Okay.

We are now calling the November excuse me, November 4th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council to order.

Clark Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Present.

Dr.

Jones?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Burnett?

Here.

Ms.

Bench?

Here.

Ms.

Turner?

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, I would like to thank and recognize Rusty Turner and his journalism class who are here observing us this evening.

We always love to have students come and you picked a doozy.

One more announcement that I have before we get started with our first presentation is that I will be urging my uh the our city council members to um hope that we can wrap up this meeting by 11 o'clock.

And if we cannot, I would entertain a motion to adjourn until tomorrow.

That is certainly the call and the uh purview of the council, as I cannot make that, but I did want to put that out there as I'm trying to be respectful of everyone's time.

Um and our first item of the agenda, item one is a presentation from Stephen Dotson, our chief financial officer, and it's the uh sales tax and monthly financial report.

Stephen.

Thanks, Mayor.

This is the uh August sales tax report.

In August we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 305 million, which was an increase of nearly 7% or around 20 million compared to August of 2024.

This increase was led uh strongly by the retail trade sector, which was up 6% year over year, representing an increase of roughly 8.7 million.

In that retail trade sector, we noted that building materials were up 11%, general merchandising stores were up 5%, and grocery and convenience was up around 21% or roughly 2.3 million.

Transportation and warehousing was also up roughly 2.6 million dollars, and we saw the accommodation and food services sector was up around 10% or roughly 4.2 million.

All in all, we noted a 7% gain in uh total taxable sales compared to 2024.

So this was a very good month for us.

Moving on to the actual tax collection results in August of 2025 compared to 2024, the city one penny sales tax was up 6.8 percent.

The county portion to the city was up 8.1%, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of roughly 7.4% or 366,000 compared to August of 2024.

Year to date, the combined city and county sales tax are up approximately 5.7 percent or 2.4 million compared to last year.

Now it's equally important to compare uh the tax revenues to what we had actually budgeted for.

Um looking at that analysis, the sale the city one penny sales tax is up around 3.4% compared to budget.

The county portion, we're up around 5% for a combined total for the month of August up 4.1% compared to budget, or roughly 208,000.

That's gonna put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget through the through August, up a combined 2.6 percent, or roughly 1.1 million for sales tax.

Uh and as a reminder, all of those sales tax collection reports, all the previous reports that I've given, um, those are posted on the city's website under the finance and administration department link if anyone would like to review those.

Um answer any questions on our sales tax report.

Yes, um council member uh Stephen, what was the grocery inconvenience up again?

Is it 20?

Uh let's see here.

Grocery inconvenience was up 21% or roughly 2.3 million dollars, and that's uh total taxable sales in the city.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, well, we certainly had a really good month.

Um that that's really encouraging.

Um do you have a projection when where you think we're gonna end up at the end of the year?

When I say that the city on a year-to-day basis compared to budget through August is up a combined 2.6%, or roughly $1.1 million for sales tax.

If you recall, we um we adopted a budget with a three million dollar uh shortage or shortfall.

We went ahead and made up for that using uh general fund reserves.

Um so basically, any of that difference we're we're gaining ground on that three million dollar deficit.

And now we did add some things throughout the year.

We had uh the salary plan that the uh the council implemented as well as a few other things, but uh at this point in time uh I I don't really have an estimate of where we're gonna end up for the year, but that's something that we're definitely keeping an eye on.

These tax numbers are pretty encouraging.

Can I ask one follow-up question?

Sure.

Um, so you know, we're gonna have that budget meeting on Thursday, and so it would be really helpful if by then maybe you had sort of a projection where you think we might end up if that's if that's possible.

Well, I can I mean I could narrow it down, but I'm not I don't want to go out on a limb and say, because we you know these sales tax numbers, they do bounce around.

I mean, even the numbers that I've presented over the course of the last year, and uh you know, as you recall, those tax numbers last year um we we kind of weren't necessarily where we wanted to be towards the end of the year.

So I'll do I'll uh talk about that a bit more in our budget meeting.

And by the way, that budget meeting will be is moved to this room on Thursday.

Uh we're having some AC work done downstairs, so we figured you all would appreciate the air conditioning.

Okay.

I do have one quick one more question here.

And it's about the groceries and convenience items again.

Do we 21% is a lot that we're at?

Do we have any way to calculate what is actually new sales, or how do we how do we gauge that against the overall price of groceries and stuff that's gone gone up?

I mean, I'll see if I can dig into the the numbers behind the scenes and and maybe at the next report provide a little bit of information there.

But keep in mind too, that 21% is it translates to $2.3 million.

So well, that percentage is way up compared to what we you know saw in August of 2024.

It's still not up a ton overall.

Okay, all right, thank you.

It is kind of interesting.

You know, I provide this report every month, and we see different things kind of popping out every month in terms of growth.

And it's uh it's tough for us to pin down what's driving that.

Um, but we we do keep an eye on it for month to month.

But I'll I'll provide some more information at the next one.

Um, and I also have if it's all right with you guys, I'm gonna move on to the monthly financial report for the month of September.

Uh starting off from the general fund, our property tax were up four percent uh through the month of September on a year-to-date basis compared to budget.

Our sales tax is up three percent.

Franchise fees, those are down roughly two percent.

Um we saw building permits way up around 41% or $900,000.

Um, that's one that you know kind of I've been reporting on every month, and we've seen that continually uh increasing.

And I think you know, a lot of that has to do with uh the work that Jonathan and his team are are doing.

Uh we saw our turn back up three percent or roughly 28,000.

All in all, in the general fund, we're up 3.5 percent compared to budget through September, roughly 1.9 million dollars.

Over in the street fund, uh, we're flat in that fund for the year, we're up roughly uh 14 14,000 for the year.

Uh we're also flat over in the parking fund or up around uh $5,600 for the year.

Um in the parks development fund, we are up route around 3.5 percent uh year to date.

Um that is driven primarily by some increases in our HMR tax collections, we're up roughly $70,000 there.

Over in the water and sewer fund, we're up roughly 1.6% or around $780,000 for the year uh through the month of September, and that's primarily driven by our charges for services, which were up 2%.

And they've been holding it roughly 2% up uh for a while now.

In the stormwater management fund, once again, that's a new fund that uh I'm gonna be reporting on.

This is our second month worth of billing for that.

So far, we have roughly $346,000 uh in revenue in that fund.

And I'll be talking a little bit more about that stormwater fund at our meeting on Thursday.

In recycling and trash, we're up 1.7% in the fund overall through the month of September, or roughly $73,000.

And that was uh led strongly by our franchise fees, which were up 13% or roughly 42,000, and our charges for services are up a little bit as well.

And finally, in the airport fund, that's driven primarily by our fuel sales.

We're up six tenths of a percent uh for the year through September, or roughly $13,000.

And our number of flight operations, uh, this is a good statistic.

We're up around 9% for the year, or roughly $1,702 more flight operations.

And uh that is my monthly report for September.

Can I answer any questions on that?

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um and you may be covering this during the budget discussion you talked about for stormwater, but I know we loaned ourselves as we got that utility started, and so based on the receipts that we're seeing after month two.

Do we have kind of a little bit of a quick summary maybe of what we're kind of thinking for that payback?

Sure, I'd be happy to talk about those revenues and the expenses.

Um I I kind of plan that as part of my presentation on Thursday.

If it's okay, I'm happy to wait.

Sounds good.

Um, and also uh any council members who cannot make that Thursday uh meeting.

I'm happy to meet with you one on one.

I know uh Minister Jones uh reached out to you.

We're gonna arrange a meeting, and we're also going to be recording this meeting, and we'll be following up at the agenda session and the following council meeting as well.

So any other questions you all might have, uh we can take care of them at those meetings too.

Thank you, Stephen.

I'm sorry, did council have did I get did council have more questions for Stephen?

I apologize if I rushed that.

Okay, thank you.

Um next up a proposed agenda additions.

Um, I believe we have a walk-on item from Dr.

DeAndre Jones.

Yes, we do, Mayor.

And I believe, Kit, this is the appropriate time to do walk-ons.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Are we just now discussing adding the walk-on or do we vote on it and and hear it at this point as well?

I think that was a clarification.

Yeah, the rules need to be suspended so we can walk this on.

Okay, got it.

So I would be entertaining a motion to suspend the rules.

Motion to suspend the roles to hear the walk-on.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second to propose the rules and hear um the walk-on related to um a letter from the council for related to SNAP benefits.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Um, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And normally, Mayor, when we do this, I read the resolution so that uh the public will know uh what the city council is going to be discussing.

Okay, I think let's do that and then we'll turn it over to Dr.

Jones.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes.

Real quick question.

Do we have a copy of that ourselves?

Um, I thought that was going to be provided, but uh, I don't know if you've seen that.

Oh, okay.

Oh, I would like to make a motion maybe to postpone it to later in the meeting, maybe as our first new item of business, and maybe we can get an electronic copy or paper copy sent to see a call.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Absolutely.

If that is possible, Clerk Paxton, is that something we could maybe get?

I apologize.

So you just want to table this to the beginning of the new business, please.

With the with the expectation, then what?

I want to make sure that where where is the where are you wanting the to have it forwarded then?

Is that what electronically to either get a paper or electronic version of the language for folks to be able to see prior to discussion?

Got it.

Okay, it's just making sure I understood for the second the motion.

Yeah, okay.

We we have a motion and a second to postpone to the first item of new business on for the walk-on.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Is more yes, Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you all so much.

Um, that moves us on to our consent agenda.

However, there is one item, item A4, um, that I will need a motion to pull from no no motion.

I'm sorry, Kit, go ahead.

Uh, it can just, since it's on the consent agenda, uh, the situation happened is that uh when our fleet superintendent submitted this item to the city council agenda, he was relying upon information in the HGAC contract documents that indicated that Burgoff Clamp Inc.

was the entity from whom we would have to purchase this asphalt pot how pothole patch truck.

Then after the uh agenda was published, unfortunately, he found out that no, we'd have to make a purchase from Houston Freightliner Inc.

Or it would cost us an additional five thousand dollars.

So to save that five thousand dollars, we have to pull this out so we can change that resolution.

Okay, what manner would you like for us to take to make that to pull that out?

If not, if not a motion, then you can just remove it yourself.

Okay, I'm going to be removing that item and we will be taking it up at the end of consent.

So I will now read the remaining items on consent.

Item A1, approval of the October 7th, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.

A2, approval of the October 21st, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.

A3, amendment number one with RJN Group Incorporated.

A four is being pulled from consent.

You will not be voting on it as part of the consent process.

A5, Walker Senior Center Generator and automatic transfer switch purchase that will support the meals on wheels and senior nutrition programs.

A6, approval of on-call electrical contract with King Electric.

