, please.

Again, it's built to the current standards, and so any new development happening here will meet engineering's access management standards, and that'd be reviewed at the time of development.

Um, and and but if the property remains a house or even a small office, you know, it's a 3,000 square foot house.

Um you know, the traffic impact is minimal, and we we don't really see any change to traffic by having either of those uses.

Now, future and further redevelopment would trigger full city review.

So that's engineering, planning, and transportation.

And so everybody at that point would have a chance to weigh in, and a project can get shot down if it doesn't meet those those standards.

And the existing process, you know, ensures safe access and circulation for any future use.

So next slide, please.

Hi.

Um, I just wanted to kind of discuss um access and safety, kind of reiterate a little bit more.

Um, in last city council meeting, uh, Chris Brown came up and he spoke uh about uh Mount Comfort Road, and he mentioned that the Mount Comfort is currently wide enough for a turning lane with the caveat that both bike lanes uh need to be eliminated, and then the multi-use trail put on on the south side of Mount Comfort.

Uh he mentioned as a reminder that this would be about a five-year process.

Um, it was kind of the estimate for this work to be done.

Um, additionally, he mentioned that the connectivity of Gooseberry on the north is a relatively straightforward um connectivity issue to be solved, uh, but they need a little bit more right-of-way dedication.

Um, and there might be uh, you know, the will of the neighbors that it has to be for that connection to be made uh in order for them to move forward.

We also spoke to uh staff um after that meeting.

And there is planned to be a stoplight put in that woodlark.

Uh the timeline is is unknown at this time.

Woodlark is uh one street to the one block to the east of Gooseberry.

Um obviously, you know, having a stoplight here would give uh that left-hand turn onto Mount Comfort from Gooseberry a lot more ease than than currently exist.

Um to kind of to talk a little bit more about the zoning.

So you know if it's also I think bears in mind to ask the question of like would only homes be allowed on Razorback or North Street or Garland is that the only thing that's uh appropriate and as we Wes kind of touched on last city council meeting there are documented health concerns from living on very busy roads air pollution noise pollution light pollution amongst uh other things and uh for the final thing on this slide just questioning a little bit the walkability we have a Casey's to the east 11 minute walk we have a maverick to the west 10 minute walk Mount Comfort Square has not been built out yet at this time next slide please so along with uh Gooseberry aside from the uh nicotine soaked walls we uh inherited a family of raccoons uh one of them we guess is about 70 pounds um and you know uh a lot of folks may not have kept this home um and so the raccoon is in the attic I should say I see some confused faces um yeah oh yeah yeah for sure yeah yeah um and um so you know we ended up uh solving a lot of these problems with this house and we're putting it back together and we have kind of been committed to restoring these homes we have never torn down a home as of of yet um and uh we believe that this is really critical to maintaining the character of a neighborhood uh next slide please so here we you all probably receive from Jonathan uh bill of assurance um and so this is we believe that we have kind of um been on the compromising path for a bit um one of the big compromises as Jonathan mentioned was going from uh a total NSG rezoning for the lot to a split zoning um and then uh we also submit this uh this bill of assurance as further compromise uh thank you and this was a an article that was sent to me it was a strong towns article and you know says two simple rules for healthy neighborhood change right no neighborhood can be exempt from change but no neighborhood should experience sudden radical change and we touched on this in a previous meeting about who who absorbs additional housing and you know where are all these new residents going to move and so these these compromises are you know ways that we're trying to engage with with the community listen to what the community is asking for um what the city as a as a whole is asking for and then listening to feedback from neighbors and as Connor mentioned that's kind of the compromise we came up with I think that's our last slide okay thank you so much um do we have questions from the council either for Jonathan or for the applicants okay oh yes Councilmember Vernon knocking my glasses off I think my question is for Jonathan uh and and we may have addressed this and I I can't recall gooseberry will it be connected at any point to the the other subdivision where that break is that's currently not a project that's planned uh I think when you heard from Chris Brown the city's public works director last week uh he felt it was a straightforward project in the sense that the majority of the right of way is there today not all of it uh it it connects at our at a round point meaning a flat point if you will uh so it wouldn't it would require some right of way acquisition in addition to construction uh but given the other connectivity in the area today that's not something that the city has prioritized okay so to say that it would be uh project two three years in the in the future probably be inaccurate it's probably down the line considerably yes especially if it's just purely a city driven project okay thank you okay I'm not seeing any more questions from council so I'm gonna open it up to public comment yes uh council person turk mayor I believe the uh neighborhood association has um an opportunity to um give a presentation do we have someone here oh great okay wonderful Jake if you'd like to come forward um so we'll have someone from the neighborhood association and um do you have do we have slides for him that we can pull up they should be there yes okay just making sure okay perfect okay please go ahead and you have 10 minutes all right uh good evening my name is Jake Hertzog and I live at 2278 North Gooseberry Lane this is our fourth time uh at these meetings so I want to just take a moment to acknowledge uh several of our residents that weren't able to attend tonight but I'll be giving uh the group response uh we have uh two reasons

Um we'll have someone from the neighborhood association and um do you have do we have slides for him that we can pull up?

Okay.

They should be there.

Yes.

Okay.

Just make it sure.

Okay, perfect.

Okay, please go ahead and you have 10 minutes.

All right, uh good evening.

My name is Jake Hertzog, and I live at 2278 North Cooseberry Lane.

This is our fourth time uh at these meetings, so I wanna just take a moment to acknowledge uh several of our residents that were not able to attend tonight, but I'll be giving uh the group response.

Uh we have uh to review, uh we have been consistently and unwaveringly opposed to NSG zoning uh on this property.

Uh we the tonight, as of about 10 minutes ago is the first time that we have seen uh the Bill of Assurance uh offered by the applicants, so I'm gonna include a couple of comments on that.

We had initially hoped for an agreement on RSF 18, which we thought was a very good solution.

It's still not clear why this uh this fell apart.

Our coalition of residents had a wide range of opinions, but collectively we had agreed to RSF-18 publicly, and we stand by that agreement.

Uh we'd hope to reach an agreement on a bill of assurance for the property.

Our understanding of that process was that we would provide some commentary on the various permitted conditional and unit uses to the applicants for some commentary and uh hope to engage in a negotiation process.

Uh so uh well, I'm I'm happy that uh there is a bill of assurance before you.

No negotiations ever took place, and we don't feel that this uh accurately represents all of our concerns.

So therefore, we've been put in a position where we have to oppose this proposal because of the many reasons that I'm going to recount why NSG in general is too inappropriate, too broad, and too dangerous for 3070 Mount Comfort Road.

Um, if you don't mind going to the next slide, please.

Uh so first, these are just some of the allowed uses in NSG.

And if we look at the Bill of Assurance, uh it doesn't eliminate too many of them.

So things like daycare and barber shop and drugstore are all still there.

Um it includes numerous fruit uses like delis, cafes, and ice cream shops.

We feel that food service businesses have unique needs such as waste disposal and frequent deliveries and space for customer parking.

And this space doesn't exist at the property, so deliveries and waste disposal would be tremendously disruptive to the street and taxing on the infrastructure.

Furthermore, food service businesses would be disruptive during the evening hours with light and noise pollution, not to mention foot traffic on a street with no sidewalks.

So NSG, as you see, also allows medical uses.

Uh these two have unique problems such as biohazard disposal, contamination issues, and customer parking, all of which we feel are unsuitable for this property.

So NSG also allows many types of retail businesses, which again would require deliveries, customer parking, storage, waste disposal, and some, such as drug stores and appliance stores, uh may even increase crime in the area.

I see uh sorry, appliances have been mentioned here.

Uh finally, NSG allows for the same kinds of office-based businesses that other zoning allows, and residential zoning allows with conditional use permits.

So these include things like accountants and architects and law offices.

We have no problem with these and never have.

Uh we've indicated this many times, and there's no reason that those kind of businesses require NSG zoning to exist.

To ask that development be tailored to the neighborhood and the infrastructure is not unreasonable.

In fact, we've shown a lot of compromise and willingness to negotiate time and time again to support the goals of this city.

As I indicated at the last meeting, RSF-18 is still in line with the master plan and 2040 goals for Mount Comfort.

So, in reference to the last meeting, we need to we believe that we need the planning that focuses on making what we have here better and not wishing that we were somewhere else.

So I want to focus on the situation that we're in right now, and here's where we are.

So just like at the last meeting, as you just heard, there is still no turn lane on Mount Comfort Road.

The city has indicated there are no plans to create one for many years.

During rush hour, right now, traffic backs up more than one and a half miles from 3070 Mount Comfort.

And I stress that this is the situation before the completion of Mount Comfort Square that is going to include 327 more residential units, plus a great many shops and businesses.

What is this going to do to the traffic problem?

Now, let's talk about parking, if you don't mind going to the next slide, please.

Uh this this list represents similar businesses in Fayetteville that are around the same size, and all of these are allowed in NSG zoning.

So right now, the property uh there's room for two vehicles in the driveway and a third vehicle has been forced to park in the grass.

They can't park on the street without forcing cars to drive into oncoming traffic, and once two houses are built in this spot with a corresponding driveway, there will be no parking on the grass anymore.

If a portion of the street should need to be updated with sidewalks and curbs, it will be impossible to park on Gooseberry, impossible to park on Mount Comfort, and impossible to park in the grass.

So given the needs of similar businesses that need anywhere from 15 to 7 to 14, 6, 18 parking spaces, where are customers and delivery vehicles and other visitors to park if all the types of businesses in NSG are allowed.

If you don't mind slide four, uh next slide, please.

So this slide shows construction vehicles completely blocking the intersection.

So it's clear that work cannot be done on this property without posing a serious danger.

And we just can't see any way this would be safe and advisable for the many varied kinds of businesses that NSG allows that are still not part of this bill of assurance.

Next slide, please.

Um and I illustrate this slide again to show that right now there is no possibility of street parking without blocking uh the road.

And even when there's a narrow space to drive through, Gooseberry is still a dead-end street and maybe for quite many years to come.

So vehicles won't will be forced to turn around, and they're going to do that in our driveways as they are doing now.

In many cases, causing serious damage to the driveways and presenting a danger to the young children living on the street.

So now I want to address a few things from the last city council meeting.

Uh we heard comments stating uh that uh fears about traffic and safety never materialize.

Uh and I just want to say that the fears of motorists who have been injured or worse on Mount Comfort because of this poor traffic situation, those fears materialize.

And the fear of parents watching their child navigate this intersection every day with the school bus, those fears materialize every day at three o'clock.

And when cars are using my driveway to turn around, I'm gonna have to worry about my daughter playing in the front yard.

So that fear is absolutely going to materialize.

We don't believe Mount Comfort and Gooseberry is prepared for the introduction that all of these kinds of businesses bring in terms of those traffic variables.

I want to say also that we heard comments about the order of operations in development, whether or not infrastructure should be built first or zoning should be built first to accommodate those businesses.

There may be cases where zoning makes sense first, but Gooseberry Lane is not one of those cases.

As we heard last time, these improvements are not coming from Mount Comfort Road for many years, and they may not even occur within the next five years.

So when we hear that businesses can be built before infrastructure can accommodate those businesses, we hear that the 2040 plan is more important than our safety.

And it's not unreasonable to ask that before we put these kinds of businesses at 3070 Mount Comfort Road, the infrastructure must be ready for it.

