Okay, everybody.

Whoa.

Keith, we gotta fix that.

Okay, what about that?

Is that bringing this order?

Just gonna leave that.

Okay, much better.

Okay, welcome to the agenda session for October 28.

This is the agenda session for the November.

Help me out.

The November 4th City Council meeting.

Just a reminder, it is not a business meeting, it is just a planning meeting.

Um first up next week we'll have the sales tax and monthly financial report from Stephen Dotson, our CFO.

And then we'll jump right into the consent agenda.

Um first two items being council meeting minutes, and then beginning with A3.

And also um, just to let anybody know, same is in the other room.

There are it's hard sometimes for us to guess as a staff what what consent items you might want to hear more about and what are fairly straightforward.

So by all means speak up.

It can be really informal, just let us know.

Don't feel like I have to call on you.

Just jump in and let us know if you want to hear more about it.

We've got staff that can talk about each item.

The first one, A3 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the engineering services agreement with RJN group.

It's a hundred it's eight hundred and fourteen thousand and a hundred and thirteen dollars for waterline condition assessments and to approve a contingency in the amount of 120,000.

And Tim is here and can speak to that if you all would like more info.

The next is a transportation asphalt patch truck replacement.

It's a resolution to approve the purchase of an FPS asphalt pothole patch truck from Burkamp Inc.

pursuant to an HGAC cooperative purchasing contract in the amount of 278,449 plus any applicable surcharges, freight or delivery fees, up to 10% of the original purchase price.

It's worth noting that FPS does not mean Fayetteville Public Schools.

So just uh A5 is something that is exciting.

It's uh the Walker Senior Center Generator and Automatic Transfer SWIFT purchase that will support meals on wheels and senior nutrition programs.

This is a resolution to approve the purchase of a generator and an automatic transfer switch from Nixon Power Services pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract in the amount of $59,718.17 cents, plus any additional tariff charges up to 10% of the original purchase price for the Fayetteville Senior Center's meals on wheels and senior nutrition programs.

And Byron, do you want to come up and tell us a little bit more about that?

Is that what you were gonna ask Minister Jones?

No, my question was does the city own um the the senior city.

I'm sorry, I took my sip of my drink too soon.

We and Keith we own the building, but it is operated on a contract with area agency on aging.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Byron, do you want to yes Mayor?

Uh the senior center is owned by the city.

Um it serves as not only as a recreation center for seniors and for social events, but also they serve the mill on wheels program out of there, and so they serve uh 950 meals a day out of that center, hot meals a day and 355 frozen meals a day.

And they also um at any one time they have about seven to eight thousand dollars worth of food in their freezer, and so that's really the need for the generator just to make sure that that uh is protected.

It is also uh on a shelter list of one of our five shelters in the city approved by the Red Cross.

So just another need for the generator.

Thanks, by Teresa.

Go ahead.

Um, so just to just um I'm assuming that that um the um senior center asked for this generator, this backup generator, it's probably been on the list for a long time.

There is a currently a generator there, and the transfer switches failed and it needs to be replaced.

And so we're replacing a generator that's non-functioning at the moment to get it back into functional.

Thank you.

Scott, I think thank you.

So oh, I'm sorry, Scott, just a second, because I think Scott wants to go back to a previous item.

So go ahead if you have questions about the generator.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Um, I just you brought up about this being um a red cost approved location, and so the backup generator being helpful for that.

Um, have we had any conversations, especially since we're gonna invest in this about this being a possible overflow for inclement type weather, you know, hot and cold for seniors.

I know a lot of seniors are struggling to pay like utility bills, and so I'm curious too, with that being our building, and then making this investment um as a kind of a backup power source, um, if that's something too that we've had conversations about.

I can't recall off the top of my head that I've seen them open in those capacities, but I don't know if I'm recalling correctly.

Yeah, and I'm probably not the best person to do that.

So I don't know if we could if either of us could speak to historically, but Marley, I know you've had you've begun those.

Is that you behind Steven?

I know you've begun those conversations about cold weather shelter earlier, trying to get a hold of it or trying to get ahead of it rather.

Have you spoken to the senior center?

Do you want to come up?

Thanks, Byron.

So they weren't included on our crew list, but that's definitely something I couldn't follow up with on this week.

Thanks for the look at it.

Then maybe they should be able to do that.

And I'm just wondering because I think about the congregal type settings, folks have different comfort levels about where they end up you know being really packed and tight with other populations.

And since this is a place where our seniors already have adoption of like feeling safe, and I just didn't know.

I understand probably too, there's like constraints around like staffing, etc., but just didn't, you know, if they had been in the conversation about being an outlet, possibly.

That makes sense.

I'll follow up on that in Cleanup.

Um Scott, you wanted just to go back to A4.

Yeah, I just want a clarification from kid.

We got the memo from Blake about the change to A4.

Do we need to address that at meeting, or does it automatically just change?

No, I think that it actually is gonna have to be a mandate at the city council meeting.

This the original price and original item is already been published.

We can't change it here, so we might just need to remove that from the consent agenda because it can't be changed when it's on the consent agenda.

Uh, we'll have to change to the other price at the after at the actual meeting.

So, do you want to make that item C1 then the very first item, and then we'll ask for amendments.

I'm assuming we'll have a ask council to bring forth an amendment at that time.

Well, if it can be just if it's pulled off the agenda uh at the actual meeting, then it's the first thing after the consent agenda, and we can get it done right there at the start to do that.

So we could just leave it on here, but we have to remove it at the city council meeting.

On with me, Minister Jones.

I just wanted to make a um recommendation on the cold weather shelter.

I actually contacted Ray Red Cross myself because I've asked in previous years why haven't we opened up city facilities during cold weather or um hot weather shelter?

And I was always told that Red Cross had to approve it, approve it.

So I called Red Cross themselves themselves and they said no, that would be a city call.

That is not a Red Cross call.

So I just want to make everybody aware that the Red Cross said that is a local city approval for you to open up your larger facilities for winter weather.

They are on Red Cross only gets involved if there's an emergency.

Yeah, I have never I'm glad you pointed that out.

I have never been under the impression that that was a Red Cross call, and we shouldn't be saying that because that is our team that does that.

So is that if that's something you were told in the past that's wrong?

Okay, and Marley, can we make sure that that messaging is my guess is that's a carryover and we're not doing it anymore, but let's just make sure that it's not on the website or that we're not that we're not still telling people that because it is wrong.

Thank you, Monique.

Uh Minister Jones.

Um A6 is an approval of on-call electrical contract with King Electric.

It's a resolution to award bid 2549 and authorize a contract with Austin King Incorporated to provide on-call electrical services for one year.

With automatic renewals, excuse me, for up to four additional years.

The next item is an agreement with fresh start junk removal.

It's a resolution to approve and to approve an agreement with fresh start junk removal for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Favetville for a period of two years with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.

A eight recycling and trash division.

So the next I'm gonna read them all singly.

Um Peter is is Peter on Zoom if they have questions, Keith.

Okay, yes.

Near and Garden is here on Zoom if you have questions about any of the next three items.

The first being recycling and trash division acceptance of an in-kind technical assistance grant from the recycling partnership.

It authorizes us to sign a recycling partnership grant and to accept the in-kind technical assistance grant in the amount of 75,000.

Um the next one, and we're gonna obviously he can talk about them singly, but the A9 is very closely tied to uh A8.