A seven, approve an agreement with Fresh Start Junk Removal LLC.

Item A8, a 2025 Boston Mountain Recycling Grant, a nine, FPG fueling station site plan design and A10 FY 2026 step grant award.

Mayor make a motion set the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnout?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

That is going to lead us into unfinished business.

First.

No, actually, we go right to the one we pulled off.

Oh, okay.

I thought that was the beginning of new business.

Forgive me.

All right.

Going right to the recently removed item.

Transportation asphalt patch truck replacement.

Kit, will you please read what you need to read for that resolution?

Well, I've already explained what happened.

And uh uh Blake Pennington has sent a memo out to the mayor and council and CARA about this on October 27th and had the resolution there.

And basically all it does is change out uh the person where the entity we're buying it from to Houston Freight Later Freight Lighter Inc.

And so that's uh that's what the resolution would be exactly the same except from a different okay great thank you so much and I'll be um calling for a motion to accept that purchase.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to accept that purchase second second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second since this is now no longer on consent.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to offer public comment on the purchase of the pot hole patch truck?

I'm not seeing any.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berta?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunt?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

Now we are moving on to unfinished business.

The first item of unfinished business, item B1 is PCD 2025-3 on North Raven Lane.

This is an ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district, PCD 2025-3 for approximately 49.2 acres located on North Raven Lane in Ward 4.

And this item was left on the first reading in October and was tabled to this meeting.

Mr.

Williams.

Okay, if you don't want to call uh have a suspend the rules to go to the third final reading, or you want me just to read it?

I'll motion to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules.

Uh Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

In order to approve residential plan zoning district entitled PCD 2025-3 for approximately 49.2 acres located on North Raven Lane and Ward 4.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

And as I alluded to at your agenda session, a update was uh made to this request.

There's a new ordinance that's attached to this specifically describing uh everything that entails.

Uh, but to give you an overview of what that looks like prior to the council considering whether they want to make that amendment, I will uh present that visually first for your consideration.

Uh as a brief reminder, this property is in Northwest Fayetteville.

It is located, as the mayor noted in the description of the item at the north end of Raven Lane.

Uh it is immediately southwest of Underwood Park and uh has the uh Claver Creek running along uh its northern uh edge.

Uh it at it at its um uh at its root, the change that is before the council tonight is to reduce the size of the area being proposed uh for PCD amendment from what you see here, uh which included both uh the parcel immediately north of the Crystal Springs phase four subdivision and a portion of property uh associated with the underwood PZD to only include the portion immediately north of the Crystal Springs Phase 4 subdivision.

So where you previously saw a request to rezone from RSF4 and PZD to this new PCD, it's just rezoning the portion that's a RSF4 today to the revised PZD.

And what that looks like uh in terms of the site plan that the applicant submitted in their PCD booklet is that will effectively uh remove the portion in the northeastern corner of the prop property from the PCD.

Uh that will be developable under the existing PCD entitlements associated with the underwood park PCD.

Uh so for uh the purposes of tonight, uh, what's in the consideration uh if the amendment is accepted as the portion outside that grayed out area uh to the southwest or to the portion immediately in the light green.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this request.

When the planning commission heard the larger proposal, uh they uh recommended approval uh to city council by vote of six to zero to one, uh finding it to be compatible with the area, and including that it's a largely single-family in nature and an area that is uh uh almost exclusively residential, and also that it incorporated several areas of green space uh adjacent to the Claver Creek uh floodplain area uh that would be complementary to it.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take questions, Mayor and or council and uh Andrew Malner is uh uh present as the applicant for this item and has a presentation ready.

Okay, council.

Um would you like to go ahead and hear the applicant's presentation before we ask clarifying questions?

Okay.

If the applicant would like to come up and present good evening.

Uh my name is Andrew Meltzer.

My address is 2500 Evans Trade Center Drive.

Uh good evening, council.

This this evening I'm going to be talking to you again about a next chapter neighborhood, as we did a few council sessions ago.

Um, but in essence, the request this evening, of course, is to uh uh approve a rezoning request for a market rent, market rate rental housing community in Fayetteville.

Um I know last council meeting we went through a lot of details about what a next chapter neighborhood is and what it looks like, um, but I'm going to attempt to keep it simpler this evening.

Um, subject to, of course, a the QA portion after, and uh try and just talk through as simply as I can what the project is and what we hope to achieve.

So I'll use the presentation to guide my com my my um my notes this this evening, but by no means will I run through the whole thing like we did last time.

So, Jonathan, if you'll click through, please um one more time.

Perfect.

So uh as staff mentioned, uh an amendment to the request this evening around the size of the request.

Um there's a pretty lengthy explanation as to why.

The what I've tried to condense it down into uh under my 10-minute time constraint is that um we previously had uh a provision in the PCD that said if no action were to take place on this project for two years, that it would become essentially null and void.

We were since told and and kind of collectively with staff and and legal figured out that's actually not allowed in Fayetteville, much less Arkansas.

So we had to remove that, remove that provision and consolidate our request down to the 33-acre portion.

Um the project will still work as as staff mentioned because the 16-acre parcel already has a PZD on it, which allows for our project to be built.

Uh and so we're the request this evening is just for the 33-acre piece.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Uh the project is the same, it's next chapter neighborhood, um, showing roughly on the site plan about 276 units uh as of today.

They're all individual single family homes or smaller in nature, as we discussed last time.

A lot of people refer to them as cottages.

Um keep going, Jonathan.

Uh as I mentioned, it's in essence, it's a market rate rental housing community.

Um we feel like at next chapter neighborhoods, we have come up with a better mouse trap opposed to a traditional stacked apartment complex.

Um we develop and build and operate and own a product that we feel provides a better housing solution for someone who has made the decision that I'm going to live in an apartment.

Uh, there are two primary trade-offs we feel our product addresses in that regard.

Um, one, shared walls with your neighbors when you live in an apartment.

You have next to you, above you, below you, in a next chapter neighborhood, of course, there's no shared walls, everyone has their own home.

You eliminate uh that that negative.

The secondly, and perhaps the one we're most proud of is a sense of community and true neighborhood that is established when you live in a next chapter neighborhood.

Uh, I went through, I think at length last meeting, and I can go back again and show you the pictures of our in our neighborhoods and developments.

Um an organic community springs up of people who live there.

And it's not just you know, you drive to your apartment, you park, and you go to your unit, you never talk to your neighbor or talk to anybody else.

It's it's a true neighborhood that people interact and live in and are proud to live in.

And it's something that uh kind of like I said, sprung up sprung up organically, and we're very proud of.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

You can click through, I think, the next few.

Yeah, it's a promise I'm not gonna go through.

I'll leave just a reminder.

Um you live with us, and and I can say a lot of things about and describe how a next chapter neighborhood works, and I realized the other day, everything I would tell you would be almost describing identically how an apartment works.

So if you're wondering, well, what is this this housing community?

It's very, very similar to an apartment in that you pay your rent and everything is taken care of for you.

The outside, the inside, everything is kept up by one common owner, and that's us, which is another huge positive about our developments.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Uh not it it's not just an it's not just a development, it's a true neighborhood.

Again, we we touched on that lightly.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Uh, here's the site plan kind of graying out that 16-acre piece just to show you that that's the existing PZD that's there today.

And our request is for the 33-acre piece and how our site plan fits in there.

You can keep going, Jonathan.

Um, here I've just highlighted again some of the features around or within a next chapter neighborhood, some of the amenities, how it's laid out, the green space we've preserved.

I have another slide coming about how we're going to interface and interact with the park, uh, which is very unique to the site, and I think has potential to be it will be the best one we've ever done, and one that Fayetteville will also be incredibly proud of.

Keep going, Jonathan.

Um, here's some road connections.

I know that was a topic of conversation and maybe some questions of of where the roads are connecting going to connect.

Uh, there's two connection points to the south there to the to the neighborhood to our south, and then we'll have an additional connection point there at the top right over to Dean Solomon Road as well.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Uh one of the councilwoman, I forget which one it was.

I made a promise that I would highlight the public streets for you in this rendition of the presentation.

So we've done that.

Uh and I know there's some conversation around that, but again, I'll try to simplify here.

Um there's a master street plan in Fayetteville, you're all aware of.

We're meeting that master street plan.

Uh, we're not requesting any deviations from it, and the connection points as staff has asked from us are going to be public streets and publicly owned, publicly managed.

Um, the rest of our development will still be private streets, just like they are in any other apartment complex that that has come before you or will come before you.

Um, everything will be taken care of by us in those sections.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Uh here I'm just showing you how our neighborhood could potentially interface with the park, and I'm realizing the one of those images doesn't look quite as good on this TV as it does on ours.

Um, but Underwood Park obviously is developing to our north.

Uh our project there is going to fit in in the middle between the park and the neighborhood to our south.

And the opportunity to connect to the park is something we're incredibly excited about.

We're going to provide numerous connection points to the trails and sidewalks of the park.

I mean, that fits in with our with our methodology and what we like to do perfectly.

Um, if you go to the next click, Jonathan, I've highlighted highlighted actually how the trails are walked through the park and they can get to the school and the Gary Hampton softball fields there.

So it's something that we're very excited about to be able to integrate with the park, and it was important to the underwoods as well.

Uh and I can talk about it at length, trying to consolidate here this evening.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

Um I went through and you know, in preparation for our last meeting, and definitely in preparation for this meeting, tried to reference to two, I think, guiding documents around housing in Fayetteville.

Uh, the recently updated in April of 2025 Fayetteville housing assessment, and then the Walton Families Foundation's uh housing study that recently came out.

And there's some interesting excerpts throughout those studies, which I'm sure you guys are very familiar with.

I tried to pinpoint a few to contextualize how we might be able to fit in with the goals uh by building a next chapter neighborhood in Fayetteville.

Jonathan.

Um something I found interesting, and and really it lined up well with what I already knew is that a next chapter neighborhood is uh it adds to the diversity of housing within a community.

And that that's something that is spoken to across both of those studies and reports.

Um I think the quote here not all residents want to live in a single single family homes on large plots of land.

I mean, that's a kind of a snarky quote the report comes up with.

But what it represents is that people in Fayetteville and really across the country are looking for more choices in their housing and specifically in their rental housing.

Um and this is exactly what a next chapter neighborhood provides in that regard.

Go ahead, Jonathan, to the next one.

Uh the missing middle infill, um, the kind of gap developments I know are very important to Fayetteville and and worse or were spoken to in those studies.

This would meet every definition of such.

This is an infill project.

Um we're increasing the density of the parcel from four units per acre up to seven units per acre.

We're utilizing existing infrastructure, and we're physically filling the gap between the park and neighborhoods to the north and the neighborhoods to our south.