And if the streets not ready, do not build it.

Any citizen would ask the same.

So I want to illustrate that you also may hear tonight the perspective of members of the public who don't live anywhere near Gooseberry Lane.

And we understand it's everyone's right to comment uh to provide public comment on proposals, but we hope you'll take into consideration that folks who do not live on Gooseberry Lane and deal with the traffic and safety issues that we are describing may not have the most valorant perspective.

For folks who live further away and are hoping for more business development on Mount Comfort Road, as I have mentioned many times, you're in luck.

Mount Comfort Square is full of shops, restaurants, and parking, and I want to stress this it is one block from this property.

It's about a two and a half minute walk.

So uh I want to just illustrate that we have been clear uh with our perspective the entire time.

We accept single family residences, we are fine with small offices, we okayed as I have sent to you, many of the uh more low-impact retail businesses that are listed in NSG, but we are fairly firm on what we oppose.

We don't want food services on this street, we don't want medical services on this street, and for the future of the neighborhood, we don't want NSG on this street.

Because uh that the current bill of assurance does not accommodate these things, especially the food service and the medical offices, and we've had no dialogue to this effect.

We feel we are forced to ask you to deny uh this proposal until such a time as uh a more appropriate proposal can be made.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Please come up to the mic, and if you could state your name and address, please.

We we will start the clock at 30 minutes.

Good evening.

Nice to meet you all.

And this is my fourth time as well here.

Um Cynthia Smith elevat 2299 North Keys Ferry Lane, and I've been a neighbor of the Mount Comfort neighborhoods for 30 years this year.

Lived in two houses.

I love the area.

Um, first I just wanted to urge you to listen to the Planning Commission.

They denied it for a reason.

Um they felt that the say that Mount Comfort this is Jake to said is not safe.

But that's there's not a safe place to cross the road if you want to go to a business say if I wanted to go across the street to a coffee shop.

There's not a safe way to get there.

I need to walk to one of the major intersections to do that.

I just know that the commission, Plane Commission felt like the design was not ready yet.

Mount Comfort has a speed of 40 miles of uh hour and no turn lanes.

Um, I hope you listen to the voices of our neighbors.

We have been talking with our neighbors that are um uh behind us in Salem Heights, uh, those down the street in what we uh refer to kind of the bird streets, um, and and beyond.

And they've written uh many letters over the last month just saying this is not where they feel is a good decision at this time.

We do want to win for all.

We do uh support, as Jake said, additional family housing, single family housing that uh would be single level and might fit within um our street, but also just the goals of the city.

Um, so again, um we hope that you uh deny this proposal until we can have a uh something's more ready for the timing.

And again, um what we're proposing is we do want to help absorb the additional housing that Wes brought up, but not business there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have a yeah?

Please come on when and if you all just want to line up, you're welcome too.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Uh yeah, this is our fourth time together.

Well, our third time together, but fourth time here.

Um Jake is far more eloquent than I, so I won't repeat anything.

I just want to uh say I'll support him in asking you all to reject the proposal to rezone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll leave it through three non Bob Gooseberry, and my name's Mark Russell.

Thank you.

Do we not have any more public comment in the room?

Okay.

Okay, do we need to go?

Oh, thank you.

Yes.

If you all can just come on up, it really helps keep the meeting going.

You don't have to thank you.

Hi, I'm Kathy Freeman.

I live at 2327 Gooseberry Lane, uh, and have been there over 33 years.

Um so I not to belabor, but I do um stress concern about safety at this current time without the proper infrastructure to ensure um safety for pedestrians.

Uh yeah, folks waiting for the school bus, people trying to get to a proposed business.

Um I know that as part of the 2040 plan, uh it's a lovely vision for increasing density and infill.

Um, and I know that we are a busy corridor.

Uh I would urge attention to the need for funding for infrastructure before setting the zoning uh due to safety concerns.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Rebecca Smith.

I'm live at 2299 North Gooseberry Lane.

Um, you've seen me a couple times.

Last time I was actually coming in from Germany, if you recall my 3 a.m.

call.

Um, here I'm coming off a really long shift, so I sorry if it's not a little bit more coherent.

Um, we just really urge you to consider this really carefully.

Um the other things I've been thinking about.

We brought it up a few meetings ago, I don't think we brought it up this time.

Um, there have been fatalities along Mount Comfort Road in the really recent past, and I've had friends that have watched that happen, and it's just we really urge that you consider that it's not a safe place to be, right?

Um, and I know that there's been research that has indicated that businesses and such will slow that down.

However, we don't have the infrastructure for that yet.

I've been reading up on that, and I think that it's just something that we really, really need to consider.

It's not the time and place.

Um, maybe someday in you know, 10 years in the future or something like that, something like this could be beneficial in the area.

But I mean, as my neighbors have discussed, um, there are other projects that are nearby that are coming that are giving these things that should help with traffic that should help um bring people to the area.

So I really ask that you really uh not trivize these um accidents and deaths that have occurred because it's really important to us.

Um and that being on top of that, totally aside from that, um, this is my neighborhood that I've lived in for 25 years.

Um it's a really special place.

I hope that you guys have been able to come out and see it a little bit.

Um, it's really people from all over nearby come and walk our streets, they bike our streets, they take their dogs, they take their kids, um, as has been said by many of my neighbors over and over.

Um it's really a pretty rare thing, I think, left in Fayetteville as we continue to grow really quickly.

Um, it's kind of a refuge, I think, in the surrounding area.

And so we really just ask that you help preserve that and by not allowing any businesses.

We are so pro-neighbor, we would love to have neighbors.

Um, I would love to have affordable housing in Fayetteville.

That's something that you know, as I as I grow older and I think about buying houses.

I would really love to have affordable housing in Fayetteville.

That is extremely important to me.

Um, that being said, I don't think that taking space that could be affordable housing away and giving it to businesses.

We have a lot of room for businesses.

Um I'm in the business-ish world, and there's a lot of things coming up all the time and changing in Fayetteville all the time.

Um, and I think this is just not the place, nor is it the time for these things.

And so we just ask you that you really carefully consider this.

Um, I know that you get a lot of things coming in all the time and a lot of things to consider.

Um, but I just really ask that you pay attention to this.

Um, and really hear, I mean, this is a really small neighborhood, and it's getting a lot of people to show up for it.

And I think that's really incredible.

And I think it really shows and speaks to how special it is and how important it is to not just the actual neighbors, but the people that live around it.

So thank you so much for your time.

I really appreciate living in a city that will listen to its constituents um and give pause to their words.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hey, good evening, guys.

Last time we were here, there was a lot of talk about.

And I'm so sorry, do you mind to state your name and address, please?

Yes.

Hi, I'm Charles Shields.

I live at the corner of Mount Comfort.

Thank you.

And uh Gooseberry.

Thank you.

Right across from the proposed development.

Last time there was a lot of talk about uh the safety of Mount Comfort.

There's traffic jams every morning, every afternoon, there's no turn lane.

So when we were done the next day, I went out and measured the street.

It's 52 feet from curb to curb on Mount Comfort.

52 feet.

That's two lanes going each direction and two little three-foot bike lanes.

Then it went over and checked out Weddington.

It's 75 feet from curb to curb.

So they have the room to put in the turn lane.

They have islands, they even have a third right-hand turn lane when you come off the freeway.

There is no room to do this on Mount Comfort.

Talking about putting in a turn lane in five years, where are you gonna put it?

You'd have to tear out the curbs, change all the utilities, take part of people's front yards.

It's just not practical.

So the other thing is down at the corner of Mount Comfort and Salem Road, there are two developments going on, which I'm sure you guys are aware of.

One of them is called Foxtail Meadows.

There are currently 196 housing units being built.

They'll be finished next year.

196.

In addition to that, there are future plans for 400 more units.

600 housing units right there at the corner of Mount Comfort and Salem.

A thousand more cars.

Also, there's Mount Comfort Square, which they're building at that same area, Mount Comfort and Salem.

In that, and it'll be finished next year.

There will be 21,800 square feet of retail space, 21,800 square feet.

In addition, there will be 9,000 square feet of office space.

So that's over 30,000 square feet of retail and office space that you can see from the corner of Gooseberry and Mount Comfort.

In addition to that, they will have a central market.

So our needs for retail and office and another market are filled right there.

Lastly, I would say you guys represent all of Fayetteville, but 99% of Fayetteville doesn't know and doesn't care about this.

We do.

The people in the neighborhood care.

And we would like you to listen to the citizens who actually live there, who live in that area, who will see it, who will deal with it on a daily basis.

So thank you for your consideration.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any other comments in the room?

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom for this item?

Yeah, we have one person, Kevin Smith.

Okay.

Mr.

Smith, if you'd like to go ahead.

Yes.

Um my name is Kevin Smith.

I live at 2299 North Goosebury Lane, right next to the property.

We're talking about.

I'm going to address the same thing on the issues.

But one thing that upset me last week was the speech made about not planning by fear.

The work I do, we call it risk management.

We do lots of conferences working with college students.

When we plan an event, we um ask what are the risks that are gonna be involved when it's over.

When we arrive at the event, we walk the whole conference ground and look at what are the risks here.

We ask changes to be made if necessary.

Risk management.

I actually think lawyers would love the idea.

I have to probably report after every conference of risk management.

Um I think lawyers would love to hear the city of Fable does not want to plan with risk management in mind.

Um I wish when the weddings had bypassed an expressway.

That's what I call Mount Comfort was planned.

There was more risk management involved.

There are houses between Salem, I mean Ruple Road and Shiloh.

There are houses on both sides of the street the whole length of the way.

Some are gone now because you guys have put other things there, but they used to be all houses.

Um we added thousands of cars without a single parking lane and to a street where there are people on both sides, they're gonna want to turn into their residences.

If you go to the property we're talking about and walk to the east, just seven houses, you will see a memorial on the grass area.

That memorial is there because just within this last year, a car was driving east on Mount Comfort and decided to turn right into the choosing property.

I don't know if it's there or not.

And a car behind it also stopped.

I'm sorry, turn left, and car behind it also stopped.

Uh third car did not.

They they do said it was going too fast.

And it's one reason it swerved to the left, anti traffic.

It hit first the car in front of it, and then it hit a motorcycle rider.

That motorcycle rider is dead.

That memorial is there and being maintained by the family that lives on Raven.

There needs to be a center lane before we give anyone any more reasons to turn left.

This proposal is adding yet another reason.

Um, and that's just urgent to me.

We have to plan it better.

Last statement, we keep talking about walkable neighborhoods.

Gooseberry Lane is a walkable street, but we define walking as walking around.

We don't define walking as being able to walk to a restaurant.

Um out there, my kids learn to ride bikes out there, other kids are doing that now.

It's a walkable neighborhood.

Please help us with the safety.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Keith.

We do not have any more.

Okay.

All right.

So this is back with the council now.

And I believe we are on the now.

This is the third and final reading.

Is that correct?

It was left on the second last time.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So you don't have questions.

I'm going to proceed to the I'm so sorry, Scott.

Council person burn.

Well, I assume we'll get some other uh other uh comments, but um first off, uh you know, I'm a little disappointed because we've had we've had other examples of developers and neighbors coming together and coming to a compromise, and for some reason, whatever, whatever that reason is, in this particular case, we couldn't get there.

Uh so that's disappointing because that's ultimately when we get the best results.