It is a yet a different type of grant with the recycling partnership for the cart rollout program and its acceptance of the of a grant and the amount of 1,648,000 to acquire and distribute recycling carts and to approve the budget adjustment.

So Peter is available to if you have questions.

Um I didn't see who was first, so take turns, whichever I just have a question to thank you.

May I have a question to Peter?

If that 75,000 equals any funding for e-waste recycling.

Good question, uh, Councilmember Jones.

Hey Peter, we can't uh we can't hear you.

Do you mind uh maybe lean closer to the mic or turn the volume up or me better now?

No.

No, how about now?

Can you hear me any better now?

What was the question again?

The question was e-waste, I believe.

If the $75,000 included any um provisions for e-waste.

I do not believe so.

But I'll I'll make sure we have that answer before next meeting.

Yeah, can you can you guys hear me now?

Any better now?

Uh no, we can't hear you, Peter.

I'm sorry.

So, Mayor, I'd like to pull both this one A8 and 8.9 off of consent and have them on the uh agenda because I have a lot of questions, and especially since we can't hear Peter right now tonight.

Thank you.

And so um if you would like to so tonight is just we don't do public comment because it's the agenda session, but we will be in our regular business meeting a week from tonight at 5 30, and we will have public comment at that time.

And you're welcome to make public comment.

Oh, yeah, I will clear and buy that usually what it seems probably for all ECD trials.

Okay.

I'm not opening a slide model.

Thank you.

Um, I do want to I do want to mention if there is if there are a I mean, it is you all's agenda to put on whatever you want on consent.

I will just remind everybody we do have a very because we are up against a planning commission when there was a um not a quorum, so we have like two meetings in a row worth of planning commission stuff.

It is a very heavy agenda.

We all have approved this program, and this is simply allowing us to have money from another source to bring it in.

So any questions you can send to Peter, and I'm sorry we can't hear him tonight in advance that would help him be prepared would be helpful.

Um A10 is a Boston Mountain Recycling Grant.

It's a resolution to authorize acceptance of a 2025 Boston Mountain Recycling Grant and the amount of $10,000 for purchasing compost collection containers and to approve a budget adjustment.

Peter, is your audio any better now?

Can you hear me any better now?

No, that's too.

I'm sorry, y'all.

Okay.

Does anybody have questions about this one?

Keith may be able to answer depending upon what it is.

Okay.

A11, SPD fueling station site plan design.

It's a resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Olsen Engineering pursuant to request for qualifications 25-1.

This was selection number 14 in the amount of 24,350 plus a 15% contingency for the site plan design of an on-site fueling station and canopy at the Fayetteville Police Department headquarters, and to approve a budget adjustment.

And Chief Reynolds is here.

If you want to go ahead and come up, Mike and Sood afternoon, Mayor Council.

Um, so this uh as the mayor mentioned, this is just a request to hire Olson Engineering to design a fuel station and a fuel canopy at our FPD headquarters site.

Uh that fuel canopy was included in the original design and construction of our police department headquarters site uh when it was completed on May 2023.

But unfortunately, due to the uh pandemic and unprecedented inflation, uh, this uh project had to be value engineered out from the original project.

And so my plan uh as I've mentioned to a couple of council members in my conversation was to fund it later uh through the utilization of uh police impact fee money.

Um so for the past two years, what have we done?

Uh our police officers have relied on uh off-site uh commercial uh and city-owned fuel stations.

Uh it does create some operational inefficiency.

Uh, it also has some added cost to it as well, at least with the commercial sites and uh certainly some safety concerns, in my opinion, for both the officers and and both the communities.

So I I do feel like installing an on-site fuel station will reduce those fuel costs by eliminating some uh per gallon, I guess it'd be called retail transaction fees.

Also, uh it would improve the operational inefficiencies that we're seeing by allowing uh fleet operations to have the ability to more accurately uh track not only our fuel usage but also uh schedule preventative maintenance on our vehicles as well.

Uh we'll reduce uh response times by enabling uh faster uh vehicle exchanges during shift change times.

Uh and I I do think that it'll uh uh strengthen our emergency preparedness uh in the event that we have a natural disaster, a power outage, or for some reason experience uh fuel shortages as we've seen over the last couple of decades.

Um I do think that uh overall it enhances the safety and security for our officers, especially at night uh when they're having a fuel in the darkness of night as well.

Uh we have seen similar uh city projects that are successful, uh both uh at uh the airport and at our transportation divisions, and I do anticipate that this project overall will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000 dollars that would be funded entirely through uh police impact fees with no additional impact on our general fund.

Uh my estimate was based upon a quote that we received from SPATCO approximately uh one month ago.

Uh mayor counsel with that, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions.

Okay, go ahead.

Um so Chief, you bring up a good point.

So when there is an electrical outage, um I re worked for FEMA for a brief period of time, and when there was no power, there was no fuel.

But I'm I'm guessing at the at the police station, you all have backup generators, you could be pump uh pumping fuel uh in the event of a blackout.

Yeah, that's correct.

Uh it would affect the commercial stations that we have, but at the police department, we would tie that into our generator like we would, you know, say our communications center as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Oh, sorry, council person more.

Sorry.

Well I'm trying to help it be more council since an agenda session.

It's hard sometimes to see lights over there.

So just I know, I know, I know.

Now we're backtracking, so never mind.

Council member Moore, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I wanted to check and see.

I know that Washington County is currently looking at spending a half million to probably 700,000 on a fuel island down at the South Stateville Clydesdale location.

And so I'm, you know, we're all the same taxpayer in totality, but well, folks are paying for that as well.

And so I'm curious about our conversations about being collaborative.

I understand you talked about some reduced um response times, and I hear you, but also our officers are also delivering folks down to the Washington County Detention Center, which is right where that fueling station will be.

So I'm curious about what collaboration conversations have happened on that, possibly.

There's been absolutely no uh conversations on that because we currently have um we currently have fueling stations, the city does on the south end of town.

The problem is that you know, between uh right here at City Hall and then the transportation division or the airport, there's nothing in between us and that location where we're currently located at.

So it's all from a logistical standpoint, it would make us uh a lot more efficient.

And then um, and thank you for that.

I appreciate you um answering that.

Um, if the on these impact fees that you're planning to use for this, because we did just spend, I think around 40 million dollars for the police station a few years ago, um, what other things would we potentially be spending those impact fees on if we didn't do the fuel island, what else is on kind of our project list?

That's um something that might potentially be purchased if we didn't do that.

Uh that's a great question.

I haven't really forecasted any other expenses for impact fees, and I'll tell you why is because uh because the uh police stay substation and the police headquarters building uh was uh such a uh large cost, um, we had to utilize our police impact fees to help with the construction of both of those facilities.

So we depleted those funds, and I've waited for those funds to replenish in order to fund this project.

So I haven't really forecasted anything beyond this uh expense.

Thank you, Chief.

Sorry, one more question.

I've learned a lot about fueling islands from the county lately.

So I'm curious about on the construction if we're looking at above ground versus underground, and then you said a cost had been arrived out of the 450, but the 450,000 a month ago, I think you said, but was just curious um if there's the potential that there might be some ranges that we would run into potentially on that site.

You know, I don't I don't anticipate any any issues with the site because uh you know we we master planned it for this on site fueling station when we built the police headquarters, and so to answer your question, it would be underground tanks and it would be a two-pump system.