Jonathan uh I tried to go through and summarize what I took from the reports, which are are just statements of truth.

Um there is a shortage of housing in Fayetteville of all types, of all types, not of not of high-end homes, low-end homes.

Every type of home, there's a shortage of housing in Fayetteville.

Um, there's a need for more a more diverse mix of housing in Fayetteville, as I just mentioned.

That was evident in the reports.

And of course, as I just mentioned, infill should be prioritized.

And I feel like our project checks all three of those boxes.

Um, and it's something that I think fits in incredibly well with the projection for Fayetteville housing.

Jonathan.

I'll leave it at that.

Um, I almost timed it perfectly in my 10 minutes.

Please, I'd welcome a QA.

Uh, maybe the first queue can be some more detail around the amendment, but um, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

Do we have questions for Jonathan or the applicant?

Minister Jones.

I just recall when you presented this the first time, you were talking about making a partial improvement to the street, but today you didn't say that.

So is that the same, or is it you're gonna make full improvements to the streets?

Uh so the the on the site plan where you saw those blue highlighted streets, those are going to be publicly owned and uh maintained streets that we're building to the fullest extent, and then we'll be dedicating to the city of Fayetteville.

Is that answer your question?

Um, even to the ones that connecting to double spring that is not developing right now, it's it's truly underdeveloped to be able to handle the type of traffic that'll come into that area.

Yeah.

I'm sorry, I said double.

I'm Dean Solomon.

Okay.

So that is not developed right now.

Oh, the connection to Dean Solomon?

Yeah, if that'll be a part of our project, it's just not included on the site plan because it's off-site.

The underwoods will be granting us an access easement to build that road, and it'll also be a public road.

So that my guess my next question is to Jonathan, is that um the full 20-feet wide street with um sidewalks on both sides?

Yes, that's a typical street requirement.

Uh it's a minimum of 20-foot width.

We've I think we've talked about that a bit lately with regards to fire code and then green space and sidewalks.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um, Dr.

Jones.

How many of these are you going to build?

276.

Okay.

276.

Okay.

What's the square footage?

The average is about 1100 square feet.

We have one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, four bedrooms.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Um follow-up to Dr.

Johnson.

Oh, I'm sorry, Sarah.

Ms.

Moore, and then and then and then Mr.

Susan.

Just a quick follow-up.

276 uh units or 276 bedrooms units.

Thank you.

How many bedrooms does that?

I actually don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.

It's actually included on that site plan, one of those tables, but I don't know.

No worries.

Okay.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Welcome.

Um, so you spoke about diversity of housing.

Um, and I think we had this conversation when you presented before.

Um, I'm seeing obviously just like little um single-family homes, you know, blocked here, but um, as far as the renditions that were picture that may be in some other communities, these looked like very much the same house over and over again, maybe just um uh inverted um with you know front-facing driveways.

Um, these don't seem like they have like driveways to the back.

It doesn't seem like there's like a variety of changes to the housing.

Is that will we anticipate that the actual end product is gonna look much like those?

Sure, it's a great question.

Um I actually have some pictures of the homes later in the presentation, Jonathan.

I'm not sure I'm gonna make you click all the way through them.

Um the short answer to your question is we we are very sensitive to the monotony that I think you're you're you're getting at with the homes.

Um the homes are our variety of floor plans.

Uh Jonathan's feverish you're clicking through there.

A variety of floor plans, and we're very sensitive to how we position them along the street.

Um we don't have any rear driveways, they are all front driveways.

Um, but we we are intentional about making sure we don't ever have five homes in a row together.

And we we make sure that we break it up and it it because we also don't want it to look like the same home placed over and over again.

So we have at this point, I think 11 different floor plans, and we're very intentional about how we place those.

And then um a follow-up to that too, is that with that site plan, the way it's on that piece of land, the layout looks very similar to the pictures we've seen from the other communities.

What how much was changed to this particular site?

When I look at that piece of land in particular, I see groves of trees, but I see housing placed over that.

Um it doesn't look like the land preservation was in regard to those particular groves, and so I was hoping you could walk us through that.

Absolutely.

Jonathan, can you find one of those first slides in the presentation all the way at the front?

Um it's a it's a great thing to bring up, and it's something that I haven't mentioned, but we actually had to revise our site plan at the recommendations of our great engineers, Craft and Toll.

Um, we shifted some roads and units over to be able to preserve more trees on the site than we previously had.

I'll show you where that happened on the plan.

Um we're not uh requesting any deviations from the Fayetteville tree preservation ordinance, so we're meeting everything in that regard.

And then we will be overlandscaped on this site from the minimum landscaping.

So we're gonna meet all the public and private street tree requirements, all the public and private landscape requirements.

And as it's consistent with every development we've ever done in our company, we are always over landscaped because we feel like that's a benefit to the neighborhood opposed to not.

Uh the area I was talking about is at the top left.

Um you can see we kind of have uh homes surrounding a grove of trees.

We we we carve that out to try and preserve the trees in that area, not just wipe them all out.

So we couldn't do that on across the entire site to save every tree that's there, but it we were sensitive to it when we were laying the site out.

But you're right, councilwoman.

Trees are gonna come down on this site.

There's no doubt about that.

But we're gonna be overlandscaped uh in preserving and replacing them when we're done.

And then I just have one follow-up.

I mean, that's the great thing about PCDs, is they give us that great flexibility to really be contextual to that site.

Yeah.

And so is there any flexibility or movability with this to be able to preserve more of those areas that have the groves of trees to have those nature?

I know it abuts to Underwood Park where we do have the full nature, but I just am curious.

This feels like a lot of concrete.

I mentioned that at the last um council meeting, and it seems like it came back looking much the same.

And so I'm just I'm curious if that's if there's any movability to that.

There is, you know, something we've done.

We actually have a site under construction right now, just outside you know, different part of the country in South Carolina to where uh we we got a plan approved, and when we got into construction on the site, we walk around the site and say, hey, that's a beautiful tree.

We need to find a way to keep that.

And we we we were showing on our plans to for it to be removed, but we decided not to.

So that's the approach we've taken in the past, which is we need to get a site plan approved that works from a business standpoint.

Um, but once we get into the construction, we then have the flexibility to say, okay, well, we were approved to remove that tree, but we don't want to because it's a benefit to our neighborhood.

Um looking on this site plan specifically, I want to point to you to a few constraints.

Uh, there are some wetland areas on the site, primarily in the middle there, um the middle center, which really constrains where we can move things and it makes things very tight.

So we we have to be sensitive to a lot of things, trees and preservation being one of them, but also our unit count.

And so when you really start adjusting that unit count starts going down, down, down, and then the project at some point becomes unsustainable.

Thank you.

Minister Jones, do you have another question?

Thank you.

Just um a couple more questions.

I don't know at what point, Jonathan, we start doing a traffic study on how this is gonna impact North Raven Lane at the bottom.

Is it north?

Um, at what point do we start doing traffic studies and working with the city in order to create safety measures around the amount of traffic this is going to produce?

Our development code requires or our minimum street standards, excuse me, require traffic studies to be submitted with a development proposal.

So at this point, we're still in the zoning stage of a project.

The next uh portion of the process, which would for this would be a large-scale development.

That's the point at which a traffic impact analysis or traffic study of some variety uh would have to be submitted for our engineering staff to evaluate, and that can inform uh what's uh public street requirements maybe require or maybe necessary, including on-site or off-site.

Okay.

And do we know what school district this will impact if we already at what point do we determine whether or not that the school districts surrounding this area could absorb this amount of new development?

We we solicit input from the school district on every rezoning.

Uh we did not receive any feedback on this one.

Uh this is immediately adjacent to Holcombe just on the Fayetteville School District.

This is Fayetteville School District, yes.

Um I have to get to their questions.

Or do you have an addition to that answer?

Yeah.

Okay, yes.

I know there's been a lot of uh amendments on the on this.

There has been a traffic study done, and it was submitted with the packet, and it calls for no improvements on the roads because the impact is going to be so low.

Just wanted to make you guys aware of that.

And then for the schools, we reached out to the superintendent of Fayetteville Schools and had a conversation with them directly about our project, and they had no concerns.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor Ron.

Um, so there have been some concerns about who will be living there, and I wondered if you could kind of um walk us through some of your other properties.

Are they mostly college students or the young professionals or their elderly?

Can you can you kind of give us a general mix?

Because I've I've heard from constituents some concern about that.

Yeah.

Well, our product type, our founder always always says this joke.

Our product type does not appeal to the college age kid who wants to have a keg party by the pool, right?

There's a place for that and a housing product for that.

That's not us.

Um we more so appeal to a little bit later in life, uh, the young professional, maybe people with my age demographic, but then a lot of what makes a next chapter neighborhood great appeals to the 55 and up retirement community as well.

And that was on that was unintentional.

We that was almost surprising to us.

Um, but it makes perfect sense, right?

And I think I spoke about this last time about people with a fixed income having a fixed expense uh living situation to match it.

And so we've seen primarily three groups, uh the the retired crowd, the young professionals, and then the transient uh, you know, 35 to 50 year olds as well.

So um in your marketing campaign, because you're gonna get out and sort of market this, those will be the the um demographics that you'll be marketing to.

Yes, and and we we actively avoid um the college, the college renters.

We like I said, we just don't think it fits our product type and what we're trying to achieve.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, council person, um, councilperson Burner.

I just want to clarify do we need to make a motion to accept an uh the amendment?

That's correct, Councilmember Bernard.

We certainly need to make a motion to amend to this particular document.

I'll make a motion to amend second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to amend to Clerk Paxton.

And thank you.

Yes.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnout?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And that amendment included the ordinance that was submitted in your packet at a later point, not the original amendment.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Um, are you all ready for me to open it up to public comment?

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Okay.

I'm not seeing I'm seeing one.

Yes.

Come on up.

Sorry, got a little too eager there.

Come on.

Yes.

Quick enough, was I?

Well, uh, do I need name and address?

Uh yes, please set your name and address, and I'll ask them to put a few more seconds on the call.

Okay, Craig Underwood, 2375 Fox Trail here in Fayetteville.

Uh, first thing I want to say is thank you to the mayor as well as several of the board members that came to the groundbreaking for Underwood Park we had a few weeks ago.

Uh, excited to see how that's going to develop, and that should be finished in about a year, which uh is fantastic.

As many of you know, uh, my wife and I have deep roots here in Fayetteville from our jewelry store on Dixon Street, where we've been there for almost 70 years, to other things that we've done to help the city with the parks.

Uh, completely unrelated underwood park on the south side of the town.

We have 50 acres uh next to Sequoia Woods that we've opened up uh for uh bicycle trails to that.

Kit Williams helped us uh draft that.