Um in full transparency when we came in here, what was it a month ago?

I had every intentions of supporting this because the developer I've I've uh supported a couple other projects in small neighborhood, walkable areas where I could visualize what they were talking about doing with the cafe nest nestle in the trees and such.

So I could I could visualize what they were doing.

Um, so I had every intention of voting for this.

Um it got held on the first reading, second reading, and I've had multiple trips out there to look at the neighborhood.

Um it's this particular project, even though I came in with the intentions of supporting it a couple weeks ago, has me a little concerned.

When we when I drive out there, if Gooseberry had been connected, I think it's a absolute slam dunk because it does give you the availability to go out to the north.

I meant to get out there again this morning uh right at eight o'clock, and I business you know held me up a little bit, and I didn't get there till 825, and it was it was congested.

Um made it difficult to turn out.

So I'm I'm really different.

I'm really struggling with that.

But then I on the flip side is I'm trying to decide is a business, you know, the neighbors have said, hey, they're okay with ADUs uh and housing.

I'm looking at the house that's being remodeled that's going to be the business, it's not that big.

What are we talking about that much difference in you know, traffic with housing versus business?

So I guess I say all that to say I'm still a little bit on the fence because I really felt like this was a good project until I drove out there, and I'm a little concerned about the whole situation.

So I uh look forward to hearing what some of the other council members are saying.

Dr.

Jones?

Uh yes, and thank you, Councilmember Byrne.

I have two questions.

Uh Jonathan, did city staff are y'all supporting this now?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

And my second question is was that raccoon really 70 pounds?

Good lord, I said, wow.

Wow.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Yes.

Councilperson Terry.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I I really want to applaud the neighbors for coming out and being um really advocates for their neighborhood for four different on four different occasions.

Uh, as a reminder, the planning commission denied uh this request.

And I do think we have a serious safety issue uh at this location.

And um to respond to Councilmember Berna, I would say that if there were an ADU and more housing, there's still less traffic than a potential business, given the the variety of businesses that could be located there.

So I I think um the lack of a turning lane, the evidence of lots of uh fatal accidents in that area, and then we're gonna add a bit a potential business there that will require parking, it will require deliveries, it will it doesn't require parking bar code, but if you're gonna have customers, you're gonna have part you're gonna have parking issues that are coming in there.

So um I just think this is it might be a great idea, but it's the wrong location.

We've already talked about how Mount Comfort Square is right down the road, that's going to be finished pretty soon.

That's gonna be able to provide lots and lots of businesses and additional housing.

So I I will not be supporting this uh based on primarily on the safety concerns that I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Wheedekare.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think for me, one of the truth serums uh is when neighbors just oppose anything and everything, it gives us pause as city council members to say they would like things frozen in time, and that's a very different feel that we get from this neighborhood where they're actually embracing RSF-18 and encouraging that and participating in dialogue.

And so I feel a bit compelled to acknowledge the authenticity of their concerns and the legitimacy of their concerns.

I like the developers and their reputation is good in this town for doing projects that are meaningful to neighborhoods, but I do feel that this is an awkward situation with uh street not being a through street and being a dead end street.

So I share some of those same safety concerns as others.

Um I I do want to acknowledge though that the neighborhood's willingness to allow additional development and denser development is applauded by this council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um excuse me.

Um thank you, guests to the to neighbors on the um ongoing dialogue that was had.

Unfortunately, you know, obviously, you know, sometimes we, as uh Councilmember Burno stated, you know, we can't come to a full consensus, and you know, that happens, and I think as we're growing, we're gonna run into that unfortunately from time to time.

Um, you know, for me, looking at Mount Comfort, um, when we talk about safety and we talk about you know traffic and concerns um for our corridors, we know that we're going to be welcoming thousands and thousands of new neighbors.

And regardless, thinking about this particular project and putting it in a vacuum, we can't really do that.

I mean, Mount Comfort is going to take on more and more folks, and other properties are going to uh redevelop that are going to drive additional traffic.

I mean, we're gonna have to address Mount Comfort, and it was stated by one of the speakers today that opposes this development that actually um acknowledged that by putting businesses like this, um, you actually do help to create buffer and start to begin to slow down.

Um, and so I understand the the concerns raised and the fear of you know what does this do to the neighborhood, but in communities that I know I'm sure my colleagues and I have traveled to in Atlanta and other cities, um, there have been pockets that have been major corridors that over time have taken on this type of development, and they've been able um to make that a much more you know friendly, um, a much more less aggressive um area that folks are traveling on.

And so I think it's incredibly difficult.

We're in this you know, time of great transition to think about going first or something changing.

Um, and I don't know that just answering four things being at the very corners totally um fulfills and lives out our goals um in the uh way that we want to see these like mixed uses and these neighborhoods being able to be enveloped with um these inviting um places to linger um and to have these like moments of respite.

Um we're not trying to stack everyone on top of one another.

I know that's your conversations about infill and density too.

Um we're not trying to put all of our services and all our population in one spot.

We are trying to create those moments that um people can remember and are nostalgic for, or they know people gathering at a corner, um where you get a you know, ice cream and you run into your neighbor.

Um, we want those moments to happen to Fateville, they're important.

Um, and so for me, I I envision what that looks like in the future, where I think we saw one of those streetscapes of envisioning you know Mount Comfort being able to be slowed down over time and how you might actually want to linger on Mount Comfort.

And I think developments like this are part of the solution for that.

So for that reason, I think that it starts to work towards our vision zero goals, starts to work to um improve safety, and for so that reason I'll be supportive of this tonight.

I'd like to um make a uh motion that we um move to approve this evening.

Second second.

And I don't think we need that right in an ordinance because we just roll to the third reading automatically.

Yeah, no, that's okay.

That's okay.

Uh Minister Jones, do you have a question?

I had a question for Jonathan, because this has come before you on several occasions on I'm just trying to, for clarification.

Was it presented as NF NSF 18 with them split both in SF 18 and the neighbors didn't agree to that as well?

Is that correct?

When this the residents' comments, this has been heard four times.

The first time was at the planning commission when the request was for the entirety of the property to be rezoned in SG Neighborhood Services General.

That is what the planning commission denied by a vote of three to six.

It was at the last reading or the last hearing, the third public meeting, uh, that the applicants proposed to amend it to what's before you today, which is that split between RSF 18 on the northern portion and NSG on the portion closest to Mount Comfort.

Thank you for clarification.

Mr.

Witaker.

Thank you.

I was just gonna ask a question and not talk for five minutes if that's okay.

It's um if we turn this appeal down, what's the wait time to submit a new application?

And do we sitting as the council have the authority to rezone the entire property to RSF 18 during tonight's hearing?

City Council would have that authority.

Uh it's a legislative decision, so it you know, property has been rezoned when uh the owner hadn't liked it before.

Uh you don't do that very often.

Usually it is a suggestion from the uh owner.

Uh, but I have seen city councils also uh when confronted with situations like that, rezone the property uh slightly differently than what the owner has uh petitioned to have.

So certainly something like RSF 18, which has been spoken about and is actually right now semi as proposed.

You could do that for the entire property, uh, if that was the decision of the city council.

Mayor, may I answer the first part of Councilmember Weedaker's question?

Yes, please.

It it there it is codified that you cannot make the same request of our planning commission same exact request within one year of a denial of that request.

So when somebody comes back on the same property, uh one of the first determinations the planning commission has to make is if that new request is substantially different or not, and if they agree that it is, then they segue into a decision about that request, if that makes sense.

Councilmember Turk.

Um could could you remind us since this is an appeal?

If we vote yes, do we grant the appeal?

If we vote no, how does that work?

Well, this is uh it takes five affirmative votes to approve the rezoning.

So you're actually here now.

We're not even talking about the appeal.

We know about the appeal, but the resolution or the ordinance in front of you is to rezone the property.

So uh you would need five votes to rezone the property, whether it's as they have requested or if you wanted to change it.

Uh Clerk Paxton, you have a question?

Yes, thank you so much, Mayor Ron.

There was a handout that was given.

Is this for this item the bill of assurance that's being offered?

Yes, because I know it is.

Yes, the handout is the bill of assurance that the applicant sent staff this afternoon.

Uh if the council would like to entertain it, they would need to amend what's before you right now to accept the bill of assurance.

Otherwise, what's before you is the rezoning that just as it is split between RSF 18 and NSG.

Amending the request to accept the bill of assurance would be that same RSF 18 and NSG, subject to the bill of assurance.

Thank you, Clerk.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh yes, Councilperson Brenner.

Okay, okay, kid, I'm a little confused.

Uh you said we're not hearing the appeal.

The you're hearing the appeal, but the way the ordinance is written is simply a rezoning because that's what would to grant that if you granted an appeal, you would be rezoning the property.

And so we just drafted the ordinance to rezone the property.

We didn't even need to talk about an appeal that way.

If it would end the reverse way, then we would have to have the voting on the appeal, and that's where it gets kind of confusing.

In this particular case, you're just voting on the rezoning.

You know, the city uh planning commission denied it or or recommended against it, but you have the right to make up your own mind on that as you always do with the zoning.

And so in this particular case, you'd be voting for the zoning if you want the zoning changed.

If you don't pass that, then the zoning will be RSF4 again, just like it is uh currently.

Uh okay.

The reason I ask is it's on our agenda is appeal of planning commission denial.

Well, if you look at the title of the ordinance rather than the title that was put on there uh to describe what's happening, okay.

I'm just making sure we're procedurally doing it that I understand what we're doing.

That's good.

Okay, okay.

So Clerk Paxton, let's please call the if you would like to make an amendment to if you would like you can make an amendment and then get a second, and we can vote to amend to accept it, is my understanding.

Certainly, if you're in favor of uh this rezoning, then I think you probably ought to uh amend to accept the bill of assurance, which will change it very small uh change to the ordinance itself, and then you accept the bill of assurance and be applied.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, we yes, Mr.

Clerk Pax Lee.

I was just gonna make a motion to accept the bill of assurance.

Okay, would you like to make a motion to accept the bill of assurance?

Okay, we have a motion to accept the bill of assurance.

Second, okay.

We have a motion and a second to accept the bill of assurance.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, is more no Mr.

Weedaker, yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Okay, sponge.

Sorry, yes.

Sorry.

So sorry, Sarah.

So that would just mean that the title of of the ordinance would end with subject to a bill of assurance, and section one would also end with subject to a bill of assurance.

So now we have an amended ordinance.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll to for the final vote on the amended ordinance?

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

No.

Mr.

Burnout.

No.

Ms.

Butch.

No.

So the ordinance failed.

Okay.

Thank you all very much.

And that brings us to item B3 of new business.

And thank you also to the applicants and the neighbors.

I know this has been a long ongoing discussion, so I appreciate your time.

I'm gonna give you a minute to shuffle out before we move on.

So thank you.

That's a point of information.

Sure.

Yes, Sarah.

Councilmember Moore has a point of information.

Thank you.

Um as a point of information.

Procedurally without being denied, are we able to have a reconsideration of the item to rezone it?

So RSF 18.

Anyone that voted in the majority, which were people voting against the rezoning, will be would be able to before the end of this meeting or the next meeting to move to reconsider that vote.

And if that passed, then you'd be right back to where you were right before you voted.

Are we able to motion in any way tonight to rezone that property to RSF 18?

As opposed, I think it's similar to um Councilperson Wheedaker's question of instead of the requested split between NSG and RSF 18.