Um and I and I say two pump, I guess what I'm talking about is two nozzle system with one pump.

And then since this is on consent, I'm getting all my questions answered.

Hopefully, I won't have to pull this off to ask more.

Um, although I'll reserve that because I may learn more about fuel islands.

Sorry.

Um, I'm curious too with our strategic goals too, where we're looking at like um hybrids and electric, et cetera, and thinking into the future.

What have the conversations and considerations been for those other sources as well to look at EV or those types of things as we're kind of evolving?

Yeah, that's another great question.

And so for us right now, um, you know, let's just call it 100 vehicles that we have at the police department.

Um, and so of the 100 vehicles that we currently have, we have five hybrids in our fleet.

But I've been in discussion with Ross Jackson, and what we're looking at is because we think they they finally have a vehicle uh that is um basically designed for police operations, if you will.

And I believe uh it is a uh Ford Explorer that we're looking at.

Uh we recently went up with Ross and his team uh to one of our vendors and looked at that vehicle.

Other police departments are going that direction, and so in 26, we hope to obtain 15 hybrid vehicles.

That would get us to 20, which is yeah, I think it's the climate action plan that council passed.

They're you know, asking that all departments of the city as a whole, the fleet have 10% alternative vehicles, so that would get us to 20%.

Last follow-up question, I think.

Sorry.

Um, so with if you're gonna look into the 15, I guess I'm just curious then.

So with this fuel island or in the current facility that we've just recently um built, will that accommodate the needs of those 15 hybrid will have, or are we gonna have additive cost looking at those?

Yeah, no, great question.

No, I don't anticipate any added cost for those at all.

Actually, I anticipate a reduced cost because I think and Ross is here, he could come up and give you the you know, to the dollar probably, but I think the uh Ford Explorers are going to cost about half of what the police Tahoes are costing right now.

And I'm talking more particularly not to just the upfront capital costs, but to the fueling if they're hybrid.

I'm just curious, they usually have from what I understand because I don't have one of these vehicles, but from what I understand, they need a certain setup to plug into certain okay.

So we're not anticipating that.

No, they have and and I'll I'll ask Ross to come up, he can better explain this than I can.

Ross, do you mind that is a very good question?

So hybrid vehicles do not require any external power source to replenish their electricity.

Basically, as the battery depletes, the internal combustion or gasoline engine turns on to bring the battery back up to charge, and that cycles throughout that throughout the day.

Okay, thank you, Chief.

You might want to just stay up there.

Absolutely.

Whatever you need.

Um the next item is an approval of an MOU with Washington County to accept funding from the Gulf Coast high-intensity drug trafficking area in the amount of 123,730 dollars for the police department.

And I believe this was we this was the grant that we applied for and that we voted to approve.

We voted to approve the application of a couple of months ago.

Is that right?

Not totally accurate, Mayor.

So I'll I'll try to provide some clarification.

Um September 2nd, we went in depth on the DTF funding.

I talked about different sources of the DTF funding.

I'd be happy to run through that again if you want me to.

Uh, I see a lot of nose head shaking, but anyway, this is the fourth component uh of that DTF funding.

And so with this, it would make up approximately 72%, 73% of the DTF funding, and that remaining funding comes from uh the general fund.

So you're looking at about 26 to 28 percent that comes out of general fund uh on the DTF annual funding.

So uh this particular grant is a non-match grant, it's uh money that we get from HIDA on an annual basis, which is the high-intensity drug trafficking area, and uh for this year it's 123,730.

And uh, mayor, I'd be happy to answer any questions that we have on this item.

I don't have any questions, but I I'm sorry, I am gonna ask to pull it off of consent and onto a new business.

Yeah.

With with all due respect, Councilmember Moore, are you looking for anything particular from me that I haven't answered before?

Or I know how you feel about Right.

I'm not supportive, and so obviously a consent would be a guest vote.

And so I just need to be able to voice my no vote.

I think I'm happy to express that on the record on Tuesday night, but I definitely, given the current federal administration, have a lot of concerns about what the requirements will be ongoing for some of these federal grants that we're signing up for, especially for our immigrant neighbors and some of the interactions with those agencies.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

But uh, if anyone's looking for any additional information between now and next Tuesday, just let me know.

I'll be happy to provide it.

Can I ask the question?

No, ma'am.

Um A13 is um I'm sorry, was that your that you're moving on to A3?

Okay, 15.

Um, is a step grant award.

It is a resolution to authorize an acceptance of a 2026 step project grant award in the amount of 40,000 and to approve the budget adjustment.

Okay.

I don't see questions about that.

Oh I just make a little info on what this is.

Yeah, sure, sure.

Uh council member Stafford.

This is uh uh an annual uh grant that I bring forward.

Uh it's uh selective traffic enforcement project.

And so uh as the mayor and I have talked about, it's not the it's not the best uh branding uh of a grant.

We wished it was called something else, but the selective part is for DWI, DUI, speeding, distracted driving, and also seat belt and and trial restraint violations.

And so uh $19,300 of this particular grant goes for that particular enforcement, and then the remaining $15,000, as I've mentioned in many years past of this grant goes to fund child restraint seats, and then you uh the city, uh we match that $15,000 in our annual budget as well for a total of $30,000 to buy cut uh car seats, child restraint seats to support uh that need and or try to support that need in our community.

There's a remaining uh $5,700 of the grant is used to purchase portable breath testing devices for the officers to use in the field for that DWIDUI enforcement, and uh we're required to match $10,000 of this grant, but we do that through in-kind money.

In other words, I utilize my on-duty officers uh as directed enforcement for this protect particular enforcement, and uh this grant runs from October 1st uh through September 30th of 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, I agree that's a bad name for this.

Yeah, yeah, I agree.

That helps a lot.

Yes, ma'am.

Or yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

Do you know, Chief, if we currently have any car seats in inventory today based on our last year's allotment?

Yeah, we we do.

Um, and so I I wrote those numbers down because I know that it's certainly a question of council every year.

So uh we purchased 337 car seats last year with that $30,000.

So they run roughly $85 a piece is what we purchased those for.

Um, and so we hosted four different car seat clinics, and then we participated in five different ones with other partner organizations as well.

So we've distributed 305 of those particular car seats.

So, in short, I guess what I'm trying to say is I've got about 32 car seats remaining, uh, and then we'll be purchasing more at the beginning of the year.

No, I know and does it still work that folks can call the police line though and request in the event like a grandparent or someone really no questions asked.

If you have the inventory, they can come and make an appointment to have that installed safely.

Is that still I just want to see if that's still the practice?

Yes, yeah, and and certainly through our social media outlets, we try to advertise that not only the clinics, but also if you need help, not only with a car seat that maybe you purchased.

We have 17 car seat technicians on site at the police department, both sworn and non-sworn employees, and then we have three instructors as well.

So we're we're glad to help with uh the community uh with with the needs that they have for correctly installing a car seat, but also if if there's a need of any individual, whether that's a parent or grandparent or a friend, and they need a car seat, yes, we'd be happy to provide that for them.

Okay, thank you.

You're very welcome.

Okay, so that will thank you, Mike.

That brings us to the unfinished business that we'll cover next week.

The first one being the PCD on North Raven Lane.

This is um more for might be more familiar to you as the next chapter neighborhood.

Um we have heard it before.

Um, would you like would anyone like Jonathan to kind of refresh?