It's a zero charge, no fee, uh long-term release that is uh done that we've had for several years.

You probably also know my wife from all the activities and uh contributions she's done.

Uh she spent 10 years on the school board.

Uh, she's been uh board member as well as board chair for multiple uh organizations here from the Vaughn Richardson Center to Mount Sequoia to uh she is on the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, and uh um one of the things that I'm very proud of for her is a few years ago uh she the state of Arkansas through the Parks Department puts one person up a year for volunteer of the year for the entire state, and she won that award for her volunteer efforts here with the city of Fayetteville.

So we have deep roots, and because of that, it was no surprise to people that when we purchased the 124-acre razor back park that from the get-go or rage back golf course that we were interested in setting aside 20 to 30 acres for a park.

Part of that was from our joy that we had in being next to Goalie Park years ago and all the family outings that we had there with uh birthday parties and and kid events, and we knew what a great uh asset that is for young families to have.

So that's part of why we did it.

But one of the things we did when we first purchased a park is we started having meetings with members from the city.

We went, uh Jonathan Kirk was one of the first we met with, uh, asking him what he thought the direction was and what we should look at for the best long-term development.

Uh, we met with the mayor, we went met with several members of city council just wanting to hear feedback of where we should be.

And we have been very intentional in our development of this.

We with the uh park itself, we set it up with a 38-acre direct gift with 27 other acres that were tied to three developments of the park.

We have a 15-acre development, a 28-acre development, and this 49-acre development that next chapter is looking at.

And we've tied this as a partnership so that each time those land developments are done, additional parkland can be contributed and the park can grow.

I'm out of time, aren't I?

Mayor, I'd like to give you a couple more minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, I appreciate that.

So each of this has been done where it's very intentional, and we've gone through having those meetings with the city.

We've also attended a lot of the workshops that were done.

The um Walton Foundation had one in 2018 called Housing a Region, which was the first workshop I attended, and I've done multiple since then, all in the effort to make sure that when we position this property that it is going to be developed in a way that is going to be best for the community.

When next chapter came to us and was interested in looking at this land, before we signed anything, my wife and I flew up to Fort Wayne, Indiana, which is the most recent development that next chapter has done, and we wanted to see firsthand what this development looked like because we it's very important to us that this entire project be done right and what they are doing is done right.

It's something that I think will be a great asset.

There'll be diversity in the housing, and it's something that our community needs, this type of rental community that is a freestanding house as opposed to individual uh apartments are on there.

Through this whole process, we've worked with the city, we've gone through different workshops, and we feel that this is going to be the best project and product for this particular piece of property.

Anybody has any questions?

I'll be happy to answer them.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you.

Do we have any more public comment in the room?

Good evening, Mayor Kyle Smith, 2801 Dove Drive, which is about four blocks south of this property, and I wanted to come and offer my voice in support of it.

I appreciate the variety of housing, the uh planning for connectivity.

Uh, this is gonna be a great place to uh to walk as an extension of my neighborhood.

I'm looking forward to it.

Um I have one minor concern.

Uh, it is the private streets.

Um private streets can be problematic, as uh councilmember uh Jones knows when a neighborhood that has private streets uh doesn't plan for those in the long term, they can have a hard time taking care of those, and then it's if they've deteriorated over time, it's hard for the city to step in and repair those uh for them.

So I understand why they need to do that.

Our our street plan uh can be kind of inflexible and doesn't give them a lot of options.

I think we could stand to give developers a little more flexibility in meeting site-specific needs uh with the cross-section variations.

Uh that said, I I think the overall plan is great.

I hope that the uh construction of the engineering of the road will be up to city standards so that if in the future something happens, it's ready to be taken over.

Uh, but I understand the need for the private streets because of the narrow cross section of proposing.

So great plan, great project, and uh hope you'll vote for it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone virtually who would like to speak on this item?

We do not.

Okay.

Do we have anyone else in the room?

And I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

I believe it is on the final reading.

So we uh Minister Jones.

Yeah, I do have a that is a very good question, Jonathan.

How many private streets are in this community?

Can you bring that map back up?

Certainly.

The map I'm about to show is what the applicant provided.

The street you see in blue is what's proposed to be dedicated as a public street built to all public street standards, including not just construction standards, but uh how it appears in terms of sidewalks, curbs, and gutter uh and and those specifications.

And this was an acknowledgement of our master street plan, which has a connection going through this property through Underwood Park and tying back into Dean Solomon.

Uh the remaining uh drives, if you will, that are outside of the blue are intended to be private.

And so city utilities uh dump trucks, um fire trucks as well as trash trucks would have to go on their regular private streets, and we could it could cause damage to it.

So my question is I I noticed they don't have alleys, so all their pickups would be right in the front of their house.

Is that correct?

It does, yes.

Uh at this point, our recycling trash group and our fire department haven't reviewed it to the degree that they will during development review.

Uh, but yes, for for most intents and purposes, this will those will function as public streets as far as access uh and for what it's worth when it comes to private drives and private streets of this nature.

Oftentimes the construction standards are very similar to our city streets, it's just the design elements that may vary.

The sidewalks maybe have different appearances or different widths, the trees may be located on the other side of sidewalks instead of between the sidewalk and the street.

Thank you.

We have no go ahead, Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I didn't know if the applicant team could uh in in regard to just a follow-up, because you're right, um, council member Jones about the upkeep.

I'm just curious with the ongoing rents.

Um I would I'm I'm assuming that's factored in, but just want to make make sure about that.

Yeah.

Um something interesting, Jonathan.

I should pull up the site plan one more time.

Um this whole notion of private streets.

I I just want to just clarify something.

Um you took any section of the site plan where these you know private streets are, and you just imagined an apartment building there with uh a parking lot for your apartments.

Well, those are also private streets.

And so the concern, which are good concerns and can be addressed about well, what are we planning to do with them?

Will we upkeep them?

It's an identical to concern for if an apartment was being built here, right?

How are they going to keep up their parking lot?

Right?

How how how are city services gonna navigate the parking lot of an apartment?

And so it it's viewed almost identically in that fashion.

Um we, of course, are in highly incentivized to make sure the people going through our neighborhood uh can do so well and that the streets are maintained, otherwise no one's gonna want to live with us.

Um we also are very incentivized to make sure city trash and city services can also get through unimpeded and efficiently.

And I'm gonna jump in just a minute since it is her time and it's on the clock.

Is this answering your was your intent to ask a question of the applicant and is this answering it for you?

Yes, I wanted to just make sure with the rents if that was factored in because we do have neighborhoods and the city of Fayetteville with private streets that now there's no been no accruals, and they are struggling to do that maintenance.

And so just wanted to, and it sounds like you're saying yes, that is the case.

It's part of our upkeep budget, just like the the grass or the homes.

Yes, okay, thank you.

That's awesome.

Okay, thank you.

I'd like to ask Clerk Paxton to call the roll for the vote, please.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

And that's a vote.

Okay.

Thank you all so much.

That brings us to item B2 of new business of old business, excuse me.

Rezone 2025-33 on East Rockwood Trail.

This is an appeal of the planning commission denial.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition, RZN 25-33 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 922 East Rockwood Trail and Ward 3 from RSF4, single family four units per acre to NC, neighborhood conservation.

And I think I have confused, I learned last last council meeting.

I think I confused things by reading out loud that it was an appeal the way our city attorney has written it.

Is voting for the rezoning and a no vote is voting against the rezoning.

So we tried to make it really straightforward appeal or not.

So anyway, this was tabled immediately and has not yet gone through any readings.

So I will turn it over to you, Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas, Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas, hereby changes of zone classification of the property shown the map exhibit A and the legal description exhibit B.

Both attached to the planning department's memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation.

Section two at the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by managed official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to East Fayetteville.

It's about 900 feet uphill from the intersection of Mission and Rockwood Trail.

The property includes about one third of an acre at the northwest corner of Rockwood and Jackson, which you can see here in the aerial imagery of the property.

It is currently developed with a single family home that accesses directly onto Rockwood Trail, is uh entirely within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District in the City of Fayeville, uh which uh in zoning terms uh does allow for smaller lot size or smaller lot widths and the RSF4 residential single family four units per zone or per acre zoning district that the property has today.

Uh the request before council is an appeal of the planning commission's denial to rezone the property from its current RSF4 zoning designation to NC neighborhood conservation.

Uh from a purely land use compatibility standpoint, uh staff does uh find this to largely be a compatible to request compatible request.

RSF4 is a single family district that only allows single family uses by right.

NC neighborhood conservation is also a single family district that only allows single family uh uh dwellings by right.

Um however, where staff's findings become more mixed is in terms of our long range uh plans.

Uh, this area is designated as a residential neighborhood area on our future land use map, which again suggests that uh variety of residential uses are appropriate, depending on the context.

And this is where staff begins to find a misalignment with our long range plans.

Uh, we feel that the context of this particular location is not appropriate for an additional amount of uh density at this time.

Uh the number, the limited number of infill attributes that you see here uh suggests that it may not uh be appropriate for additional housing.

Uh while it does have adequate fire sewer fire response, sewer and water access and proximity to city park and and city trail.

Uh, we feel that the uh largely low density pattern in the area, uh coupled with the slopes uh uh uh in the area as well, and the general development pattern that has uh occurred here over the last many, many decades uh with uh large houses set back on large lots uh is not complimentary to the neighborhood conservation zoning district and its standard requiring street or requiring houses to be built towards the street.

Uh as far as other issues, uh the staff uh evaluated.

Uh this would reduce the tree preservation requirement on the property uh from 25 to 20 percent.

Uh but do keep in mind that the hillside hilltop overlay district requirements would bump each of those up 5%.

So really it is 30 to 25 percent.

Uh as I noted a moment ago, uh, one of the biggest differences other than the number of units allowed under the the NC versus RSF4 zoning districts is NC requires buildings to be built immediately up or up to the street, whereas RSF4 is intended to push buildings away from the street.

And uh, as you may have seen on the uh zoning map previously shown on screen, this is a uniformly RSF4 area where those homes have been built uh in a very specific pattern for many, many decades.

Uh another item that uh staff identified is that there is a sewer capacity issue downhill.

Uh however, given the size of the property, this is not a major factor in staff's consideration uh today uh or under the NC zoning uh the the property has very limited development uh capacity and it's its contribution to any sewer issues is uh accordingly very limited as well.

Uh to date we have received some public comment on the request.

Uh there have been concerns uh about this uh property being rezoned, uh specifically about changes that it may cause of the character in the area or the impacts it may have on the uh the tree canopy on this property.

Uh also there were some agenda session questions that council member Turk posed uh when this was first brought up.

Uh one was a question about accident data uh along Rockwood here, uh uh Rockwood, excuse me, Rockwood Trail here.