The ask is could one of the council members make a motion to do it all uh in RSA?

The proper way to do it would be for someone that voted against the rezoning is to move to reconsider so that we'd go back and have another vote and then instead of voting on uh the uh the application as it is now, but to rezone it instead to RSF 18, all of it could that also be done at a subsequent meeting?

Pardon that could also be done at a subsequent meeting, either the before the end of this meeting or the next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Miss Moore, does that answer your question?

Okay, okay, sorry, thank you.

Okay, moving on to item B3, flexible marina operations and lake access fee modifications for Lakes Fayetteville, Sequoia, and Wilson.

We have Lee Farmer from our parks department here to speak on this item.

But I'm so sorry, but first, Kit.

Whereas uh section 97070 of the city code establishes regulations for recreational activities at Lake Fayetteville, Lake Sequoia, and Lake Wilson, including hours of operation fees and permitted activities, and whereas staff recommends allowing the mayor to establish fees administratively, which will increase efficiency by eliminating the need for ordinance amendments each time adjudgments are necessary to cover the city's operational costs.

And whereas additionally, staff recommends separating marina office hours from the general lake access hours, which will enable the office to operate with flexible or limited schedules based on weather conditions and public demand while ensuring that the lakes remain accessible during established open hours, and whereas staff recommends consolidating daily and annual permits to a single quote lake usage fee unquote, so the city can coordinate more closely with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on community fishing programs.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas, Section One, and to City Council or the City of Favorite, Arkansas, hereby amends section 97.070 by repealing it in its entirety and enacting a replacement section 97.070 as shown on exhibit A attached here to Thank you, Kit.

Lee.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council.

Uh Lee Farmer, recreation superintendent.

Um, as Kit described this ordinance amendment will essentially change the language to make the marina office more flexible to have more flexible hours based on public demand and weather conditions.

The current ordinance stipulates that the marina office and the lake are open from sunrise to sunset, which is not a very sustainable operation considering the winter months and low public demand for that facility.

And lastly, transitioning daily permits to lake access fees, and by doing so, we're able to strengthen our partnership with Arkansas Gaming Bench to be included in their community fishing program, which allows us to have Lake Fayel stock on an annual basis.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any questions for Lee?

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Okay.

Um Keith, did we have anyone that signed up to speak?

We do not online.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

And in order to modify the fee structure for lake use and access and allow more flexible marina operations by manning section 97.070, recreational activities at Lake Fayetteville, Sequalia and Wilson of the Fayetteville City Code.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you all so much.

That brings us to the first item of new business on tonight's agenda.

Item C1.

A 2026 National League of Cities SCEI implementation grant application.

This is a resolution to authorize the application for an implementation grant from the National League of Cities in the amount of $60,000 to pilot a housing preservation focused workforce development program.

And we have Chief Housing Officer Marley Stark here to speak about this item.

I know last week we talked about the potential synergies between this grant and the CLG grant, but I also wanted to take some time tonight to underscore how this proposal would support two key activities that directly advance the goals and action items and our economic vitality plan.

So if you thought that was the last time that you'd heard the last of from me on the academic vitality plan, you're wrong.

First, uh as proposed, uh we would create an inventory of vacant homes and identify opportunities for rehabilitation or repair.

This activity aligns with action item 3 to 17, as well as broader goals to actively maintain existing affordable housing in Fayetteville.

Second, we would develop a training program focused on skills needed to engage in housing construction, rehabilitation, or restoration work.

The economic vitality plan expresses a general commitment to investment in career pathways in the city's target industry sectors, which includes construction and infrastructure careers.

Action item 2 to 17 also expressed the city's intent to explore opportunities to develop a specialized training program aimed at the historic preservation of residential and commercial properties.

So while the development squared pilot is intended to focus on affordable housing rehabilitation and repair work more broadly, I think there are clear overlaps in the skill sets required for historic preservation work moving forward, although that's not the focus of this particular grant.

Staff would like to use the technical assistance opportunities available to us by continued participation in the NLC program to explore this overlap further.

As a reminder, we'll have until the end of 2027 to secure the required local match.

Staff will work with NLC to determine if the city's 2026 CLG grant can contribute towards this requirement.

So that's just something to keep in mind.

Continued participate participation and NLC's SEI program would also give us exposure to some additional national philanthropic partners that could also help us flush this program out further.

So thank you for considering this flexible funding opportunity to refine a resident-driven housing solution that came out of the housing co-create.

I'm excited about the precedent that I think this program has the potential to set both in Fayetteville and the state as a whole.

So with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Marley.

Does anyone on the council have any questions for Marley?

Okay.

I would entertain a motion.

Or I'm sorry, we're not doing that yet.

We do public comment first.

Thank you so much, Marley.

Okay.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on this proposed grant application?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Hi, my name is Dee Dee Peters, and I live in Ward 2.

And I was on one of the members on the team that won and proposed this pitch.

Um my buddy Gage is here.

There are two ideas that were presented, and we put them together to make this happen.

So I just wanted to make sure that you guys know that.

It takes team, and I really hope that the city continues to do this kind of work with other groups so we can get ideas from the public.

I think it's really great, and I hope we get the winning grant money.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, T.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom that would like to speak about this item?

We do not.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any more coming in the public, so I'm going to turn it back to the council.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was actually there for the presentation as I mentioned at the agenda session, and I was very impressed with the proposal, and it really hit home to me that it was a public-driven idea and the workforce training that would be the element of that.

So I really think that it is worthy of a support tonight, and after anybody, if anybody has any other additional comments, but otherwise, I'd make a motion to approve.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to approve.

Clerk Paxson.

Oh.

Did we need was this the third reading?

It's a resolution.

Oh, it's a resolution.

I'm sorry.

No, it's okay.

No, it's okay.

Um Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Okay, that item passes.

And apologies in advance, but we need to take a two-minute break.

I apologize before we get to item C2.

If we can keep it at 90 seconds, that's even better.

I am so sorry.

Thank you all for your patience.

We're going to take a two-minute break.

Okay, we are calling back to order.

Thank you, everyone.

We will move right on to item C2, special election for the city to issue sales tax and use tax capital improvement bonds.

Mr.

Williams.

Levying a local sales and use tax at the rate of 1% for the purpose of retiring such bonds and prescribing other matters pertaining thereto.

Whereas Amendment 62 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and Title 14, Chapter 164, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 annotated the local government bond act, authorized the issuance of capital improvement bonds by municipalities, which bonds may be secured by the pledge of all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax described in the local government bond act.

And whereas pursuant to amendment 62 and the local government bond act, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas has previously issued and there will be outstanding as of November 1, 2025, its sales and use tax capital improvement bond series 2022 in the aggregate principal amount of 42 million 660,000.

This is the series two 2022 bonds.

And two, it's sales and use tax capital improvement bond series 2024 in the aggregate aggregate principal amount of 15 million dollars, the series 2024 bonds collectively the prior bonds.

And whereas the prior bonds are secured by and payable from the receipts of a 1% special citywide sales and use tax previously levied under the authority of the local government bond act, the prior tax.

And whereas the city council has determined that the additional that additional revenues can be obtained to finance critical capital improvement needs by restructuring the city's existing indebtedness secured by sales and use tax receipts through the refunding of the prior bonds.

And whereas if approved by the electors of the city, the city has determined to issue its refunding bonds and a principal amount not to exceed 40 million dollars for the purpose of refunding the prior bonds.

It's capital improvement bonds and principal amount not to exceed 150 million five hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of certain water system repairs and rehabilitation and certain wastewater treatment plant rehabilitation and upgrades.

Is capital improvement bonds and principal amount not to exceed $25,500,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of certain regional park and other park system improvements?

Its capital improvement bonds and principal amount not to exceed $18,100,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of an animal services facility.

5.

It's capital improvement bonds in principal amount not to exceed $3,800,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of certain trail improvements.

6.

It's capital improvement bonds in principal amount not to exceed $56,000 for purposes of financing all or a portion of costs of certain street and other transportation related improvements.

Number seven is capital improvement bonds in principal amount not to exceed $1,050,000 for the purpose of financing all or portion of the costs of a recycling drop-off facility and hazardous household hazardous waste facility.

Number seven is capital improvement bonds in principal amount not to exceed $61,900,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of costs of a community aquatics recreation center.

And nine is capital improvement bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $18,650,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of costs of certain fire station and fire training facility construction and the acquisition of firefighting vehicles, equipment, and apparatus collectively the bonds, which bonds are to be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of a 1% special city sales and use tax, the bond tax, which bond tax shall replace the existing 1% special citywide sales and use tax, the prior tax, securing the prior bonds, all is authorized by amendment 62 and the local government bond act.

And whereas the purpose of this ordinance is to call a special election on the issuance of the bonds by the city and for related purposes.

Now therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that under the authority of Amendment 62 and the Local Government Bond Act, and subject to approval of the electors of question one, and at least one of the other questions set forth in section four below, there are hereby levied one a sales tax at a rate of one percent on the gross receipts from the sale at retail within the city of all items and services which are subject to taxation under the Arkansas Gross Receipts Act of 1941 as amendment amended the Arkansas Code of 1987 annotated section 2652 101 et sec and two an excise or use tax at the rate of 1% on the storage use, distribution or other consumption within the city of tangible personal property or taxable services subject to taxation under the Arkansas Compensation Compensating Tax Act of 1949 as amended the Arkansas Code 1987 annotated 26 53 101 et sec on the sale price of the property or in the case of leases or rentals on the lease of rental price collectively the bond tax.

The bond tax shall be levied and the net collections received after deduction of the administrative charges of the state of Arkansas and required rebates shall be utilized only for the payment of debt service on these bonds approved by the voters.

The bond tax shall be levied and collected only on the gross receipts, gross proceeds or sale prices in the maximum amount allowed from time to time under Arkansas law, subject to rebates and limitation as required for certain single transactions as from time to time required under Arkansas law.

The levy and collection of the bond tax shall commence on and as of date approved by Arkansas law and shall cease upon retirement in full of these bonds approved by the voters.

Any collections of the prior tax received after issuing the refunding bonds described in question one or any excess collections of the prior tax shall be used to provide for payment of the debt service on those bonds approved by the voters.

Section two that under the authority of amendment 62 in the local government bond act and subject to approval by the electors of the city of question one and at least one of the other questions set forth in section four below there is hereby authorized one the issuance of the city's refunding bonds and aggregate principal amount not to exceed 40 million dollars for the purpose of redeeming the outstanding prior bonds as described in question one under section four below number two the issuance of the city's capital improvement bonds and the aggregate principal amount not to exceed 150 million five hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of certain water system repairs and rehabilitation and certain wastewater treatment plant rehabilitation and upgrades as described in question two under section four below.

Number three, the issuance of the city's capital improvement bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $25,500,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of certain regional park and other park system improvements as described in question three under section four below.

Number four, the issuance of the city's capital improvement bonds and principal amount not to exceed $18,100,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of costs of an animal services facility as described in question four under section four below.

Number five, the issuance of capital city's capital improvement bonds and the principal amount not to exceed $3,800,000 for the purpose of financing all or portion of the cost of certain trail system improvements as described in question five under section four below.

Number six, the question of the city's capital improvement bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $56 million, for the purpose of financing all or apportion of the cost of certain street and other transportation related improvements as described in question six under section four below.