Is there any update or change to what they had provided?

Do we have new info on this one?

There is mayor.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it, and I'm loath to put things on screen during agenda sessions since I know this is just a business meeting, but I think it'll help describe what's going on with this project.

If the council recalls uh what has been before you for several meetings now is a request to rezone this property outlined in bold here, uh which is a mix of RSF4 and part of the Underwood PCD uh and evaluating the requests and the two different owners of these two different properties.

Uh they ultimately decided that it's in the interest of both to remove the underwood PCD portion of the request.

Uh it has very similar entitlements.

They feel that they can make the project work either just using the RSF4 property or both combined.

So what you'll see in the packet that the clerk so helpfully included for uh tonight is a cover page that outlines all the changes made with just about every single one of them just making the distinction that they're going from a 49.2 acre request to a 33-acre request.

They're effectively removing the portion of the property you see here in blue, surrounded by black, and reducing the size of the rezoning request to the portion in yellow.

Uh and I asked that the applicant delineate every single one of those changes.

So there's a narrative letter identifying uh everything from reducing the building uh area from 49.2 acres to 33 acres uh to discussing how the setbacks would slightly change because of the way uh it goes between those two properties now.

Um otherwise, the other main piece that was removed from it was a uh section that talked about zoning reversion, uh, which was noting that if the property was not developed within a certain number of time, it would revert back to the previous zoning in discussions with our legal department.

That is not something that Arkansas state law allows.

Uh only the council can change the zoning designation of a property, so it cannot be enshrined in a zoning, a rezoning request to change the zoning at some subsequent date that's undetermined in the future.

Uh so those are the main changes I wanted to highlight for you all.

Uh, as a reminder, uh the the request considered up to this date is something that staff is recommending in favor of, and the planning commission forwarded it to you all unanimously.

And I'm happy to take any questions uh on any of that.

I have a question, Jonathan, of uh, or procedurally, maybe it's maybe it's for kit.

Did the changes um that the developer has presented that you just outlined mean that an amendment needs to be called for?

That's correct.

We have a new legal description uh from the developer that already included in here or yet another one.

The that what the developer got to us last week is the revised PCD booklet that the description of the standards okay, and so what we're working on behind the scenes now is what the new ordinance will look like.

We got a new legal description that defines those property boundaries, and we need to make that a formal document for council to consider on Tuesday.

Got it.

Okay, great.

Okay.

Um the next item of new business is East Rockwood Trail.

Um, I don't believe that this was ever really discussed.

I think this was right out of the gate tabled, so I don't know if we've heard yet about this one unless I'm misremembering.

Is that correct, Jonathan?

That's correct.

It was introduced at the last agenda session, and the applicant requested it be tabled without having a hearing at the last meeting.

Got it.

Okay, so we did hear about it at last agenda session, but um, if you would like to would would the council benefit from Jonathan going over it again since it's been a little bit of time.

No, okay.

I'm seeing no, so you're off the hook on that one.

Um that brings us to new business.

First item is the e-scooter crosswalk ordinance amendment.

It's an ordinance to align the city's e-scooter regulation regulations with state law and the city and with the city's bicycle regulations by amending section 75.02 regarding the operation of electric motorized scooters.

And there is a memo in your packet.

I'm not seeing any questions about that.

Um the next one, we'll see two and three both relate to the fire department.

C2 is an ordinance for low frequently fi low frequency fire alarm notifications.

An ordinance to require low frequency fire alarm notification appliances to be installed at each sleeping unit of group R1 and R2 occupancies by amending section seven 173.02 um to the fire prevention code.

Oh, I would just like to hear a little bit about that.

Yeah, possible.

I think everybody knows Chief Ashley, but uh he's our fire marshal and he's the one bringing these forwards, so I'm gonna let him explain it.

Would you like me to kind of give a real brief overview of it or the reason why?

Is that I think a brief overview would be great, Jeremy.

Thank you.

And then they can ask questions if they still if we still have them for that.

So first thing I want to say is this is something that we are already doing.

This is not an additional uh requirement.

Uh what it's doing is clarifying that when someone has a sprinkler system or an alarm system that is required by the code.

This is not an additional requirement, but it's already required by the code.

Um we have them put the sounders inside the bedrooms uh inside the sleeping units, uh, as opposed to out in the hallway, uh the stairwell uh or the uh or the common areas like the living room.

Uh there's several reasons why we do that.

The code requires that they meet 75 decibels at pillow level.

We have tested and tested and tested this, and it doesn't meet it.

The last the last testing we did uh was uh uh about six weeks ago on a project over there right off of Shiloh and the decibel level without carpet, without furnishings, without everything was reading around 63, which is significantly lower.

The reason that we are bringing for this forward, the reason that we want to write this down, it's really two two reasons.

We have situations where these larger apartment complexes are coming in, and out-of-town fire alarm companies are bidding on these projects, and they're not bidding them with sounders in the bedroom.

All the life protection companies that we work with are bidding them the way that we require them, the way the AHJ requires them.

So they're losing out on these, and so we're trying to level the playing field, literally level the playing field, so that one, these sounders are in the bedrooms, which is very important so that it meets the code, and two uh these other companies aren't coming in here, and then at the last second, you know, when we when we deny their their permit, they have to resubmit, then there's then they have to uh add all this other stuff.

It actually makes us look bad, even though it was a requirement from the very beginning.

So we want to write that down.

Another thing is the state legislature uh changed um added third party reviewing uh as part of this this new this last legislative session.

And so we want a if someone is going to utilize that, we want them to follow the rules that the AHJ sets forward.

So that's that's kind of the overview.

Thanks, Jeremy.

Um, do you want to stay up there in case there are questions about the fire hydrant proximity as well?

That's our next item.

It's an ordinance to require fire department connections to be within a hundred feet of a fire hydrant by amending section 173.02.

Um, and this is also something I think it's worth notice noting that the way it's written, you still have discretion if it's 103 feet, you don't have to deny and make them it gives you it doesn't it's not reflected in in that language, but if you read the ordinance, you you have a little bit of discretion still.

That's correct.

So would you like me to give an old one?

Yeah, I think an explanation of it would be I think that'd be sure.

So for since I believe it changed, started in 2007.

The Arkansas Fire Code required that a hydrant be placed within a hundred feet of the fire department connection.

The fire department connection is what we hook up to uh to to put water in the in either the sprinkler system or the standpipe.

If a building has not every building has a fire department connection, only if there's a standpipe or a sprinkler system.

And so uh the fire code required that there be a hydrant uh within a hundred feet uh of this fire department connection.

In 2021, they took it out.

They the the code literally says that it is the the fire marshal's discretion, and so we are set up for a hundred foot all for a tactical reasons, we are set up for a hundred feet.

We've got a hundred feet of hose going to the hydrant.

We hook that uh to the trucks, then then our hose hundred feet uh goes to the uh fire department connection, and that's how we push water into the building for fighting fire.

So the the and and we can still require, and we do require the 100 feet, but what we want to do again is level the playing field and let everybody know what that requirement is.

If someone's 110 feet, we accept that.

If someone is 80 feet, we accept that.

But but what we want to do is standardize that that numbers so that people submitting uh bidding jobs and submitting their their plans to us are all basically on the same same level, same playing field.

Yeah, so just to summarize these last two items, you're already doing this.