If you're not familiar with it, it is a very steep slope uh with uh some site visibility concerns uh and then looking at and also she uh councilmember Turk asked about utility conflicts.

Apologies, I got these backwards and how I'll talk about them.

Uh in terms of utility conflicts, uh, those of you who sit on the water and sewer committee are familiar with some work needed uh on the water and sewer lines in Rockwood Trail and the difficulties this could present uh logistically and evaluating this with uh the the city's utility engineer, however, they did not feel that this zoning would have any particular impact on those water and sewer lines.

I felt that that work could be completed regardless of what happens on this property.

However, in discussing those water and sewer lines, it was identified that there are major overhead power lines that run along the front edge of this property that you can see in the image there, which does not preclude redevelopment of this property, uh, but it may uh impact the ability to uh build it to the NC neighborhood conservation's build to requirements.

Uh, in instances where there are large overhead power lines like this, there are uh OSHA or federal standards that require buildings and structures to be set back a certain distance to allow access to them.

Um and as it relates to the accident data, uh there is uh one uh possible injury accident that's identified in close proximity to this property, which you can see near the middle of the screen in the the black rectangle.

Uh the majority of the accidents were downhill, however, uh as you near uh mission boulevard and Rockwood Trail.

And these numbers uh I believe were 2020 to 2024 data.

So this is over uh roughly a five-year span of of uh of traffic accident data.

Ultimately, on the balance of considerations, uh staff is recommending denial of this request.

And as the title of the item suggests, uh, when the planning commission heard this, they also denied it.

Uh so it is before the city council on appeal.

Uh the council member or the commissioners who were supportive of the request felt that this was an appropriate amount of additional density in the area.

Uh, those uh who spoke against it uh shared similar concerns to staff that this would introduce an urban form that built to zone requiring buildings to be at the street in a neighborhood that uh is fully of a different character.

Uh with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

And Mayor Niles Allen is here as the applicant for this item.

Okay.

Mr.

Allen, does um do you have a presentation?

Are you simply available for questions later?

Uh just a full question.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any questions for either Mr.

Kurth or for the applicant about this item?

Okay.

Um, seeing that we have none, I'm um oh, I'm I'm so sorry, Minister Jones.

I just had one question because you um started by saying yes is for the appeal and no is against the appeal.

Um no, um I apologize.

Um to vote yes is to vote for the rezone, and to vote no is to vote against the rezone.

Thank you.

So it's simply basically you can just disregard uh the word appeal in the voting, and you're either voting for it or not.

You're welcome.

Not seeing any questions, so I'm gonna take it straight to public comment.

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

Okay, please go ahead and just come up and state your name and address, please.

We'll have three minutes on the clock for you.

Members of the council, uh, my name is Henry Reniger.

My wife and I, I'm all afspec uh in the audience, and uh we live at 925 East Rockwood Trail.

We're right across the street from the proposed development.

And um, and we have uh voiced concern both to the planning commission and to the council uh about our disapproval of this, and and also I think we speak for many members of the neighborhood.

And as was voiced uh just a minute ago in the summary, um there are two big issues.

One uh the the issue of the character of the neighborhood.

Fayville has some unique neighborhoods, uh, things like the historic district, uh, Mount Sequoia, uh, in our in our neighborhood, uh, which overlooks uh Fayetteville from several hundred feet above Mission Boulevard.

And um, and in this, in our estimation, one development might not be such a problem, but setting a precedent for such a development we see as a huge problem because there are there are a lot of homes there that are owned by older people that will eventually be sold over the next five to ten years.

And and so redeveloping an established neighborhood that has a unique character, you know, and uh uh to us would be the end of the character of the neighborhood.

The other thing is um uh that piece of property and some of the other adjoining pieces of property that could also be developed similarly, have uh trees in them that are over a hundred years old.

We had an old tree that had to be cut down because of the big ice storm.

We've lived on that property since 1988.

We bought it in 1990, so we've been there a long time.

Uh we had to have a tree cut down that was 169 years old, and a tree like that won't be replaced in our lifetime, and we haven't seen any kind of plan for how that land would be used.

How would it be developed?

How would you be able to put homes in there and not destroy the trees that are there?

So those are our concerns, and and safety, yeah, those that's always a concern.

Uh things like the sewer and electrical, I think those are secondary, but the primary thing is changing the character of the town and changing the character of a neighborhood that's been there for decades.

Um to us that's that's the problem here.

And I think the same uh I can speak for many of our neighbors, uh, some of whom have attended these meetings, so you know, and some that are here tonight.

Any questions for me?

We didn't yeah, thank you.

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

Keith, do we have anyone call in?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council, starting with councilperson staff.

Yes, I motion we move to the third and final reading.

Suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

We have a motion and a second to move to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described and rezoning petition, RCN 2025-33 for approximately 0.33 acres, located at 922 East Rockburg Trail in Ward 3, from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation.

Okay, Clerk.

Ms.

Bunch?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, okay.

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

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

No.

Dr.

Jones?

No.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

No.

Mr.

Berna?

No.

Ms.

Bunch?

No.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

That was our last item of unfinished business.

Before we get before we move on to new business, I one, I think Clerk Paxton has something to pass out related to the walk-on item.

But additionally, I believe we have a uh a reconsideration that Minister Jones would like to like to bring forward Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'd like to move to reconsider um rezoning RZN 2025 0027 at West Mount Comfort Road and North Gooseberry Lane.

One thing I'd like us to remember about before we go into the reconsider um is understanding it'll take us back to the moment before October the 21st vote, which is a split zone between RSF-18 and NSG with the bill of assurance, and that bill of assurance was voted in on this specific property, so we would have to vote to also remove the previous bill of assurance.

But I want to make sure as well, because that everybody received the new bill of assurance that was sent on yesterday for RZN 2025 0027.

I believe that was received by council, at least I got it with council copied.

And so uh Mr.

Williams, this is my first vote to rec motion to reconsider.

And so procedurally, I'm just gonna ask for your help to make sure that I'm doing it correctly.

I I certainly mayor and uh as council member Jones said, uh she voted with the prevailing party the first time, and so she's available to make that motion.

Anyone, any council member can second that motion, and then it'll be up to a vote.

Okay, great.

Do we have a second for Miss for Minister Jones's motion to reconcile?

Second okay, we have a second.

So um Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on the motion to reconsider?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

And so now, as was stated, we're back immediately before the vote was taken.

So all the comments you heard, all of your comments are still relevant, and uh you have many options this point.

Uh you can take an immediate vote.

You can uh decide to take public comment, you can table this to the next meeting, uh, whatever you wish to do.

Okay.

Uh Minister Jones, since you brought this forward, I'm gonna let you speak first.

I'd like to remove the I'd like to uh move for a motion to remove the bill of assurance that was attached to the original that vote.

Second okay.

Do you do you do you intend it is up to you?

Is your intent to remove it and replace it with the new one?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a motion to remove the previous bill of assurance replacing it with the new bull of bill of assurance.

Yes.

Do we have a second point of information?

Okay.

We have first we have a point of information for Mr.

Williams.

Cance we're wanting to do that, can she just put that one motion?

Do we have a question?

That's what she just did.

She made it in one motion.

Yes.

To to replace yes.

So we have a second.

Okay, Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on Minister Jones' motion to remove the current bill of assurance and replace it with the new one received?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

So now we have the item with a new bill of assurance.

Uh Mr.

Berna.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

May I make a recommendation that we table this for two weeks so that we can make sure everybody gets on the same page on I don't see any neighbors here.

Um I believe we do have a neighbor here.

There's some.

So we do the motion still stand or do you okay?

Okay.

So yes, the councilperson Stafford.

Thank you.

I'd like to motion for immediate vote.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion for an immediate vote and a second.

And my understanding of a motion for an immediate vote is that we do we are not allowed to now take comments.

We go straight to the vote, correct?

No, yeah, no comments immediately on this.

Okay, great.

Um not the vote.

Okay.

So we are now voting on whether or not to go.

Was that your intent to call for an immediate vote?

Or yes, it was.

Okay, great.

Okay, that we did receive an email from uh the neighbors and so we are now taking a vote on whether or not to we're essentially suspending the rules going to immediate vote without any comment.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones, I I'm not allowed.

When a council person calls for an immediate vote, you can't have anything else after.

I have to.

You just ask, shall we have an immediate vote in the council?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Uh no.

It requires a two-thirds vote, and you got a two-thirds vote.

So now you ask shall the uh ordinance pass?

Shall the ordinance pass?

If Clerk Paxson will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

That's it.

Okay.

So that ordinance with the new bill of assurance has passed.

And we are now moving out of old business.

Um into the walk-on from Dr.

Jones.

Um, that I believe Clerk Paxton has just passed out.

For the students that are here, you'll be very excited to know that you are witnessing not only a walk on, but old business uh motions to reconsider.

There are several things all at once that I have that are procedural excitement.

Um has the council had adequate time to review what has been presented, or would you like to move this to later in the meeting?

This is the walk-on from Dr.

Jones regarding the the resolution.

I'm just gonna read it.

Um as our first item of new business, because I believe that was your intent.

First item of new business is a resolution to express the city council's request to Governor Sanders to provide food to needy Arkansans if the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program lapses.

Kit.

Whereas one in every eight Americans, our neediest families, children's veterans, and the disabled to use the supplemental and nutritional assistance program SNAP benefits to buy groceries so they can survive the next month.

And whereas approximately 118,000 Arkansas households rely upon SNAP every month for food to feed their families.

And whereas federal food aid will not be provided after November 1st, 2025, according to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, if the government remains shut down and no federal provision is passed to fund SNAP.

And whereas the City Council is concerned, as Governor Sanders is for the health and welfare of hungry Arkansas families, children's veterans, the elderly, and disabled citizens that will likely be not be denied food benefits due to the federal government shutdown.

Now therefore it be resolved by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby request that the Honorable Sarah Sanders, Governor of Arkansas, do everything reasonably possible, including using available reserves or other funds to ensure the Arkansas's 118,000 families dependent for their food upon SNAP benefits will not go hungry.

And section two that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby also requests that Governor Sarah Sanders contact President Donald Trump and the Arkansas Federation, federal delegation to urge a bipartisan agreement to fund those critical SNAP benefits for our hungry children, families, veterans, elderly, and the disabled.

And obviously, this was written before this weekend, and so there have been some various happenings that might want to be worked into this resolution.

Okay.

Dr.

Jones, as it is your item, I will um give you the honor of going first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kit.

And thank you, Mayor Ron.

And thank you to the co-sponsors.

Um council members, um more, council member minister Jones and Councilmember Stafford.

And um as um our city attorney echo, there have been numerous changes, and uh things have things have evolved.