Number seven, the issuance of the city's capital improvement bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $1,050,000 for the purpose of financing all our apportional costs of the recycling drop-off facility and hazardous home homes household hazardous waste facility as described in question seven under section four below.

And number eight, the issuance of the city's capital improvement bonds and their principal amount not to exceed $61,900,000 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of a community aquatics and recreation center as described in question eight under section four below.

And nine, the issuance of the capitals improvement bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $18,650,000 for the purpose of financing all or portion of the cost of certain fire station and fire training facility construction and the acquisition of firefighting vehicles, equipment and apparatus as described in question nine under section four below.

If approved by the electors of the city, the aforementioned of refunding bonds and capital improvement bonds, collectively the bonds, may be issued in one or more series from time to time in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the respective principal amounts approved by the city's electors.

Any bonds so issued shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of the bond tax as authorized by the local government bond act.

Section three, that there be and thereby call is called a special election to be held on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026, at which election there shall be submitted to the electors of the city the questions of the issuance of the bonds.

And section four, that the questions shall be placed on the ballot for the special election in substantially the following forms.

Special election on bond issuance and city sales and use tax levy.

There is hereby submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville the questions on the issuance of the bonds described in questions one through nine set below.

Upon approval of question one and at least one of the other questions set forth below, and upon the issuance of the refunding bonds defined in question one, the city's existing levy of a 1% sales and use tax to be replaced by the levy of a 1% bond tax defined in question one under the authority of Title 14, chapter 164 subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code annotated, such bond tax shall commence on or as of the date provided by Arkansas law and shall cease at the retirement of all approved bonds.

The bonds disclose described below that are approved may be combined into a single issue or may be issued in series from time to time and may be issued on a tax-exempt or taxable basis.

The net collections of the bond tax remaining after the state of Arkansas deducts its administrative charges will be used solely to retire those bonds described below, which are approved by the voters and obligations of the city with respect thereto.

Unless question one and at least one of the other questions set forth below are approved, none of the bonds described below will be issued.

The bond tax will not be levied and the prior tax will remain in place until payment in full of the prior bonds.

The refunding bonds.

Pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 164, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code, the Local Government Bond Act.

For the purpose of refunding the city's outstanding one, sales and use tax capital improvement and refunding bonds series 2019A.

Number two, sales and use tax capital improvement bonds series 2022.

Number three, sales and use tax capital improvement bonds series 2024, collectively the prior bonds.

If the issuance of the refunding bond is approved, and refunding bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of the special citywide sales and use tax at a rate of 1% levied to the local government bond act, a bond tax.

Vote on the question by placing X in one of the squares following the question for either either for or against.

For the issuance of refunding bonds in their principal amount not to exceed $40 million, against the issuance of funding bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $40 million.

Question two, water, wastewater system bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville.

The question of the issuance of capital improvement bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $150,500,000, the water, wastewater system bonds, pursuant to the local government bond act, as defined in question one, for the purpose of financing all or apportion of the cost of various repairs and rehabilitation of the city's water system and all or apportion of the cost of upgrades to and rehabilitation of the Nolan Wastewater Treatment Plant.

If the issuance of the water system bonds is approved, the water system bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levied pursuant to the local government bond act, the bond tax.

Vote on the question by playing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the water or wastewater system bonds in their principal amount not to exceed 15500,000 dollars, or against the issuance of water wastewater system bonds in a principal amount not to exceed 150,500,000 dollars.

Question three, the park system bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors to the city of Fayetteville, the question of issuance of capital improvement bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $25,500,000, the park system bonds, pursuant to the local government bond act as defined in question one, for the purpose of financing all or apportion of the costs of the design, construction equipment of various park system improvements, including land acquisition, the inition or renovation of athletic fields, concession facilities, restrooms, and playgrounds, and which may include other ancillary improvements such as street and utility extensions and improvements, fencing, lighting, shade structures, landscaping, and parking.

If the issuance of the park system bonds is approved, the park system bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of the special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levied pursuant to the local government bond act, the bond tax.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the park system bonds and their principal amount not to exceed $25,500,000, against the issuance of the park system bonds and the principal amount not to exceed $25,500,000.

Question 4, Animal Services Facility Bonds.

They were submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville.

The question of the issuance of capital improvement bonds and the principal amount not to exceed $18,100,000, the animal service facility bonds, pursuant to the local government bond act as defined in question one.

For the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of design, construction, and equipping of an animal services facilities, and which may include land acquisition and other ancillary improvements, such as community meeting rooms, recycling facilities, street and utility extensions and improvements, landscaping and parking.

If the issuance of the animal services facility bonds is approved, the animal services facility bond shall be secured by a pledge and lean upon all of the receipts of the special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levied pursuant to the local government bond act.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the following squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the animal services facility bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $18,100,000 against the issuance of the animal service of facility bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $18,100,000.

Question 5, the trail system bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

The question of issuance of capital improvement bonds in the apprentice amount not to exceed $3,800,000, the trail system bonds, pursuant to the local government bond act, as defined in question one, for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of the design, construction, reconstruction, extension, resurfacing, and equipping of certain city trail system improvements, and which may include related pedestrian signal, lighting, landscaping, drainage and safety improvements, right-of-way acquisition, and utility extensions and relocation.

If the issuance of the trail system bonds is approved, the trail system bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levy pursuant to the local government bond act, the bond tax.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the trail system bonds and the principal amount not to exceed $3,800,000 against the issuance of the trail system bonds and principal amount not to exceed $3,800,000.

Question 6, transportation system bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

The question of issuance of capital improvement bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $56 million, the transportation system bonds, pursuant to the local local government bond act is defined in question one for the purpose of financing all or apportion of the costs of the right-of-way acquisition, planning, design, construction, reconstruction, repair, resurfacing, straightening, and width modification of certain city streets, and which may include related program management services, utility extension and relocation, bridges, bicycle lanes, traffic signal and control, lighting, curving, guttering, landscaping, drainage, and safety improvements, and curbside pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks, bus pickup structures, and concrete waiting pads.

If the issuance of the transportation system bonds is approved, the transportation system bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levy pursuant to the local government bond act, the bond tax.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the transportation system bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $56 million, against the issuance of the transportation system bonds and the principal amount not to exceed $56 million, question seven, so sustainability bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the question of the issuance of a capital improvement bonds and a principal amount not to exceed $1,050,000, the sustainability bonds pursuant to the local government act as defined in question one for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of the land acquisition, design, construction, and equipping of a recycling drop-off facility and a household hazarded waste facility, and which may include other ancillary improvements such as street and utility extensions and improvements, landscaping and parking.

If the issuance of the sustainability bonds is approved, the sustainability bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and leaned upon all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levied pursuant to the local government bond act.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of sustainability bonds in their principal amount not to exceed $1,050,000 against the issuance of sustainable bonds, sustainability bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $1,050,000.

Question 8, the Aquatics Recreation Center bonds.

They are submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville.

That's one second.

Thank you.

Not quite through yet.

Just a short, just a short.

Okay.

All right.

Back to question eight.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

The question of the issuance of capital improvement bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $61,900,000, the Aquatics Recreation Center bonds pursuant to the Local Government Bond Act as defined in question one for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of land acquisition, design, construction, and equipping of an aquatic recreational center, which may include recreational facilities such as indoor and outdoor pools and other auxiliary water features, recreation and sports facilities, multi-purpose rooms and offices, and which may include other incelerated improvements such as street and utility extensions and improvements, landscaping and parking.

If the issuance of the aquatics recreation center bonds is approved, the aquatic recreation center bonds shall be secured by a pledge of all uh a pledge of and lean upon all of the receipts of a special citywide sales and use tax at the rate of 1% levied pursuant to the local government bond act.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of Aquatics Recreation Center bonds in their principal amount not to exceed $61,900,000, against the issuance of the Aquatic Recreation Center bonds in their principal amount not to exceed $61,900,000.

Question 9.

Fire department bonds.

They're submitted to the qualified electors of the city of Fayetteville.

The question of the issuance of capital improvement bonds in their principal amount not to exceed $18,650,000, the fire department bonds.

Pursuant to the local government bond act as defined in question one for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of the design construction and equipping of a fire training facility to be located on city owned property at 2515 East Borwick Drive, land acquisition, design construction and equipping of a fire station, and the acquisition of firefighting vehicles, equipments, and apparatus, which may include other ancillary improvements such as street and utility extensions and improvements, landscaping and parking.

If the issuance of the fire department bonds is approved, the fire department bonds shall be secured by a pledge of and lean upon all the receipts of the special city sales and use tax at the rate of 1%, levy pursuant to the local government bond act.

Vote on the question by placing an X in one of the squares following the question, either for or against.

For the issuance of the fire department bonds in principal amount not to exceed $18,650,000 against the issuance of the fire department bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $18,650,000.

Section 5, that the election shall be held and conducted, and the vote canvassed and the results declared under the law and in the manner now prescribed by the Arkansas Municipal Elections unless otherwise provided in the local government bond act, and only qualified voters of the city shall have the right to vote at the election.

The city clerk is hereby directed to give notice of the special election by one advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.

The publication is not less than 10 days prior to the date of the election.

Section 6.

That a copy of this ordinance shall be given to the Washington County Circuit, the County Clerk and to the Washington County Board of Election Commissioners at least 70 days prior to the date of the special election so that the necessary election officials and supplies may be provided.

A certified copy of this ordinance shall also be provided to the director of the Department of Finance and Administration and to the Treasurer of the State of Arkansas as soon as practical.

Section 7, that the results of the special election shall be proclaimed by the mayor, and her proclamation shall be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.

The proclamation shall advise the results as proclaimed and shall be conclusive unless intact in circuit court of Washington County within 30 days after the date of publication of the proclamation.

Section 8 that the mayor and city clerk or an on behalf of the city be and they are hereby authorized and directed to do any and all things necessary to call and hold the special election as herein provided, and if the issuance of refunding bonds and any of the capital improvement bonds described herein are approved by the electors to cause the bond tax to be collected in accordance with the local government bond act and to perform all acts of whatever nature necessary to carry out the authority conferred by this ordinance.

Section 9, the city considers this ordinance to be its declaration of official intent to issue bonds and to make reimbursements to the city with a portion of the proceeds thereof for all original expenses incurred by the city in acquiring, constructing or equipping any of the projects described herein between the date that is 60 days prior to the date of this ordinance and the date a series of bonds is issued, plus a de minimis amount and preliminary expenditures as such terms are defined in Section 1.150-12F of the Federal Income Tax Regulations.

Section 10, that CUTOC Rock LLP is hereby engaged as bond council, and Stevens Incorporated is hereby engaged as underwriter with respect to issuance of the bonds, the fees and expenses of the bond council and the underwriter shall be a cost of issuance of the bonds to be paid with bond proceeds.

Section 11 that the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be separable, and if any provision shall for any reason be held illegal or invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance.

And section 12 that all ordinance and parts thereof and conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

I mean that well done, sir.

Okay.

So we are going to do this presentation a little bit differently because we have nine questions or forgive me, 10 questions.

We're going to have the person on the staff that has been the lead for each question give their presentation.

And so first up, we I will ask Stephen Dodson, our CFO, to come and speak about what would be the very first item on the ballot, and that is the refinancing of the bonds.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

And if that one does not pass, then uh none of the others will pass.