You're and and this is just to upfront load the information so that everybody knows it and they don't have to dive down too deeply and reference different documents.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Jeremy.

Yep.

Um, the next two are both about the aquatic center that is a part of the bond package.

Item C4 is an architectural contract for aquatic center design with Crafton and Toll and Associates.

It's a resolution to award RFQ 25-7 and authorize a professional architectural contract with Crafton and Toll and the total amount of 232,524 dollars for design of an aquatic facility and to approve the budget adjustment.

Wait.

Thank you, Mayor.

So the selection committee interviewed six architectural firms.

Uh, for those of you who have been involved in those selection committees, it was a long day.

But Craft and Toll was selected as the most qualified firm.

They have a strong local presence, they have the desired specialized experience, and their team of aquatic consultants are among the best in the nation.

This contract is a multi-phase beginning with the pre-bond phase.

The product of this phase will help inform the voters on what could be in this project.

So the scope of this initial phase includes evaluating and refining the original feasibility study with city administration staff and stakeholders.

Includes preliminary designs derived from input from city admin staff and stakeholders, and it includes multiple public input sessions.

Conceptual designs and budget for off-street road and water and sewer would be included, lead facilitation, conceptual facility business plan for operations cost, and identify and evaluate revenue generating programs and components.

The remaining phases will include completion of schematic design, design development, construction drawings, bidding and negotiations, and construction administration.

The full detailed scope of these services included in appendix A of the contract.

Moving into any future phases would be contingent on successful bond initiative and of course your approval.

Thank you, A.

Does anyone have questions for Wade at this time?

Um yeah, I I guess I just have questions in this uh uh involved in relationship to the timing of the bond issue and everything.

Um because if this doesn't if the voters don't go for this in the bond, then are we tied to spending this money?

No.

Okay.

Oh, well, let me back up.

Yes, the initial phase we would be, but we would have a product uh deliverable from them that if and when we come forward again, we'll have uh something.

Okay, so if if it failed, we're doing work that could still be used going forward.

Yes.

Um another question: if it succeeds in the bond issue, would this cost be recouped from the the bond money, or is this just okay?

Yes, I think those were my two main questions.

Thank you.

Okay, Tracy.

So uh Wade, if the voters um fail to pass this, how much money of this 232,000 dollars would have already been spent?

That we would spend the full amount.

You would spend the full amount, okay.

So thank you.

Okay.

Um Wade on the fees refine the feasibility study.

Um, what can you help me walk me through, and if not tonight, on Tuesday night, of exactly what kind of potentials for refinement can happen, like the range for the feasibility study.

Um, because I know you know we have this phase one that was in initial drawings, but then I've gotten feedback about is there a potential that we could only do, you know, one of the pools, and then we could, you know, are those types of things going to be looked at during that.

For sure.

I mean, so we can be looking at uh the components.

I mean, if you remember there was a presentation and basically they threw everything at you, right?

And so we'll be able to look at those, uh, establish some cost and see just exactly what can be included.

Okay, and then as part of that too, um, will that also look anywhere at the operational cost?

Yes, yeah, we have a conceptual operation cost study.

Okay, and then will that then it'll be specific to the different possibilities, like if there's scenarios of the feasibility, it would be based on those scenarios, correct?

Exactly.

Okay, all right, thanks, Wade.

Okay, and wait, if you just want to stay right there because the next item C5 is a resolution to award RFQ 25-8 and authorize a construction manager at risk services contract with CDI LLC in the amount of 39,999 for the pre-construction phase and to approve the budget adjustment.

So this one's kind of in conjunction with uh the one we just reviewed because uh the construction management firm will be helping us with the costing or these conceptual cost.

But so the selection committee interviewed five different construction management firms.

Uh the committee found that CDI was the most qualified for this project.

They have a strong local presence and they have specialized experience with these types of facilities.

Like the previous, this will be a multi-phase contract.

The first phase is for the pre-bond services.

The scope will include uh support design review, pricing of program elements and options, value engineering, and program scheduling.

The remaining phases would be contingent on the successful bond initiative and your approval.

Those phases would be pre-construction services for schematic design through construction documents and bidding and negotiations of multiple trade packages.

Each of these will be brought back to you for approval.

Thank you, Wade.

Does anyone have any interest in moving these resolutions to consent?

Absolutely.

I'd say especially in light of our extremely long agenda and other things getting pulled from consent.

I I would hope that we could maybe move these to consent.

Um, I would like to leave them uh on new business.

Well, then I guess they stay on new business.

Noble effort.

Yes.

Thank you, Wade.

Okay.

Item C6 is an ordinance to approve ADM 2025-36 and amend the 2040 Master Street plan to remove approximately one mile of planned neighborhood link street between East Pump Station Road and South Dead Horse Mountain Road in Ward 1.

Um, Jonathan will be, of course, um available at the meeting to give a more in-depth um presentation on this over and above what is in your memo, but he can also take questions now or give an overview if you would like that.

Okay.

Um C7 is um this one is a resolution.

It is a resolution to approve the dedicated dedication of a reduced amount of right-away for a small site improvement plan of about 0.6 acres northwest of the intersection of South College Avenue and East Martin Luther King Boulevard, pursuant to section 166.04 of the unified development code.

I'd be interested if Jonathan maybe could give us a little bit of an overview on that, and then maybe we could move it to consent if it's uh not anything that's red flags it.

Certainly I'm happy to uh this property is a few blocks south of where we are sitting tonight.

It's at the northwest corner of MLK and College Avenue.

I'm told there was previously a candy store there many years ago.

If that resonates with any of you who've been around here long enough, it's uh Kitty Corner or County Corner from the uh Jefferson School building uh for orientation purposes.

Uh the property is currently undeveloped uh with that older building having been demolished previously and is proposed to be redeveloped uh with uh commercial and non-residential uses as a part of that project.

Staff is recommending right-of-way dedication to align uh that portion of MLK to the south of it with our master street plan expectations for the property, uh, which would afford the opportunity to ultimately add a left turn lane onto MLK there so that you could turn north on the college.

So if you're eastbound MLK, the the left turn lane could ultimately be accommodated with this right-of-way dedication and potentially additional right-of-way decay dedication on the other side of the street.

Uh the applicant has asked to not dedicate any right-of-way.

Uh, they feel that this is contrary to the city's goals.

Uh, finding that's uh widening a street in this area may exacerbate what what they perceive to be uh some concerns about uh traffic safety in this area.

Um is ultimately recommending against uh the request.

We we're recommending denial of it.

Uh we feel that the uh the misaligned intersection there, if you think about as you're going east to west on MLK, it jogs uh about 10 to 20 feet to the south as you're as you're heading east.

Uh we feel like the misaligned intersection can help you resolve by having this dedicated uh having this right-of-way dedicated for a future project.

Uh when the planning commission heard this, however, uh they uh uh supported the applicant's request and so forwarded it to the city council recommending in favor of it by a vote of eight to one.

Um happy to take any questions, and unfortunately, Councilmember Burney, I think that suggests maybe you all might want to discuss it rather than put it on consent.

Yeah, Scott, I don't feel uncomfortable putting this on consent.

Okay, but staff is recommending denial of this.

Is that that's correct?

Understanding that in the planning commission recommended approval.

That's correct.

So we would be automatically approving the reduction of the right-of-way.

That's correct.

How do you guys feel about doing that with staff's recommendation contrary to the planning commission?