They're probably evolving right now.

So uh I'm going to I guess Kit follow your lead as it relates to what kind of changes should be made.

Well, we probably need to acknowledge uh that the governor has provided some money to uh the food banks around the state.

I don't think that's a perfect solution, but at least it's a move in the right direction.

Also on the federal level, evidently the federal government might fund about 50 percent of the SNAP benefits sometime this month, and that's not a done deal, but it is happened, and there are probably other things like you say that are happened today that I know nothing about.

So uh those are things we might want to look at.

Uh and they might want to make some amendments to this if that's what the city council wants to do.

So it sounds like that we would need to make amendments based on what's happened now, and that would be the uh I believe the the $500,000 that uh Governor Sanders has allotted, and I'm not sure if anything else definite has happened.

Um Councilperson Moore, do you wish to is that okay to under or Dr.

Jones if I asked for okay go ahead?

Okay, Councilperson Moore, which we're thank you, Aaron.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Jones, um uh for bringing this forward.

Um, I'm I'm open to making a slight alteration to maybe acknowledge that there was money given for food banks.

I know we could propose a lot of what ifs, but I think we do know that benefits have um either been fully severed or even folks have had struggled using remaining balances on cards here locally.

I know I've heard that from families, so we don't do know families locally are in dire straits, and so um I'm happy with the language for the most part the way it exists today, um, acknowledging that monies were given to the food bank.

Um, but back to the uh, you know, one of every eight Americans, you know, are using SNAP.

Um, it's really hard for food banks.

I think it was about 83,000 a food bank for that to really cover the amount of families that will go and seek out those services.

And so um I don't know if you have a recommendation kit to add um, you know, that there was half a million dollars allocated, you know, to local food banks, um, and that would be my preference to leave it at that and add a section three uh amendment to just ask for this to be disseminated from the clerk's office to the governor's office as well.

Um so am I hearing that is a motion to add a whereas acknowledging the half million dollars for just has been distributed to food banks?

Yes.

Okay, so we have a motion to add a whereas acknowledging the governor's office has distributed a half a million dollars to area food banks.

Um okay, I've kind of drafted that up.

Um, whereas um the city of Fayetteville thanks Governor Sanders for funding local Arkansas food banks in the amount of 500,000 dollars.

Great thank you, Kit.

So we have a motion to amend that to that segment uh section, and I think that I I think we can distribute it.

I I think we can have an agreement that the clerk's office will distribute it without it being a section three.

Do we have a uh second for that um motion?

Second second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the amendment?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Hart.

Yes.

Okay.

So before we open it up to public comment, do we have other Minister Jones?

I did want to clarify because Councilmember Moore made a great comment.

So 500,000 divided over six food banks that are within the state of Arkansas is $83,000.

Throughout Arkansas, there's $110 food pantries.

That means every food pantry will get $754.

I just want to be clear what that looks like to actually hitting the ground to support community.

And as a director of a food pantry, I could buy five pallets of food and spend $700, and that would maybe last me a half a day.

Thank you for that, Minister Jones.

I'm going to open it up to public comment.

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

Keith, has anyone called in?

We do not.

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the council, and because it is a resolution, I will need a motion to move it to a vote.

Yes, sir.

Dr.

Jones.

I have a question.

There was a uh, and I may have overlooked it.

Uh, but there was a uh there should have been a uh a place in here where we writing a letter on behalf of the council.

Does that need to be included as well?

My understanding is that the um that this resolution was for the city council to draft and show and share their support.

But Kit, would you like to speak to that?

Uh that's correct, but certainly uh uh the mayor can write a letter along with this resolution to submit it to uh the governor, and uh I would leave that up to her and also what the letter should say, up to what uh the mayor would like it to say.

Okay.

I'm happy to write a letter.

I think that Kit's general practice is that in the same way that I can't tell you all what to put in a letter, you all can't tell me what to put in the letter.

But I am happy to go on the record and say that I support this resolution and I'm happy to also send um correspondence under um separate cover that also reiterates that.

Thank you, General.

Yeah, thank you, Dr.

Jones.

Uh Stafford.

I motion we vote to pass the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to pass the resolution.

Uh Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

We are now at new business.

And our first item of new business is resi as a recycling and trash division acceptance of an in-kind technical assistance grant from the recycling partnership.

It authorizes Mayor Ron to sign a recycling partnership grant agreement and accept an in-kind technical assistance grant and the amount of $75,000.

And this is one that had been on consent, but I believe we had some technical difficulty when Mr.

Near and Garden was uh attempting to, I believe, use his new AirPods, correct?

And calling in, and we maybe got a little bit of static.

So as it is a resolution, we will go straight to you, Mr.

Nirngarden.

To um anything that you would like to add before we go to questions from the council.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, City Council.

Again, do want to apologize about my audio issues last week.

And if it's okay with the council, um, there's actually two grants that are on uh your agenda this evening from the recycling partnership.

I'd like to cover both of those uh with my comments together.

As long as you know it's two separate votes, then that is just fine.

Yeah, absolutely.

So uh there's two grants um, as I said, on the agenda, uh both are from the recycling partnership to the city of Fayetteville.

Um, and the the fact sheet that's coming around has a uh a little bit of information about the grants and the recycling partnership.

Um the second grant that is on your agenda is one is a cash grant coming to the city of Fayetteville.

It does have uh money in it um for three elements of implementation of our cart-based uh recycling program.

The first is 1.2 million dollars uh for the purchase of 28,000 recycle carts that will be distributed to residents and businesses across the city in three different sizes.

Um that grant amount that 1.2 million will cover approximately 90 percent of the cart costs.

Um the second element of that cash grant is 280,000.

It's for the development and launch of the education program surrounding, I mean including all the elements of that new CAR-based recycling program.

And then the third component is $160,000 for the purchase of anti-contamination cameras and software to be installed on our six new recycling trucks.

The first grant in your packet is a technical assistance grant.

It is a no-cash grant, but it provides technical assistance to the city of Fayetteville for the development of our request for proposals to select a processor of our mixed recyclables.

That grant also includes technical assistance in evaluating the proposals that we receive and then support for the city during contract negotiations with the selected vendor for processing of those mixed recyclables.

So just as a reminder, these two grants do support elements of the CART-based recycling initiative.

The council did express support in three different votes this past summer for the implementation of CART-based recycling, including the purchase of six new recycling trucks, ordinance amendments to fund the CARP based recycling program and our recycling and trash collections rate study.

And then just a little bit of information about the grantor, who is the recycling partnership.

They're a national nonprofit that works with the communities and other organizations across the country to improve recycling systems and access to recycling.

They support technical assistance and grants that enhance access efficiency and infrastructure improvements in recycling.

Their funders include a mix of companies that are manufacturers of consumer goods and distributors of consumer goods, energy sector companies, and including the EPA.

They've been around since 2014 and have supported the development of over 3,500 recycling programs nationwide and helped divert over 1 billion pounds of recyclables from landfills across the country, which has helped avoid over 1.4 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

And with that summary, I'd be glad to answer any questions on either of the two grants before you this evening.

Great.

Thank you.

Councilperson Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thanks so much for being here in person because we really couldn't hear you last week.

So I've got a couple of questions.

So I kind of went through the documents, the grants, and my first question is are some of these vendors, are any of those associated with recycling partnership?

Are they completely independent of that?

They are completely independent of the recycling partnership.

As I said, the recycling partnership is a not-for-profit national organization, and they do not offer uh recycling processing services.

Okay, my second question is have has the uh recycling partnership have they also provided consultation and advice to Bentonville, Rogers Springdale or the Northwest Arkansas Council?

Yes, they have.

And so those results from that, at least in the information that I found about the 43% contaminate contamination rate.

Uh has have any of those issues been addressed to ensure that our contamination here will be much lower than that?

They uh so we're working to implement a as I said um during our previous discussion, a three-part strategy of managing contamination.

So we've got education and and this proposal helps to fund that.

Um we're uh uh monitoring and feedback, so that's the um the anti-contamination software also included in this grant.

And then the recyclables going to a recycling processor that implements a mix of people and advanced machinery to help sort the contaminants from the recyclables.

So all of those elements will be included in the recycling request for proposals.

And were all of those three components also included in the other, I guess the other assistance that the recycling partnership provided to the other three cities?

No, that assistance uh is unique to the city of Fayetteville.

Um, the assistance that's been provided to the other cities because they already operate programs that have mixed recyclables, is support to help them improve their recycling programs and bring down their contamination rates.

Excellent.

Um then my final question is um with the second grant.

I think the first grant is a no-match, but the second grant, is that a matching grant?

Do we have to pay any money for that assistance?

There um I don't want to uh tell you a story here.

Um and that's budgeted money that's already in or is in our um uh education budget that you will you all will be taking up as part of your budget discussion um uh later this month for next year.

Okay, I should I have start sorry, got a couple more questions for you.

Um so you know I noticed in the document that there was no provision to find out what contamination was coming out of the selected RFP producer, right?

There was there um or at least I shouldn't say the RFP, the MERF.

Is that something that you all are going to explore in the future?

So we fully intend as part of the RFP requirements to require a um uh regular analysis of the materials that's going to the selected processor so that we can know what the contamination rate is as well as uh what the mix uh or what the percent of all the different types of materials are in our combined stream that is going to that mixed uh recycling facility.

I guess where I've gotten a little confused is because I thought the RFP was with the collection.

Uh the uh who was gonna actually do the collection, and I thought the the MERF was a separate sort of entity, but are they one and the same?

No, so the city is gonna do the collections.

Our trucks, our drivers will do all the collections, and we will deliver the materials to the processor, the RFP is to select the processor that we're gonna deliver the materials to.

Thank you for clarifying that.

There was a lot going on there.

Um, okay.

Um all right, I think that's all my questions.

Thanks so much.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilperson Stafford.

I move to vote immediately.

Second.

Okay.

Uh we have a motion in a second.

I just want to clarify since this is not uh since this is uncommon for the room.

Um, when you move to vote immediately, um it advances immediately to a vote and surpasses public comment.

So I'm just letting you know that so you all don't think I'm forgetting that part of it.

Uh Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

No.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

So that failed, and we're right back where you were for.

Okay.

So if we don't have any further comments from the council, I'm gonna open it up to public comment in the room.

Does anybody in the public uh would any members of the public like to comment on the acceptance of this grant?

And I know we talked about two of them, but to be clear, we're voting on the in-kind technical assistance grant, which is printed in your packet as C1.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council for would anybody like to make a motion to vote.

Good that we um passed the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a resolution to um pass item C one, Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay, so that passes.

And we're on to item C2.

And um since Peter is welcome to come back for questions, or we can move straight into public comment since I think, and I councilmember Turk, I want you to correct me if I'm wrong.