That the refunding question is in the amount of 40 million dollars.

And uh I'd also like to kind of go over a few other questions that council has had and that I've received from the public.

Uh, just to reiterate a couple of other things about this.

Um, as a reminder, this represents a continuation of the one cent sales tax that the city is administered for many years.

This is not a new tax.

Um for the other bond questions in the ordinance.

You're going to notice that the dollar amounts are greater than the project funds that we had discussed at the previous bond workshop.

And the numbers in the ordinance are the final numbers that you heard tonight, and those include the project fees plus the cost of the bond issuance, and the bond issuance cost includes the bond rating fee, bond council fee, underwriters' expenses, trustee fees, escrow fees, and uh ordinance and election publication.

Um I'd also like to address a couple of other questions that came up.

We do not have the option to slow down the repayment of the 2019 bond issue.

We've committed all of the one cent sales tax revenue to paying these bonds off as quickly as possible.

For that water and sewer question, um, the 2024 master plan report from Garver recommended that we go ahead and immediately perform a large uh capital improvement project to address the critical assets.

And I've as I've mentioned at the last couple of meetings.

Um, I feel that it's necessary to begin this work at the Nolan plant uh immediately.

And uh finally for the transportation question, um, I mentioned last time as well.

By the time that we would receive new bond project funds in late 2026, uh, we would have already committed or spent all of the uh the bond issue proceeds uh from the last issuance.

So to continue um funding the street transportation improvements of the city needs, I'd also recommend that we move forward with the bond package at this time.

And I'd also like to mention that uh Kevin Fott, our underwriter and uh Gordon Wilburne, our bond counsel are both here in attendance again tonight and can answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Steve.

We're gonna do questions on the whole presentation at the end, and so I'm glad that you're available and also Gordon and Kevin.

Thank you for being here.

Tim, you're at next to talk about the water and sewer portion of the bond, which is 150 million five hundred thousand.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council.

So question two on the bond uh concerning water and wastewater has three main categories with the lines here going for the null and facility upgrades.

Uh, this precipitated from the null facility master plan conducted and completed last year.

This plan identified 126 million dollars in critical infrastructure improvements.

It's a two-phase approach with the first phase focusing on critical infrastructure upgrades needed in the next five years to mitigate agent equipment failures and maintain operational resiliency.

Phase two needed in the five to ten year time horizon addresses additional processes and enhancements as flows and loadings increase.

Uh the key objectives of phase one improvements are addressing high risk assets with potential to disrust disrupt tribute reliability, increase in operational flexibility and redundancy across the major processes, and proper sequencing of upgrades to maintain complete services during the construction phase one improvements.

Uh 35% of the Nolan phase one project is capacity related, meaning it is increasing capacity at the facility, but also maintaining the existing available capacity is completely relevant as reinvestment in agent infrastructure ensures the level of service necessary for the next iteration of development in our community.

There is 10 million dollars for the 36-inch waterline critical repairs.

This will fund repairs on the 36-inch diameter water line that runs 10 miles from Beaver Water District to Fayetteville.

This is a nearly 60-year-old original line, and this line has experienced several catastrophic failures due to corrosion on the external walls of the Dr.

Larn Prime.

10 million dollars for water tank rehabilitation.

The city of Fayetteville has 30 million gallons in drinking water storage.

Our tanks are above ground and exposed to the elements and experience normal lifecycle needs when it comes to corrosion and coatings, as well as upgrading the safety fig the climbing safety fixtures for our employees.

This 10 million dollars would go towards several standing known rehabilitation projects that are needed to occur, as well as several that are on the next cycle once we have our tank inspections in 2027.

These projects serve every resident, every visitor of Fayetteville, every business and every institution.

They will be utilizing these improvements.

These projects help secure and safeguard our ability to grow housing and businesses for the next generation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Tim.

And Alison, would you like to speak to us about parks and recreation, which is 25.5 million dollars in the bond.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Funds in this quote in this question will support vital upgrades to aging facilities in our parks across the city that serve all residents.

This project will focus on maintaining and improving existing assets, such as replacing turf playing fields and playgrounds.

It will also fund new park development and strategic land acquisition for future parks, filling gaps to ensure our park system remains sustainable, safe, and reflective of our community's needs.

Parks are among the most powerful infrastructure investment a city can make.

They strengthen public health, safety, and quality of life.

They fuel economic growth and serve as essential green infrastructure and stormwater management against climate resilience.

Parks provide accessible, inspiring spaces that foster creativity, cultural expression, and community connection.

It's hard to find another infrastructure investment that provides as much benefit to a community per dollar than parks.

If these projects are not funded, we risk a decline in the quality of life.

Park infrastructure will deteriorate and we will not be able to adequately serve our residents, attract new businesses, or meet the demands of our future growth.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Alison.

Justine, if you'd like to speak about the animal services facility, please.

Even lower there.

Okay.

71% of American households own at least one pet.

Pet ownership numbers continue to rise as our population does.

Our current animal shelter has served this community for over five decades, but the truth is it has reached the end of its life.

The building is outdated and no longer meets the standards that our animals, our staff, and our community deserve.

We have reworked the existing space multiple times to create room for housing and helping community pets.

When people come to adopt, volunteer, or pick up a lost furry friend, they don't always experience the warm, welcoming environment that should define a space like ours.

Simply put, our facility no longer reflects the level of care and compassion that we provide as a city service.

A new shelter will change that.

It will bring us in line with other communities in our area, offering a more humane and healthy environment for the animals in our care.

It will create a friendly, inviting space for adopters, volunteers, and families.

And it will give our staff the tools and conditions they need to do their jobs effectively.

In addition, a new animal services facility would incorporate a community meeting room for the use of all citizens.

We are the only municipal shelter in Northwest Arkansas with a staff veterinarian, which means that we can offer services and care without added weight or cost.

A new facility will expand our outreach services with a continued focus on assisting our most financially vulnerable community members with the ultimate goal of keeping families together.

This isn't just about a building, it's about giving our community a facility that matches our shared values, compassion, responsibility, and pride in the place that we call home.

With this bond, we can create a shelter that is truly worthy of the animals and the people that it serves.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, just Justine.

Matt, if you'd like to speak about trails, please.

Yeah, good evening.

Good evening.

So, yeah, this bond will just continue to expand our network, our successful network of trails that really are impacting lives throughout our community and visitors that are providing those alternative ways to get to destinations.

So we'll continue to connect the schools, parks, and neighborhoods, providing all transportation alternatives for all users, and we'll really focus on building these trails that are comfortable for all ages and all abilities with that focus.

Also, we have some aging trails that are needed replacement so that this bond can help making sure we're in top condition on our trails and also can leverage grant funding with 80-20 federal funding that we see that can help us get further with that the miles.

So in summary, the trails bond will strengthen the city's trail network by connecting schools, parks, neighborhoods, and commercial areas, creating safe accessible routes for all users and all ages and abilities.

It will also fund the replacement of aging asphalt trails with durable concrete to keep our system in top condition.

By leveraging these funds to pursue additional grants, we'll extend the reach of our investments and continue building a more connected, active, and resilient community.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Matt.

Chris.

Thank you, Mayor.

Transportation.

Goals of the transportation program.

We want to use these funds to improve access and mobility for growing areas of the city, as well as continuing to invest in our downtown area.

We want to be able to complete projects that have already begun under existing programs and also pursue new priorities and also invest in paving and rehab type projects to keep our system in a state of good repair.

We certainly also want to leverage and extend the reach of these funds using opportunities for grants.

So we certainly continue or expect to continue to be able to add to those programs as well.

Projects may include intersection improvements and turn lanes, corridor improvements, area-wide improvements, and signal technology improvements to maximize efficiency of our intersections without having to add lanes.

We also want to continue to invest in our downtown.

That may include lighting, sidewalks, safety improvements, and support for transit stops in the downtown area.

We really are looking at this in terms of three buckets.

One is continuing the projects that have already begun in the 2019 bond program and under other programs, including the Safe Streets for All projects, which has about 25 million dollars in federal aid, so we want to be sure and complete those projects.

And lastly, to maintain a contingency fund to respond to new opportunities, whether that be grants, future transportation needs, and that sort of thing.

Thank you so much, Chris.

Mr.

Nearing Garden.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

The sustainability bond is the smallest of all the bond questions at $1,050,000.

But it will make a large impact on two waste aversion initiatives that are part of the city's 2024 climate action plan.

The first area is a much needed west side recycling drop-off facility.

The recycling drop-off facility on the west side of the city will provide much needed access for recycling services for residents and businesses that are located west of Interstate 49, and it will also help relieve overcrowding and overflowing of materials that we currently have issues with at the city's Mary and Orton Recycling Facility on North Street.

With the addition of the of the third recycling drop-off facility, we'll have three geographically well-located recycling drop-off facilities distributed across Fayetteville.

We'll have the one in Southeast Fayetteville at our Happy Hollow Compound complex.

We'll have one in central Fayetteville at North Street and then one in West Fayetteville.

Okay, and then the second initiative that this sustainability bond will fund is a permanent household hazardous waste drop-off facility that will be staffed and provide residents and businesses the ability to safely dispose of old pesticides, fertilizers, oil-based paints, sharps, mercury, and other household hazardous waste and electronics.

Currently, we have a household hazardous waste facility that operates using a trailer from the Boston Mountain Solid Waste District.

We have that one day a week, one morning a week on Thursday mornings.

And so this new facility would give us a permanent covered location for safe disposal of household hazardous waste, electronics, and other specialized wastes.

Great.

Thank you so much, Peter.

That brings us back to Alison to speak about the Aquatic and Recreation Center.

Thank you.

This question will fund an Aquatic and Recreation Center that will support public health, safety, community connections, and the local economy.

It will serve an essential public safety function by providing swim lessons and lifeguard training that reduces the risk of drowning and builds lifelong water safety skills, which is critical in an area like ours where we are surrounded by lakes, rivers, and streams.

The recently completed year-long feasibility study saw unprecedented public engagement with over 2,850 people participating in the speak up surveys alone.

This indicated a strong need for the facility.

The study identified that we have inadequate aquatic facilities for a community of our size, noting that comparable cities have 2.2 outdoor and 1.7 indoor facilities.

Fayetteville currently has one municipal pool to serve over 100,000 residents.

This project will provide year-round swimming and recreation opportunities, filling a key service gap with a facility that serves all residents.

An aquatic and recreation center will strengthen community ties by creating an inclusive gathering space where families, friends, and neighbors come together for skill building competitions and shared experiences, enhancing our quality of life.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And finally, Chief Harden.

Last but certainly not least.

So over the 20-year life of this bond, we're anticipating a 46% growth in the city of Fayetteville to sustain our current level of service.

We're going to need to expand our services.

We're planning on adding a couple more stations.

And of course, backfilling personnel and all of the existing stations that we have scattered throughout our city to deal with infill.

To fund this, we're planning on funding one fire station and one of the fire trucks and all the required equipment with this bond.

And then also with the bond, we are planning on funding a new training facility that will be built or constructed on our existing site down in South Fayetteville.

And then lastly, we are wanting to purchase one of our or replace one of our fire trucks out of this bond.

So that's it.

Great.

Thank you so much, Brad.

Thank you to the staff who has worked so hard on this.

This bond will allow us to catch up on essential improvements and prepare for the future using an existing one cent sales tax with no increase to our residents.