Is there a method?

Is there a way to do that?

Well, and for clarification, the planning commission forwarded the recommendation that the right-of-way dedication not be required.

So if this item were to be placed on consent, the council would effectively be approving the lesser dedication of right-away.

They'd be granting the applicant's request not to approve right-of-way.

Oh I think maybe we'll leave this on the agenda as it is.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item C eight is an ordinance to approve vacation 25-22 for property located at West Elm Street and North Leverett Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate 0.1 to 5 acres of ride of way.

Would anybody like to hear more about this one?

Okay.

C9 is another rezone.

It's on West Cleveland Street.

It's um an ordinance to rezone the property in 2025-41 for approximately 2.18 acres located at 1124 West Cleveland in Ward 4, moving it from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre and P1 institutional.

It's both of those now moving it to fully P1 institutional.

Bob.

I just want to say, you know, as we get into these rezones, and we have a lot of them because uh planning commission was unable to make full uh make quorum.

And then I know we get a lot of opinions that aren't full opinions because we have people missing.

I would like to request that we get attendance records for the planning commission for 2025 and 2024, and to make sure that people are living up to their attendance requirements.

Okay.

I think the clerk's office can easily oh John, forgive me.

I think either the clerk's office or the planning department can probably easily get you those records.

Yes, we will.

Okay.

Okay.

Um item C10 is an ordinance to rezone property described in RZN 2025-45 for approximately 0.7 acres located at 234 South Willow Avenue in Ward 1 from RSF 8, residential single family, eight units per acre to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

You have the information in your packet, but Jonathan is also available to talk more about this one if you would like item.

Let's see, that was uh I just read C10, is that correct?

Yes.

C a l uh C11 takes us um back to Ward 4, and it's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025 40-46 for approximately 2.58 acres, located at 2097 North Penelope Lane in Ward 4, rezoning it from RA residential agricultural and RMF 24 residential multifamily rezoning to 24 units per acre.

I'm sorry, residential multifamily 24 units per acre, rezoning it to RIU intermediate urban.

Um Mayor, I'd like to hear a little bit more about that one if you will.

Certainly.

Uh thank you for the interest.

This one is a little bit difficult to describe if you're able to navigate to a map um uh online or in your packet, or I can pull up the uh the specific item on a map here.

If you give me a second, it is in Northwest Fayetteville.

Uh it is uh between just south of the of uh West Mount Comfort Road.

Uh if you can see here in the faint red area, uh I'll zoom out a little bit to maybe orient you.

Uh this is Adventure Subaru here.

This is the Casey's uh uh gas station, and perhaps most recently here's the the location of the Gooseberry and Mount Comfort rezoning that was considered the last meeting.

Uh so what's being requested to uh from council tonight is to rezone this specific piece of property here to uh excuse me to rezone it to uh RIU residential intermediate urban uh and RA residential agricultural.

Uh as you can likely see on the map there, uh this there is a portion of uh of the uh of uh protected streamside that runs through the property, and the vast majority of the property is also within floodplain.

Uh ultimately this uh was the uh major factor in staff's uh evaluation and recommendation of denial of this request.

Uh ultimately the planning commission, however, forwarded it to city council by a vote of eight to one.

Uh, they largely felt that our our our floodplain design standards were adequate to offset any of the negative impacts that could be associated with this rezoning.

Uh we have heard some public comment in opposition to this request with concerns about traffic, how how to access uh a somewhat unusual piece of property that's behind two subdivisions more or less, as well as concerns about the environmental and flooding impacts that could result from it.

And I can take any questions that the council has.

Oh, thank you, Jonathan, for that.

Um, isn't there a trail that's supposed to go kind of close to there?

And and uh it may be in your documents.

I just haven't read the packet yet, so I just thought I'd bring that up.

Yes, there is sorry.

Yes, there is a sorry, I preemptively pulled the map down.

There is a future trail plan.

Uh if you can see again to orient you the the rezoned proper the property proposed rezoning is in red in the center.

The Hame Street Haim Stream Creek Trail that exists today is that orange line uh here to the south, and the blue line is a planned trail uh that does come through the property, uh, eventually connecting back into Shiloh, where another portion of future trail is anticipated.

And Jonathan, did you say that they want to rezone the whole thing to RIU or a combination RIU and RA?

It is a mixed zoning, and I don't have that exhibit immediately available to pull up on screen, but I believe it's the third or fourth to last page of the planning commission report.

And it is the immediate uh area adjacent to that stream that is proposed to be effectively down zone the RA residential agricultural, and then the area north of there that is currently agricultural to be upzoned to RIU residential intermediate urban.

And then Jonathan, what current area on there is uh RMF 24 already?

The I it sounds like it may be helpful for me to try to pull that map up to talk about it real quick.

No, no, no, please don't apologize.

It is it's uh it is a somewhat complicated request, and I think it may be helpful to look at it in that regard.

If you can allow me just a moment, please.

Um sorry, I ought to have been prepared for that question.

All right.

This may be the but the best visual to see what what is happening with the request.

Uh the portion that's orange is the that currently zoned RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre.

The southern east-west portion that's in bold is proposed to be zoned RA, whereas their balance of that property closer to Penelope Lane is proposed to be rezoned to RIU.

Creating one double for another.

Um RA, is that just thinking about that waterway and just trying to be more conservation-minded by putting it to RA?

That's what I'm just trying to kind of understand that.

Yes, if putting it in the hopefully shows the intent as I understand it is to reflect the floodway that is on the property.

If you see that portion of that is hatched there, red and blue, that is a floodway associated with that creek as opposed to the blue, which is floodplain.

Jonathan, and it may be not tonight, but for Tuesday night, I'm trying to remember the conservation, voluntary conservation you could do.

Could we understand better and that consideration whether or not I mean that has to be offered voluntarily, I think from the applicant, but just trying to understand what that would be versus the RA?

Does that make sense?

It it does.

If I may repeat the question back to you to make sure I'm clear, you're curious if historically we've used RA residential agricultural as a holding district, an open space district in certain circumstances.

I think I'm understanding that you're wondering what what the CCR concept.

I'm gonna forget what it stands for now, I'm sorry.

Conservation cultural resources.

Records, thank you.

Uh what that would look like and what what is associated with that.

And then I just don't know if that was a part of the consideration or if that's like the applicant just came with the RA.

So would that be something to maybe talk to them about?

Does that have any benefits or I just RA with it still being quite wide open on chicken houses, etc.

That always just gives me pause.

Okay, I'll make sure to touch on that too, Stu.

And then Jonathan, sorry, but one last question.

Uh currently, like that one section that shouldn't be RMF 24, but is I mean, do they even have street access to that?

That's a good question.

And uh I think if going back.

Are you referring to the council separate portion on the southern side?

That's a good question.

Um there was a proposal to build townhomes there about eight or nine years ago, and the intent was to access it from Macy Drive to the Southwest.

And I believe at that time there was discussions with this property owner, the RSF4 property about gaining right-of-way dedication or public access easement to it.

Uh the applicant can speak to it more on Tuesday, but I believe their intent is to be able to uh develop this portion of develop this property independent of that and connect it potentially to Penelope Lane to the north.

Gotcha.

Is it the same?

Do they own both?

The applicant.

The the portion in yellow as well as the portion being resonated.

The portion in orange, do they own that down to Glen Meadow, or or is that a separate?