I think he spoke and presented about both of them at one time.

So I'm just gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment on item C2, which is also a grant agreement in the amount of $1,648,000?

Seeing none, I'm gonna move it back to the council.

I would make a motion to pass a resolution as presented.

Second.

We have a motion and several seconds.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on item C2?

Mr.

Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

Item C three is approval of an MOU with Washington County to accept funding.

It's a resolution to approve a memorandum of understanding with Washington County to accept funding from the Gulf Coast high-intensity drug trafficking area and the amount of 123,730 for the police department and to approve a budget adjustment.

This was also initially on consent but pulled off.

And so because of that, we'll jump straight into you, Chief Reynolds, if you are able to speak to this and take any questions if that's okay.

If anybody would like to ask questions of Chief Reynolds.

Can we make that motion now?

Well, yeah, you can make that motion.

I would like to make the motion that we vote immediately.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to go to an immediate vote.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on the immediate vote?

Minister Jones, no.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

No.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnout?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

I think that was five to three.

Is that what it is?

This requires a two-thirds majority.

Mayor, do you care to vote?

I do not care to vote in this instance.

All right, so that motion failed, and we're back to the chief.

Okay.

Do we have questions for Chief Reynolds?

Okay.

Thank you, Chief.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Keith, do we have anybody on Zoom who would like to speak on this item?

We do not.

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the council.

Minister Jumps.

Yeah, I had a question for the Chief.

Sorry, Chief, I'll let you walk all the way back.

I'm sorry if I missed you.

If not, you just want to make a comment because I'm making a comment.

Okay.

Well, I mean, you can ask for a question.

Yeah, just go ahead and do the question first, if that's okay.

And I guess I guess when I see an acceptance of a grant, I'm looking for what are we agreeing to in this grant?

Like what are the ROIs that they are looking for with giving us this funding for this grant?

Well, I think what they're looking for is they're looking for the amount of DTOs that we disrupt is number one.

So that's one thing that they're looking for.

I'm sorry, uh drug trafficking organizations.

And so that's something that they look for.

Um and it's also something that we put into um several of our mission statements as well.

Um be happy to go through those with you, but I'll define a DTO first for you.

So a DTO is uh a drug trafficking organization, is a complex organization with highly defined command and control structures that produce and transport andor distribute large quantities of one or more illicit drugs.

It usually involves involves five or more co-conspirators that are working together.

And so, for instance, um, you know, sometimes I hear that well, we don't ever see you going after you know the big guys or the big fish.

Um so over the last couple of weeks, um, we got about 18 pounds of meth.

We arrested seven people, took seven guns off the street, arrested seven people.

So I I feel like you know, in the last couple of weeks we we did a really good job.

And then if you just look at, you know, if you look at the last year, uh we had 414 cases, and of those 414 cases, 202 arrest.

And of those cases and of those arrests, we had 20 uh drug trafficking organizations that were disrupted over the past year as well, uh, with the seizure of 77.50 pounds of methamphetamine, two and a half pounds of cocaine, one pound of fentanyl powder, and two hundred and ninety-nine uh fentanyl pills as well.

Uh 70 guns were also taken off the street over the last year.

Uh so the return on the investment, I think is pretty clear.

It's you know, methamphetamine and and guns are the big things that we're going after.

Is that in collaboration with the Washington County Sheriff's is this all um Fayville Police Department?

So it's in with collaboration.

So you know, the fourth judicial district drug task force is made up of uh of agencies from Washington County.

So you have Washington County Sheriff's Office that participates.

You also have Springdale Police Department that participates, of course, the Fayetteville Police Department, and then you have the rural agencies, and they're represented by one uh detective that's assigned there, his home agency's Elkins PD.

Okay, but he represents all the rural agencies and Washington County.

But the fourth judicial district drug task force is also responsible for not only Washington County, they're responsible for drug enforcement in Madison County as well.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Council person more.

Thank you.

And I don't have any questions, Chief.

Thank you.

Just to make a comment.

Um, I I really think in the city of Fayetteville, um, we always um embrace diversity of thought and that we don't necessarily all think the same way.

And so I hope that um we won't um you know squash out in this council that there might be differing viewpoint.

Um there are many families and individuals that I've shared their personal stories with me who I've walked the journey with, who've had their lives devastated by the fourth judicial drugs task force actions on them.

90% of people in the Washington County Detention Center will self-report that they've looked to get services in the community where there are not resources for inpatient residential beds for transitional living or other uh health care needs that they have around addiction, oftentimes from trauma, that's that's not been met.

When we talk about a drug trafficking organization being considered five plus individuals, we have to think about in a city, the city of Fayetteville as 60% runners, um, and increasingly are seeing wages decrease.

Um, many folks are living um uh multiplied in in residences, and so if one individual might potentially uh be um interacting in some level of drug activity, um everyone pays the price for that when their door is busted in and the trauma and children involved in that that area.

And so, you know, the war on drugs has really been a health policy, which is where Haida and many of these other uh policies were put in place.

I hope just because we do um programs historically um that we also can have self-reflection and can pause at times to reconsider uh what those policies are and where we're investing our time and our money because there is other damage that happens in our community um that we see and it presents itself that we we do need to address.

And so um I'm happy to make a uh to motion to uh approve the resolution and I will be uh no vote tonight.

Okay, we have a motion to approve I'll second the motion.

We also have several people making comments, and I apologize.

I I I did not see all the lights when I immediately jumped in with a motion to approve.

So we have a motion in a second, but I do want to oh now the lights are on or the councilperson Stafford.

Thank you.

Do you have a comment?

We do have a motion in a second.

I I yeah, I just want to make a quick comment, and I want to say I support the drug task force and everything they do, and I think the Fayetteville Police Department and their partners in this drug abuse addiction and trafficking has personally affected my family.

I've lost multiple friends over my years to drug abuse and addiction, and anything we could do to to lessen the epidemic of drug abuse in our society, I support, and I'm ready to vote.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, now I think that because you commented, we want to make sure we allow everyone to comment.

So we'll first uh Mr.

Burnett and then Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I wasn't going to comment, but then uh uh I I have to um in my business I'm affected by this almost on a weekly basis, and I see families broken because of this exact situation.

So I'll look at this proposal and I'll ask, and I I hear what Chief says about the amount of drugs that are taken off the street on a yearly basis on a weekly basis.

And what I would ask, which one of those do we not want taken off the street?

Which gun do we not want taken off the street?

Because I can tell you the families that we have to deal with that have the aftermath of the drugs that are on the street would 100% vote for this resolution.

So uh I will absolutely 100% be supporting this resolution.

Minister Jones.

I just wanted to comment and on what um Councilmember Moore and I'm losing your name, I'm sorry, Bob.

Councilman Member Stafford said um I agree.

I I'm for this resolution, but let's talk about the other opportunities.

I as well interact with in individual boots on the ground, unhoused, marginalized interviews, individuals that have been criminalized by the system, and the system is working just the way it was designed.

The one thing that I resent that we do not have in Northwest Arkansas is a crisis stabilization unit.

We sat by and we watched that go away, and when I see individuals come to me and need for help, we have to provide transportation to Fort Smith because somebody's coming and said I'm wanting to stop and I need help, and we can't help them.

So I think putting them in jail doesn't resolve it, and we have to address the issue that Fayetteville and Washington County has to address this differently.

And the criminal system is working just the way it's it was designed, but we also can do other things by providing some stabilization around these crises that individuals are in around the drug issues.

Thanks.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

Um we have a motion in a second.

So Clerk Paxton, uh, ask that you please call the roll.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones.

Yes, Ms.

Moore, no, Mr.

Wiegaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay, moving on to item C4, an ordinance to enact Article 34, Food Commission into the Fayetteville Code.

Um kit.

Whereas municipalities throughout the nation must deal with concerns regarding food deserts, food insecurity, and the need for urban agriculture, the creations of common gardens and the education of public about healthy food awareness in an attempt to fight food related diseases.

And whereas the city council believes that the creation of the food commission as an advisory body to the mayor and city council could bring focus on such issues and help determine needs, create programs, gain community input, and implement programs that raise public awareness and increase the growth, purchase, and intakes of healthy foods.

Now, therefore it be ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1 that the City Council of the City of Fairville, Arkansas here by an acts Article 34 Food Commission, sections 33.460 through 33.464 of the Fayetteville Code as follows.

Articles 34, Food Commission.

Section 33.460 membership.

The members of the Food Commission shall be selected for the following positions.

Number one, a member of the Fayetteville City Council who will serve as chairman as chair of the commission.

Number two, one food retailer with stores located within the corporate limits of the city.

Three, one food person who is actively engaged in agriculture.

Four, one person involved in the with hunger relief programs in operation within the corporation, corporate limits of the city.

And number five, three persons at large who have experienced food insecurity as outlined in a state or federal program, or are members of the asset limited income constrained employed Alice community.

Section 33.461 purpose.

The purpose of the food commission is to serve as an advisory board for the mayor and members of the city council and to bring focus and make recommendations on food deserts and food insecurity to encourage more urban agriculture and community gardens and to educate the public about healthy food awareness.

Section 33.462 duties.

The Food Commission shall have the following duties.

Number one, to assist the city in this effort to reduce food insecurity and to obtain community input on the resources needed to address food issues within the city.

Two, to support urban agriculture, such as community gardens and other potential sources of fresh foods.

Number three, to promote educational programs about diet-related diseases and food waste.

Number four, to increase public awareness of food programs, food deserts, and food policy decisions that should be considered by elected officials.

Number five, to establish methodologies and programs to monitor available data on nutritional status of residents of the city most impacted by the inequities in the local food system.

Number six, to explore ways for the city to improve availability and quality of food to its citizens.

Section 33.463 recommendations in fulfilling any of its purposes and duties, the food commission shall endeavor to obtain information from city departments, city agencies, nonprofit organizations, existing programs, governmental resources, and other relevant entities to present thorough, well researched policy recommendation recommendations to the city council.

And section 33.464 reports to the city council beginning in December of 2026 and afterwards in December on an annual basis, unless otherwise requested by the City Council.

The Food Commission shall report on the work it has completed the previous year, its findings, identification of significant areas of concern, and any policy recommendations that it has for considerations by the mayor and city council.

Great.

Minister Jones, since this was your item, you um like to go ahead and have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I also like to thank my sponsor, along with me, Dr.

DeAndre Jones.

Um I want to thank you for reading that, Attorney Williams.

I'm just going to talk about a couple of things.

I won't read back through it.

What I want to talk about is approximately 22,000 Arkansans were impacted by the potential SNAP disruption.

It's no longer potential.

The disruption is here.

It's estimated that 25,000 people have lost their SNAP due to work requirement changes alone.