Particularly about the infrastructure, something that I know won't be a new comment for most of you on the council, but I think bears repeating is that as we look to make these improvements to our water and sewer infrastructure, the money that we are not able to include for that in the bond passes on to the ratepayers.

And so being able to use this bond initiative to make those improvements means that we're able to control the amount of the rate increase and make sure that that is lower for everybody in our community.

And I think with that, Keith, unless you have anything to add, we will open it up to questions from the council.

I just have one uh quick thing.

Chris mentioned just how we utilize some of these funds for matching grants.

So we try to really leverage as much as we can grant opportunities that are out there, and we've been very successful that specifically in transportation sustainability and our pedestrian and trail infrastructure.

So that's something that we're gonna use some of these bond funds to help with those matching grant opportunities as they come up.

Great.

Thank you, Keith.

Okay.

So do we have anybody in the room that would like to make a comment on these items?

If so, please just go ahead and approach and state your name and address.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Kyle Smith 28 One Dove Drive.

Two weeks ago, I uh when you were discussing the resolution for this, I talked about the importance of spending our money in a sustainable way.

And I support the use of bond funds to bring a lot of our critical infrastructure up to uh current standards.

Uh, we've let it fall behind, and this is a good way to deal with that.

Um but tonight when you decide to ask the voters to approve that spending, uh, you kick off the campaign to convince them to vote for it.

And so I hope that you will spend the next few months earning their votes by making choices and demonstrating a commitment to uh sustainable spending and sustainable policies that make efficient use of our infrastructure, whether that is by adjusting our development policies or other spending to make sure that we are developing our city in a way that produces revenue to match our our street and pipe investments.

So uh with that said, I hope you will support the question of the voters, and then I hope that you will tolerate me hounding you for the next three or four months about everything else.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

I appreciate it.

Do we have anyone else in the yeah?

Please go ahead and come up.

Thank you.

Please state your name and address.

Good evening.

Um, Duke McLarty.

Um, I know many of you.

I want to make it very clear.

I'm here in my personal capacity tonight.

Uh, as a resident of Fayetteville, I live at 3785 uh Chatsworth.

Um, tonight I speak in support of this ordinance uh calling for the upcoming bond election.

This is an investment in Fayetteville's future.

Bonds like this are one of the most effective tools we have to build the infrastructure that makes housing jobs and quality of life possible.

When we invest in roads, drainage, parts, public safety, we're also investing in housing affordability and neighborhood stability.

These are the foundational systems that allow both private and not-for-profit developers to then, after this infrastructure is in place, create homes we so desperately need.

Of course, I wish there were dedicated funds in this for housing.

But the reality is that nearly every feature of this bond proposal supports housing indirectly.

This is a housing bond proposal.

When we modernize infrastructure, improve transportation, and strengthen the services that attract employers, we lower costs and open new areas for responsible sustainable growth.

That's how we create the conditions where then public investment in housing can succeed.

This isn't a spending measure that raises taxes.

It's an investment in what Fayetteville's voters have already approved.

It's about maintaining momentum, addressing our growth challenges, and ensuring that Fayetteville continues to be a place where families of all incomes can live and thrive.

Finally, the concern around legacy properties being bought and sold that have been discussed in previous council meetings, leaving the existing residents vulnerable to market forces is absolutely worthy of the attention of this body.

But without a fully vetted and thoughtful plan in place, I would caution the city from haphazardly venturing into the waters of property ownership, management, and becoming a landlord.

Have you not heard what the public thinks of landlords?

In my official role, I look very forward to working with your new chief housing officer and developing a plan, fleshing out these thoughts, but should not be the reason the measure does not move forward.

Voting to move this bond election forward is a vote for a more resilient, inclusive city.

It keeps Fayetteville competitive, fiscally sound, and forward thinking.

I encourage you to advance this ordinance and give the voters the opportunity to keep Fayetteville growing the right way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing anyone else in the audience.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Yeah, we've uh Shonda Tapley.

Okay.

Shonda.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Shonda Tappley, and I'm here to speak in strong support of the bond proposal tonight.

The Fayetteville Housing Authority fully supports this investment in affordable housing.

Access to safe, decent, and affordable homes is at the heart of a thriving community.

This bond represents a bold and necessary step to address Fayetteville's growing housing needs and to support the people who make this city work and grow.

The city's role is to provide the funding and infrastructure that make housing development possible.

The housing authority's role is to develop and manage that housing for our teachers, service workers, young families, elderly residents, individuals with disabilities, and veterans.

Together, this partnership keeps Fayetteville balanced and inclusive and livable.

We are working closely with Mayor Ron and city staff to re envision Willow Heights and Lewis Plaza, ensuring that current residents have the resources they need during a possible transition while planning for modern, sustainable, and affordable housing for the future.

It's important to recognize that the city does not have the staff capacity or the specialized systems needed to develop and manage affordable housing.

The housing authority does.

Through our affiliation with HUD, we have access to federal funding streams, compliance systems, and national best practices that protect public investment and ensure accountability.

Shifting those responsibilities to the city would duplicate costs and could jeopardize federal resources, specifically set aside for housing authorities.

By maintaining this clear division of roles, the city funding and enabling and enabling housing development and the Fayetteville Housing Authority serving as the developer and long-term steward, we create the most efficient, sustainable and effective path forward for Fayetteville residents.

Thank you for your commitment to housing and for prioritizing investment in infrastructure for the people and families who call Fayetteville home.

Thank you, Ms.

Tapley.

We do not have anybody else on Zoom.

Okay.

I will bring it back to council.

Council uh Councilmember Brennt.

I'm sorry.

Councilmember Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

I uh support this measure.

Uh being an Arkansas native career took me away.

I moved back to Arkansas and was surprised at the differences in property tax and sales tax from state to state.

In the 1920s and 1980s, our governors and legislature reduced property taxes and created legislation that allowed cities to levy sales tax to recoup that loss because you're going to pay for it one way or another.

And this is how this state chose to fund uh its governments.

So the continuation of this sales tax is nothing foreign to the state of Arkansas.

And in fact, I uh I applaud our predecessors for creating those earlier bonds that in this city, we receive only four cents out of every property tax dollar and an additional two cents for roads.

And you can't run a city this size on six cents out of every property tax dollars that you and I pay.

So sales tax is the tool by which cities of any size and even small ones choose to fund major projects, whether that's roads, wastewater treatment plants, or parks.

And that's why I applaud this community for its wisdom to fund the infrastructure that we all benefited from previously and which attracted my family to move back.

And I would heartily support us continuing this one cent sales tax to fund the additional maintenance and enhancement, not for new people to come.

That's not the stress and pressure we're feeling.

This is to maintain the quality of life for people who are already here.

That in and of itself will generate significant economic activity.

And I I fully understand that if we don't do this, we lose that one cent sales tax generating uh infrastructure for us in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Wedaker.

Mr.

Berna, and then Dr.

Jones.

Uh I don't mean to step on Dr.

Jones's.

I'm sorry, but I was trying to go in order of what I saw.

I was just going to make a motion to spend rules and build third and power.

Okay.

Um I was just uh going to say that I agree with all the comments made tonight.

And I know last time we talked about this, I talked about housing.

And I have a transfer thought.

A lot of what has been addressed, it it does include housing.

And so I'm looking forward to us passing this tonight.

Um I've talked to a lot of people, and they're really excited about this, about improving the quality of life for all people, and that in this bond, it's evident that no one is left behind.

And so, Mayor Ron to the staff, thank you.

And you've got my full support on tonight.

And if I could second that, I will.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have but we have a motion in a second, but uh, we also have council member bunch to go ahead, please.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, you know, I fully support this for all the reasons that have been already so well established.

So I'm not going to beat that dead horse again.

But what I want to say is that this council needs we need to get behind this.

And we need to get out and hustle and get the votes in on this, or it will hurt every citizen in Fayetteville that's already here.

It will hurt the future of our city.

So we've got to get out and bust our butts and get people to vote for this and get them on on board with it.

That's my take on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um council member council member.

Thank you, Mayor Ron.

Um, you know, we had a lot of discussion two weeks ago about the bond, and I think that was really healthy to kind of get that out there.

Um, this bond is super important, especially with infrastructure.

Um, the Nolan plant definitely needs a lot of remodeling and repair, and so we definitely need to absolutely get behind that.

Um, I have had some concerns, and I've had a lot of um discussion with uh folks in our community with our citizens about about housing.

Um I realize that that's not in there uh in our bond or proposed bond measure.

We don't have any additional capacity to have a higher bond than we do right now.

So there have been a few developments in the last week that I find are encouraging, especially the article that was in the paper today about the different churches that were uh looking into some housing opportunities.

But I hope that this administration will continue to really focus on low income and affordable housing options, not just market based, but really hone in on the gap that's been identified in a lot of different studies that we've had.

So uh I'm gonna support this bond.

I'm gonna get out and beat the bushes uh as Councilmember Bunch wants us to do, but we need to keep our eye on the ball and close that gap.

So thank you, and thank you to all the staff for all their hard work in putting this together.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Turk.

Um, Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I really um want to applaud the areas that really think about our critical infrastructure needs and do um uh agree wholeheartedly that those are measures towards um our quality of life and making sure that we um are able to open up wide to open you know housing and economic opportunity, you know, for small business, et cetera, to come in and not um hit our head on capacity for those needs that we have.

On the flip side, I've been incredibly conflicted.

Um I'm actually a little under the weather because over the last several weeks I've really struggled to sleep at night.

Um I think that this we're in a really big inflection point in our community.

I think we've been in it for a number of years.

It's one why I ran for council and stepped into this role, and we have lots of neighbors that aren't doing okay, they're not doing all right.

And you know, I struggle on the things that to me and this bond, um, and we'll just we'll name what it is, you know, the aquatic center at 60 million dollars is not necessarily a necessity, right?

It's a want.

Um, I recognize that um there has been a um demand from the community and and a um uh communicated that there's an opportunity for us to provide additional uh access to water, and I think the safety around that, the well-being is is important.

But for me in this time where I struggle and have had conversations with community members, is that in this particular moment that is a tremendous amount of money, and is there you know, any option to phase in, you know, how we we go about that.

Additionally, when we consider the areas where this was um gonna be placed, possibly, you know, Lewis Park is in an area where there's historically affordable housing, places like Washington Plaza where some of our lowest income residents live.

We know when we add amenities um to areas that you know we increase um the displacement that happens in those communities, and so I felt incredibly conflicted around this particular project.

Um and so really for me tonight, I wish that you know, uh we would sit and and consider whether or not there might be a phased approach for the aquatic center, um, whether or not um potentially other locations are identified for consideration as well and the conversations had around those.

Um I've had um quite a few residents that have reached out and concern about the green space in Lewis Plaza, the conflicting um uh thing that will occur if you're thinking about how many parking spaces and pervious surface occur in that area where Hamstring Creek and that area has um struggled with flooding in that particular area.

Um and so I I know we can't answer all of those questions, and we can't bet and get through all of those um pieces of information before this goes forward.

And so for me tonight, it's hard to think about moving forward with those unknowns around the aquatic center.

I hate to hold up the bond in totality, knowing that there are many things in there that are much in need in our community.

And so you know, for me tonight, I would really ask that we hold this and we talk about whether or not there is any movement on the aquatic center to do any phased approach that allows for us to plug any of that cost out of there and to answer some of the specific questions that have been coming forward.