Do they just own what's being requested to change?

They own the oops.

Sorry.

That is that is all under single ownership, the portion that's the portion being requested to be zoning, rezoned, including that RMF 24 person portion down to that subdivision is all owned by one property owner.

It is not the same as the property, the properties owned in that subdivision to the south, and that portion to the west is a separate property owner again.

Okay.

If that's hopefully, yeah, I think that clarifies it.

I'll I'll look uh at home later.

I'll do some research on it.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Um which one is it?

RA, I mean, is it the floodway or the floodplain that you would need approval from FEMA to develop?

Uh that that's a good question.

Uh unfortunately we have both our public works director and our our city engineer here.

I can't recall to develop in floodplain.

Do you require tacit FEMA approval or can that be approved locally?

I believe you only require FEMA approval when you're wanting to revise the actual floodplain maps.

Is that accurate?

I'm getting a head nod, yes, correct.

So if you were to develop, you can develop in floodplain locally without necessarily needing FEMA approvals unless you're wanting to manipulate the the land, like raise the land and actually change how the FEMA floodplain maps appear.

And that's under the floodplain which would be R I Correct.

Yes.

Yes, what they're proposing north of that stream.

Thank you.

Jonathan, I have one one question kind of following up on Councilmember Moore's uh question about CCR.

So I know oftentimes you know the uh applicant will come and have conversations with you all about what's the best use or what you recommend or what fits with city goals, and you know the CCR is really brand new.

So are you incorporating that information in the discussion?

And and um I'm just I'm just wondering because um it would seem that this would be a perfect place for the CCR to go rather than RA.

I've been in several pre pre-application meetings, we call them before we see requests where we have recommended that.

I don't know what this one specifically, so uh to council member more's point, I'll I'll touch space with our planning staff and see if that was proposed at that time.

Jonathan, final question, I promise.

Uh at least for me.

Um I you might have stated this already, but is staff uh recommending approval or denial?

Denial.

Okay, thank you.

And my request is if you would just be prepared if someone asks at council what staff's recommendation was that the applicant didn't accept and went forward with their application, that would be valuable.

Oh, I'm sorry, but if I can repeat your question, you want it would be helpful for you to understand not necessarily what staff's recommendation of this is, but if at those initial conversations, if there was something different that we recommend it, and if the applicant elected to go a different way.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

That brings us to C12, RZN 2025-40 on Southwest Avenue, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-40 for approximately 0.23 acres located at 1414 South West Avenue in Ward 1 from RMF4.

I'm sorry, from RMF 24, residential multifamily 24 units per acre, to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

I'm seeing heads no, but maybe a yes from Bob.

Uh just a quick question, a quick, like just simple overview of the major difference between RMF 24 and RAU.

Okay.

There are a few worth highlighting.

Uh the RMF districts, all of them allow multifamily, which is when you attach five or more units, which is we define as multifamily or apartments, RIU only allows up to four to be attached by right.

Um that's one big difference.

Uh, another difference is RIU is meant to be calibrated towards uh single family subdivision so that it only allows a three-story height similar to RSF4 and NC, uh the RMF districts.

I believe all of them, but certainly RMF 24 allows five-story buildings.

Uh, and then uh also RMF 24 has a prescriptive 24 unit per acre density cap, whereas RU doesn't have a prescribed density cap.

It's limited based on the size of the property, how tall the building is, parking standards, pre-preservation standards, that that uh set of guardrails that are in our development code.

Okay, and is staff recommending approval or denial on this?

Yes, staff recommend favor and the planning commission forwarded it unanimously.

Thank you.

Um Jonathan, um, this is really interesting because I don't recall that we've had such kind of a narrow, skinny sort of RIU request that goes that fronts on both the alley and the street.

So under this uh version right now, you could have um frontage on both, right?

That's correct.

Um going back to the the I think two meetings ago, one of the main considerations is they would have to somehow account for how to have water and sewer accessing both uh because we don't allow service lines, those private lines to cross private property.

Uh so I believe.

Yes, sorry.

It's a short answer, yes.

Okay.

And just to follow up on that, um, you have to you have to have frontage, right?

So theoretically, you could not have um another road in between these two distant um streets.

I mean, one's an alley and one's a street.

I mean, this situation I can't imagine how that would work.

Uh, I mean, our narrowest public street section is about 40, 45 feet.

Um, and you would need to achieve the entire block.

I guess maybe if I could ask you a question about your question, yeah.

Are you is the question whether they could potentially insert a portion of public street and then effectively have two pairs of lots facing different directions?

Correct.

Um you don't have to answer tonight, but if you could have an opinion next Tuesday, that would be that would be great.

Okay, I mean, generally I can't imagine that happening here just with the requirements or the the size of units and and being able to fit parking spaces and the like on it.

And it's kind of a skinny, it's a narrow and skinny.

Great, it doesn't have a lot of depth to it, yes.

I would think in theory, in another circumstance, I might answer that differently, but I can't see that being feasible here.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to C13 on Dean's West Dean Street, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-42 for approximately 0.36 acres located at 2201 West Dean Street and Ward 2 from RMF46, residential multifamily six units per acre to RIU, residential intermediate urban.

Anybody like more of an overview about this one on West Dean.

Okay.

The final item on the agenda will be north on North Lewis Avenue.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property in RZN 2025 44 for approximately 0.52 acres, located at 1229 North Lewis Avenue and Ward 2 from RSF 4, residential single family 4 units per acre to UN, urban neighborhood.

And Jonathan can shed more light on this one as well.

I'd like to hear a little bit more about this one.

Please.

Jonathan, can you certainly?

This is towards Northwest Fayeville, perhaps a little bit closer to Central Fayetteville than the one we heard about on Mount Comfort previously.

It's about equidistant between Weddington Drive to the south and Lewis Park to the north.

It's at the northwest corner of Hawley and Lewis.

As Mayor noted, the request is a rezone the property from its current RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

Staff found that the location at a corner on a connecting street adjacent to what has been a historical non-residential use.

If you're familiar with the radio tower and building there, made this a potentially appropriate place to have not just more residential housing options, but also the potential for smaller scale non-residential options.

Accordingly, we recommended in favor of it, and the planning commission forwarded it to you all unanimously.

And to date, we've not received any public comment on the request.

I have to take questions.

So when you're evaluating this, I mean, because there's nothing around there that's urban neighborhood at all.

I mean, you just have the RO, but that that cell tower or that radio tower is in pretty poor, you know, pretty poor situation.

So it just seems like a big jump from RSF4 to urban neighborhood.

I I could certainly see how it would look at that on its face if you just consider the zoning considerations because you're right, it is largely an area of RSF4, residents like low density single family homes.

Uh I think given the context on that connecting street, Lewis, which connects uh Dean to the north and Weddington the South, proximity to Lewis Park to the north, uh, and staff's estimation represented a reasonable opportunity to uh to have some additional housing types and the potential for some services to be nearer to the residents in that area.

Great.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Um don't get up and leave yet because we have four announcements that oh I'm sorry, and we have a walk on.

We have a walk-on.

Yeah.

So we have four announcements after the walk-on, but first we have the walk-on, and you all have seen it.

It is an item sponsored by Dr.

Jones and Minister Jones.

And I don't, I think uh Dr.

Jones is on Zoom, but Monique, since you were here, do you want to take it away?

I would love to present this, and thank you for allowing me to walk this on.