And I don't know if that timing is doable.

So I do want to put that out there.

That is a concern that I have at this time.

Also, again, recognizing again and balancing that, knowing that critical infrastructure is incredibly important.

And as Councilmember Whitaker spoke about the way our structures are, I mean, that is incredibly necessary in order additionally too to offset increases to rates in the future.

But for me, I just um I'm really wrestling with on the aquatic center.

You know, there's been a conversation in the county on different subjects where they said and I wrestle with just put this on the ballot and let the voters decide, right?

I mean, that's one thing too.

We can put it on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Um, but for me, it's just concerning to think about if we say yes to this, there are so many unknowns on the ongoing operations costs for that, challenging us in the future and not knowing uh some big questions I have been asked in recent weeks.

And so um I'm struggling tonight on being ready to move forward with us and don't know if we can sit on this for another meeting uh to be able to just get some additional information and answer more questions that are coming out in the community.

Thank you.

Um Minister Jumps.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just have a few comments.

Um I support the bond.

I don't have an issue with the bond.

I I agree, and I think it's been taken out of context, and I just want for clarity, understand that this bond does support infrastructure for everyone, but who is everyone?

Is it everyone just in this room?

Is it everyone just in a certain part of town?

That is what's questionable to me.

Does it support everyone?

We say it does, but looks different for everyone.

I really want us to think through who everyone is in our community.

I am boots on the ground in contact with unhoused, marginalized, and individuals that are suffering in our communities, right behind our closed doors of our offices, of our homes, and struggling to understand what are we doing to support everyone?

Infrastructure's never been the question.

It's not the question.

I own a home, I understand everything that we need to support our community.

It's not the question, it's never been the question.

But everyone is a big word.

All means all, and that's all I means.

But if we say that, we have to mean it.

And I say we because I keep hearing this word going around that says this supports everyone.

I struggle to believe that.

I do want to um comment that Kyle made a comment earlier, and it really concerns me too.

Sustainable spending, sustainable policies, and ongoing operating cost.

We talk about it now, but five years later, are we coming back asking for additional funds to support the operating cost of our facilities that we're approving now?

Are those facilities for everyone to enter?

Can everybody afford to come into a 70 million dollar aquatic park?

If they don't have $20 to get in or $50, whatever it's gonna cost, how does that support them?

I really want us to think through, we keep if you're if you're gonna do it, do it right, but don't say everyone, because it doesn't support everyone.

Sustainable spending, sustainable policies, and ongoing operating cost to sustain what we approve as a city.

I heard Chandra talk about HUD resources.

I've been in the city 13 years and we're struggling with managing HUD resources.

I say we because we're gonna jump right behind FHA who struggled for 13 years that I've seen.

We quick to jump behind somebody else with no sustainable practices, sustainable policies, and ongoing operating cost.

We have to hold individuals accountable who we continue to write checks to.

As a city and staff, I appreciate every single piece of the work that went into this bond issue.

But if we say we're gonna do it, let's do it for everyone.

Let's consider everyone, and let's think about how these operating costs will impact the city in years to come.

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll try to keep this short.

I had a theme for myself tonight, which was just shut up and vote.

Uh, but I couldn't be the only person on this subject not to say something.

So Harry, I'm not going to keep it short.

Uh, you know, we're not all gonna agree on on each specific issue in this bond.

I but some of it, some of it's just critical, water and sewer critical.

Um, our infrastructure are roads critical.

Um, and so I do support this bond.

Uh, and and I support bringing it to the voters.

The voters are gonna decide which pieces they see as critical and which pieces they don't.

That's up to them.

I'm gonna advocate strongly uh for for the infrastructure in this bond.

Uh again, critical.

Um, but it is up to the voters to decide.

And I do believe that you know the hard work was done to make sure that the things in this bond, I do believe uh were for the benefit of everyone in our community.

Um again, we have differences of priorities.

Uh and and and yeah, would have I would I have liked to see housing in this bond?

I would have, but we're we're at the point now where we have to um move forward with this, um, and we do have other resources to look for revenue bonds, other sources uh to to address uh our housing crisis, which we've been addressing and which we've been moving forward with.

But anyways, uh I said I keep it short, so I will, so that's all I had to say, and I'm ready to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and take it to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

That motion passed.

Do you have to read?

Do we just to prepare?

Do you read the whole thing again?

Or do you just read the time?

No, I'm not.

I'm I didn't, I'm I'm not sure.

I'm calling for a recess if I do.

No, I was just I was making sure that if there was anything that you needed from us to ensure that you did not have to, I was going to offer.

This was a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final merged reading.

And that's what I'll do right now.

Great.

At an ordinance calling and setting a date for a special election on the questions of the issuance by the city of sales and use tax capital improvement bonds for various specified purposes.

Levying a local sales and use tax at the rate of one percent for the purpose of retiring such bonds and prescribing other matters pertaining thereto.

Thank you, Kit.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

And so that passed.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

I appreciate it.

And thank you to my team for all your hard work on this.

And I think we'll probably see a mass exodus.

I know many of you are ready to go home, but thank you for being here.

I appreciate it.

That brings us to item C3, vacation 2025-21, East Joyce Boulevard.

An ordinance to approve vacation 25-21 for property located at 1923 East Joyce Boulevard in Ward 3 to vacate 0.22 acres of general utility easement.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

We're as a city council has the authority under race 1454104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof, which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined that the following described portion of general utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

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

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of general utility easement as described in exhibit B attached to the Planning Department's memo.

Section two that a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk along with the map attached to exhibit A to the Planning Department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

And section three, this vacation approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

And number two, any easements required to serve the associated development shall be dedicated with the easement plat.

Thank you, Kit.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to North Fayetteville on the south side of Joyce Boulevard.

If you're familiar with where Butterfield Trail Village is located, uh just west of Old Missouri Road.

The specific piece of the Butterfield Trail Village where this request is located is towards the southeast portion of the site as you begin segueing from their assisted living facilities into some other more independent living facilities.

The request is specifically to vacate uh almost 10,000 square feet of utility easement that was dedicated in 2001 as a part of an earlier phase of the uh the the retirement community's development uh as they are entering the next phase of the project.

They've identified that this easement uh will sit roughly in the footprint of a new building, which you can uh somewhat see running diagonally through the uh site plan drawings here.

And as a result, uh they're proposing to vacate the easement in question.

Uh in coordinating with uh franchise utilities, all have consented to the easements vacation.

Accordingly, staff is recommending in favor uh with the two conditions that Mr.

Williams read.

One, our standard one, that any damage or relocation of any existing utilities or facilities in that easement uh will be relocated or replaced at the developer's expense, and second, that any necessary easements will be dedicated with uh associated development of this property.

Uh with that, Mayor, I'm happy to take any questions, and uh Ferdi Forey is also available as the applicant online if there are questions.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Do we have questions from the council for Mr.

Kirth or from the applicant?

Or for the applicant, excuse me.

Okay.

I'm not oh I'm so sorry.

Uh council person.

No, I'm not seeing any, so I'm gonna um open it up to public comment.

Right.

Oh, you okay.

Okay.

I don't think we have any public comment in the room.

Keith, is there anyone on Zoom?

There is not.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Mayor, I'd make a motion to spend rules build third and final reading.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

An ordinance approved BAC 25-21 for property located at 1923 East Joyce Boulevard in Ward 3 to vacate 0.22 acres of general utility easement.

Okay.

If I don't see any further questions from council, I'm going to ask Clerk Paxton to please call the roll for the vote.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunt.

Yes.

Okay.

And that passes.

Thank you.

The next item is item C4, Vacation 2025-19 on West Hughes Street.

Kit.

Okay.

An ordinance to approve VAC 25-19 for property located at 902 and 908 West Hughes Street and Ward 2 to vacate approximately 656 square feet of street right-of-way.

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

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

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

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of street right away ascribed in exhibit B attached to the Planning Department's memo.

Section two, a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk along with the map attached to exhibit A to the Planning Department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

And section three, this vacation approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, any damage to a relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

And number two, a 10-foot wide utility easement shall be dedicated, centered along the existing Ozark Goes Underground Fiber Line on the north side of West Hughes Street.

Thank you, Kit.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is a right-of-way vacation request uh located near Central Fayeville.

It's one block south of North Street at the northwest corner of Hughes Street and Store Avenue.

Uh it probably looks very familiar to the council members uh from the last uh council meeting.

There was a request on this property to rezone it uh from the previous RMF uh multifamily zoning designation to RU residential intermediate urban uh as a part of their development review and uh establishing what it would take to build sidewalk in front of this property.

It was identified that there is roughly 60 feet of public right-of-way along Hughes Street, which is uh about eight feet in excess of where our modern street designs uh need them to be, uh accounting for uh two lanes of through traffic on street parking, green space for trees, and sidewalk.

Uh, accordingly, as a part of that, the applicant has requested to vacate a sliver of that right-of-way along the southern portion of the property, totaling about 650 square feet.

Uh staff has found that given it does isn't necessary to meet our master street plan design for the street.

Uh, it is appropriate to vacate it.

Uh additionally, all the associated franchise utilities have signed off on its uh uh consenting on its uh vacation.

Uh when the planning commission heard this at their meeting uh previously, they recommended in favor of it on the consent agenda.

So effectively a unanimous vote uh with uh our standard condition of approval.

You heard me uh describe in the last item, uh, but also one additional one given that there is a fiber optic line uh running along Hughes Street and uh Ozark's Go has requested an easement to make sure that that is protected along that portion of the property.

With that, staff and the planning commission both recommend this item uh be approved.

Um available for any questions, and mayor, I believe Jeff Martin is available online as the applicant if there are any questions.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Do we have questions from the council for either Mr.

Martin, the applicant or uh Mr.

Kirth?

Okay, do we have a having to take it to public comment?

I don't see any in here.

We do not have anyone on Zoom.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a sounds like a couple of seconds.

Um Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker, yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

And Norton's approved the AC 25-19 for property located at 902 and 908 West Hughes Street and Ward 2 to vacate approximately 656 square feet of street right away.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Ms.

Turf.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Butch.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item C5, which we have a request to table.

May we do that before we take that request before reading?

Okay.

All right.

We do we have a I would entertain a motion to table from the council.

So moved.

Okay.

Do you have do you and I think we need to apply a date to it?

And so Jonathan, is there a request that it be tabled to the next meeting?

Yes, November 4th, please.

Okay.

I'll make a motion we table it to our next meeting.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to table to the November 4th meeting.

Clerk Paxton, do you mind to please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Jonathan, did we miss something on that one?

No, Mayor, but I did want to share with council.

I know there were a couple specific information requests on that last rezoning cell work to make sure that those are available to go out with the uh tensive agenda so that you have those in advance of the council meeting instead of hearing me give them at that council meeting.

I know there was something specifically asked for.

That's for the Rockwood Trail.

Yes, that's correct.

Thanks for that.

Right, great.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Keith, do we have any announcements?

Yes, I have one announcement.

Just a reminder that uh business licensing renewals are due uh the end of this month, October 31st.

So that's a busy season for our development services department, and wanted to make sure provide you a reminder.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

I think the city clerk has an announcement as well.

So board committee and commissions vacancies advertisement will be posted on Friday, November 24th.

Applications must be submitted by 5 p.m.

on Friday, November 14th.

Great, thank you.

We are now adjourned.