Um, today what I'm presenting is an ordinance to establish the Fayetteville Food Commission, which will be added to our city code.

The reason for this commission is right now, approximately 222,000 Arkansans are impacted by potential SNAP disruptions due to our government shutdown.

But that's just about the shutdown.

I attended the Society for Nutrition Education earlier this year.

I went to Washington, DC and lobbied with our legislators to advocate for them not cutting SNAP this year, but there were a lot of changes that are new were coming down for SNAP.

Um, so there's a possible loss of benefits for approximately 25,000 Arkansans who are projected to lose their SNAP due to new work requirement changes, which include ending exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness, young people who are aged out of foster care, the most vulnerable will be impacted by the loss of SNAP.

If we think about our elderly, people with disability, and women with children.

And the broader impact, the state's ability to handle administration and benefits costs could lead to additional eligibility restrictions for further cuts to benefits, even the dissolution of the program in a worst case scenario.

Um, some of the notes, and those are according to the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Letters went out this week to inform individuals that are currently enrolled in SNAP if you're 65 and younger and not 100% disabled, that if you are not working a minimum of 20 hours a month, your SNAP benefits will be cut.

If you're 65 and younger and not 100% disabled, that if you are not working a minimum of 20 hours a month, your SNAP benefits will be cut.

Also, if an individual, a mother with children, ages 14 to 18 have children and they are on SNAP, they are required to work a minimum of 20 hours a month in order for that parent to carry them as a dependent on SNAP.

So the food commission will serve as an advisory board to the mayor and the city council, focusing on food security, food deserts, urban agriculture, and healthy food education within our community.

I am requesting that this board be selecting by the nominating committee.

The membership of the board, I'm also asking that it considered my original request was seven members.

I'm asking that there be eight members, one a Senate council member, one a city employee, one food rich retailer operating within the city limits of Fayetteville, one person engaged in agriculture, one representative from a hunger relief program.

And I changed this word in Northwest Arkansas because I'd like to consider included the Northwest Arkansas Food Bank, but they are not based in the city of Fayetteville, and three at large large members who would have experienced food insecurity as part of the Alice population, which is asset limited income constrained, but they're currently employed in our community.

And the duties of our food commission is to assist the city in reducing food insecurity and gathering community input on food-related needs, supporting and expanding urban agriculture and community gardens, even some residential gardens, promoting education on diet-related health issues and food waste, raising public awareness about food programs, food deserts, food policy decisions, and devote ways to track and analyze nutrition data among residents most impacted by food inequities.

And last is to explore new strategies to improve the availability and quality of food for all our Fayetteville residents.

The recommendations are for the commission, we'll we'll collaborate with city departments, nonprofits, and community partners to bring forward rail research policy recognition recommendations for council consideration.

Again, this committee will focus on increase increasing healthier food options through community partnerships, education, and resource sharing to reach diverse partners, farmers, and communities.

So right now in Washington County, there's 40 food pantries.

The Northwest Arkansas Food Bank currently only hosts one mobile food pantry in the city of Fayetteville, and that's Cross Church once a month.

This month it'll be hosted November the 21st from 9 to 11.

And some pantries also receive TFAP or commodities, but in order for our clients to receive TPEP, they must be 30% below the federal poverty level to qualify for commodities.

So I'm asking for the city council to support and move this ordinate forward with changes.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

I want to give Dr.

Jones, if he's still on Zoom, the opportunity, if he would like to say something, since he's the co-sponsor.

Oh, he left.

Okay.

Okay.

Um thank you.

I um just on behalf of the administration, we are really supportive, uh, supportive of this and really grateful to Minister Jones for bringing it forward and um would like to echo her request that it um that you all approve it.

I do have one clarification for Kit.

I uh really like to your point, Monique, about uh Minister Jones about the adding in someone from a like a food relief organization like the um Northwest Arkansas Food Bank, which isn't in Fayetteville but's in the region.

Can we allow, like if somebody from the food bank wants to be on that committee, I think that would be very valuable.

If they don't live in the city, can they still serve on it?

If we if it if it's written that way in the ordinance, or is there something else that superses that I think it would be a positive thing for the committee, regardless of where they in this instance?

We have some general rules uh for all the committees, um, but I unless those rules prohibit that, then this uh would allow someone that was actually not a resident of Fayetteville to serve.

Okay, good.

I just want to make sure we cleared all that way before we part it forward.

Okay.

That is great.

So we need to then decide where to put this on the agenda.

Is that what we do next?

Yes, and we have the other items that were pulled from consent agenda that we need to know where those need to be placed as well.

Okay, got it.

And so just to recap, the items that were pulled from consent, I believe, are A8 and 9, or just A8.

Teresa.

A nine.

A eight and A9.

And then um A twelve.

A twelve.

So eight, nine, and twelve.

I where would you all like for Clerk Packston to put those?

I would say at the beginning of the I think generally those are gonna we're gonna get those pretty quickly.

Great.

Okay.

So Clerk Packson at the beginning, eight nine twelve, and then the in regards to the food commission.

Maybe right, yeah, okay.

Okay.

So what they're saying is that just in order right at the beginning.

So eight, nine, and twelve from consent become the first three items, and then the fourth item becomes uh the food commission.

Perfect.

Okay, I bear with me.

I know you're ready to go.

I have three announcements, and they are important.

The first, there is a new face with us this evening.

Keith, would you like to make that introduction?

Because it's important for the city council to be aware.

I yes, I would.

Justin Bland, would you come up to the podium?

Justin Blood is our new city engineer.

That's correct.

So do uh Justin came what about a year and a half ago from Sound Springs, and he's been serving as our development review engineer and was recently promoted to a city engineer.

So I wanted to uh kind of have everybody get a look and and know who our new city engineer is.

Make sure to make him feel awkward and give them a round of applause.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um the other thing I know this is not a business meeting, so Kit, you don't have to tell me.

I'm asking for a vote with a lowercase V, not binding, not a business vote, just a show of hands, because I know I've at any given time make half of you unhappy.

So and I've heard from both sides of it.

So I would like you to, in regards to keeping the meeting in here or being back downstairs, staff, you don't get a vote.

City council, do you um Keith does well?

That's true.

Raise your hand if you prefer the agenda session in here.

All right, Bob, you're out of luck.

Okay, we're keeping it.

I like the workshop feeling and downstairs.

Um I'm out.

Um and then the very last thing is you will see the press release tomorrow, but just I don't want to lose the opportunity to mention it.

That we are um I've recently um joined the uh mayor's alliance to end childhood hunger, which is a national um partnership with the US Conference of Mayors and the No Kid Hungry campaign, and we are going to be doing a food drive.

Um at City Hall at all the fire departments and at the police station um during regular business hours, so anybody from the public can drop off items there, and then we will regularly take them to either the food bank or to different um different service organizations.

So that press release goes out tomorrow, but City Hall, police department, and all of the fire departments were going to be running a food drive.

And will that have a uh uh uh dates attached to it?

We didn't attach dates yet just because we don't know.

Um and it didn't so we're gonna see.

I mean, so for now it's it's we will I mean it's not gonna be in perpetuity, but we're we're still working on that.

We didn't want that to be the uh we didn't want that to be a hold up to getting it started.

So mayor yes, ma'am.

The donation some of the 18th day is all that it's all we've made.

And we do have a transportation committee immediately after this in room 101.