It's not just based on a government shutdown.

I want everybody to take in consideration.

The government shutdown is one thing, but they've added a work requirement for individuals with children.

If you have a child 14 to 18, they must work 20 hours a month.

And if you're 65 and under and you're currently receiving SNAP, there's also a 20-hour a month work requirement.

The other thing I want to take in consideration is we haven't talked about is SNAP education has been cut.

SNAP education was cut back in July, which is being eliminated nationwide.

This program provided funding for educational services such as those offered at community community sites, schools, and food pantries to teach people how to prepare healthy meals and be physically active.

So I'm really am recommending this commission to collaborate the city departments, non-depart non-profits, community partners, and LE.

What is LE mean?

Lived experience.

Someone that is challenged right now with food insecurity, offering their voice at the table and making sure that we're bringing everybody together to create well design research policy recommendations for the city council to consider.

Again, this will consider this committee will focus on increased healthier food options, education and resources sharing, to reach diverse partnerships with farmers and communities.

Right now there are 40 food pantries in Washington County.

Bayville has 18 of those food pantries.

We want to close the gap to access, which starts with transportation.

Biggest access today with getting food to individuals is I'm homebound, I'm on a walker, and I cannot get to food.

Or my car is not working.

So we are offering right now as a food pantry, bus passes on ORT to get to your local pantry.

Whether you get to mine or someone else, I'm offering to support to close the gap on transportation to get the food pantries.

The Northwest Arkansas Food Bank currently only hosts one delivery in the city of Fayetteville, and that's to cross church once a month this month.

That delivery will be November the 21st from 9 to 11.

And then some food pantries support or supported through TFAP, which is only offered to clients that are 30% below the federal poverty level.

So I'm asking your support to move forward with these changes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes, and um I echo um the sentiments that Minister Jones just made.

And um there's a lot of a lot of misconceptions as it relates to hunger.

And um this was inspired by the city of Loterock, and I know that they were um they have a they have a a um commission which is very similar, and they've done some great work.

And what when we think about hunger, as council members, we I'm not sure how often we um many of you come in contact with constituents who who experience hunger.

I I know that um Minister Jones is on the front lines, but I do think that it's good for us as council members to understand um hunger and the the impact that it has on our constituents.

And so I think that this commission is going to do exactly some of the things that she mentioned that it's going to do.

But one of the things some of the things that I want to share is as council members, defining hunger.

Um, and helping us educate us as it relates to dispelling some of those myths uh around SNAP and um that it's not that hunger is not moral failure, but also what can we do as a city to mitigate and interrupt that.

So I really appreciate Minister Jones for the work that she does on a daily basis, but for also bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones.

I'm gonna open this up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about this commission?

Come on up, Mr.

Cook, and state your name and address.

Uh good evening.

My name is Billy Cook.

I live at 1151 East Shepherd Lane in Ward 3.

Uh, I applaud the council members that have brought forward this uh proposal.

Uh it is important, uh, especially you know, when thinking about the lens of anti-poverty, that access to daily nutritional food uh is something that all of our citizens can have.

Uh, you know, when you have uh a low-income household that is constantly true choosing between uh health care costs and rent and transportation costs, they often have very little at the end of the day uh without the assistance of SNAP to be able to afford nutritional food that can you know sustain them and their and their families.

And so it's important that you know municipalities uh and other partners take uh greater steps to make sure that everyone can have access to uh the food that they need to have a healthy and sustainable family, and also to close those gaps uh around issues like transportation.

Uh it is um very unfortunate that we now have to provide bus passes for people just to reach a food pantry and get something to eat.

Uh and hopefully if we expand options for uh you know greater transit opportunities, we can uh remediate that and fix that problem.

Uh but all of these issues are intertwined.

You cannot have uh, you know, a good healthy life without access to things like affordable housing.

You can't have a good healthy life without access to nutritional food on a daily basis uh and transportation.

Uh I hope that this commission uh will take up all of these issues and uh especially hit home on the intersectionality and how all of that is related.

Uh please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please come on up and state your name and address.

Kayla Spitzer, um 2501 can't strive.

Um I am wholly in support of this.

Um, as someone who was formerly homeless myself, um and very food insecure.

Um we don't feel vocalized or feel like we have a voice or representation in a lot of our communities, and so anything that our local governments can do to support us and make us feel um heard is amazing.

Um just the ROI, the return on investment from just um commission alone will be incredible.

Um also I believe um just really impact the morale of the city.

I believe citizens will greatly greatly appreciate this.

Um, not just low-income households, but those that know somebody who is um food insecure.

Um so yeah, I just thank you guys so much for having this on the table along with the snap letter earlier.

Um thank you, Kayla.

I appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anybody who's called in to speak on this item?

We do not.

Okay.

I'll bring it back to the council.

Just a reminder, it is a resolution, so it requires a motion to be able to move to a vote.

Minister Jones.

This is actually an ordinance.

I'm so sorry.

I'm I knew that.

Yep.

So we would need a suspension of the rules to move it forward.

I think uh Minister Jones has one slight amendment that she's gonna propose.

Okay, got it.

Minister Jones.

I do want to make an amendment.

Um I do would like I would like to add in the ordinance that the request is for the board to be the selected by the nominating committee, and also that the commission will exist of eight members to include one city employee.

Well, and of course, on the membership, it says number one it'll be a member of the Fayetteville City Council, but no longer necessarily the chair.

Okay, one member of the city staff.

That is the amendment to this ordinance.

So I would be appointing those two, and then the nominating committee would be reporting the remaining remaining members.

That's just automatic.

Okay, all right.

Okay.

Yeah, uh Councilperson Burning, yes.

I just want to clarify because we talked about this the other day.

Um if the nominating committee uh is nominating the positions, weren't you requesting uh an organization?

I am and they have a person that's in in Fayville to serve on our nominating committees.

Yeah.

So it might be a Northwest Arts uh organization, but it has to be a Fayette.

They are Fayville residence.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Um so we now have a mo did did you make the motion to amend or just the suggestion?

Okay, so we have a motion to we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, we please call the role to vote on the amendment.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Okay.

So now, as amended, we are on the first reading.

Would we care for a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final?

I'll make that motion.

Second.

Okay.

Um, Clerk Packson, will you please call the role on the motion or on suspending the rules?

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burno?

Yes.

Ms.

Bennett?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And urgent to enact Article 34 Food Commission into the Fayetteville Code.

Okay.

Let's call the uh Dr.

Jones.

Do you have a final comment?

Yes.

Uh, I think that this will be a great opportunity for this commission and the Board of Health to work together.

Yes.

There's definitely some crossover.

And I think that this will greatly benefit the residents of Fayetteville.

Thank you, Mayor Ron.

Thank you.

Clerk Pexon, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

All right.

That passes.

Congratulations.

Minister Jones.

Well done.

Um item C5, e-scooter crosswalk ordinance amendment.

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

Mr.

Williams.

Whereas on July 16th, 2019, the City Council passed ordinance 6205 to regulate where and how e-scooters could be legally operated within the city.

And whereas a 2021 amendment to state law allowed people riding bicycles to have the same rights as pedestrians while using crosswalks.

And the city code was amended to recognize this change.

And whereas recently there's been crashes involving people being hit by motor vehicles while riding e-scooters in crosswalks.

And whereas updating the city code regulations on e-scooters to be consistent with bicycling regulations will better protect vulnerable road users when using crosswalks.

Now therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Fayel, Arkansas Section One.

At the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas here by repeal section B3 of Section 7502 operation of electric motorized scooters.

And section two, the City Council, City of Favoral Archar here by amends Section 7502 operation of electric motorized scooters by enacting a new subsection G as follows.

Subsection G, operation of electric scooters upon crosswalks.

Number one, a person operating an electric scooter upon a crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking or passing a pedestrian.

Subsection two, except as provided in this section, a person lawfully operating electric scooter upon a crosswalk has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian using the crosswalk pursuant to section 7502 of the Fayev City Code and Arkansas Code annotated section 27-51 51-1202.

Thank you.

And we have Dane Eifling, our active mob our director of we have Dane Eifling here.

He is our person who is talking to us about this, our mobility coordinator.

Thank you.

God, I'm so sorry, Dane.

You are our active mobility director, apparently now.

So please save me.

Go ahead and talk more about this ordinance.

Mobility coordinator.

Thank you.

Mobility coordinator.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh the resolution that was read by the city attorney explains uh everything to do with the background of the ordinance change.

And uh this has gone through the Active Transportation Advisory Committee as well as the uh transportation committee and was unanimously recommended to go to the city council for uh for approval and so I'm just here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Dane.

You are a wonderful active mobility coordinator.

Yes, still get the rock.

Do we have any questions for Mr.

Eifling?

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment then.

Do we have any members of the public that would oh uh forgive me, I'm sorry, Sarah?

It's okay.

It's okay.

Council person bunch.

I was uh just wondering.

Um Dane, how do we alert people that are on these scooters?

What is our signage to tell them what they you know like?

Hey, don't run up on people and don't, you know at crosswalks and stuff like that.

How do we how do we alert the the public that's using these scooters?

How to do right?

So the shared scooters that fall under the my purview as far as regulations.

Uh we're able to do things through the app that communicate with those users as well as do some geofencing.

We can enact slow zones that automatically slow the students' scooters down in areas that we know are high conflict or maybe dangerous and uh the privately owned scooters, we have a lot less regulate regulation and controls around those, but this this ordinance would apply to both shared and private e-scooters.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

Morton, thank you.

Um council member bunch, you because we had a bit of this conversation, I think, in transportation, but it it reminded me too, because we'd had a little conversation about just vehicles too, becoming more aware because scooters even slowing them down, they're darting at a faster rate than what a pedestrian is.

And so I am curious if we figured out if we have any updates or kind of to be determined, maybe a time range of being able to communicate to motorists too, because I know I'm so cautious in the downtown, but I still miss things a lot of times when I'm easing through just because of the nature.

There's vegetation, there's parked cars and things like that, and it had those near misses.

And so I'm just trying to think too how we might be able to help motorists a little bit better about it as well.

Uh yeah, thank you.

And we do review all the crash data and uh police reports at our active transportation advisory committee.

We review every crash and look at possible changes that we need to make from an engineering standpoint or communication standpoint, whether it's uh signage directed at uh drivers or trail users or pedestrians at those locations.

So we're as proactive as we we can be as far as messaging and and looking at areas where we've maybe had repeat crashes or complaints.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

No, okay.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Okay, do we have anybody um on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reason.

Second okay, we have a motion in a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you um please call the roll?

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes.

It's more yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

In order to align the city's e-scooter regulations with state law and the city's bicycle regulations by amending section 7502 operation of electric motorized scooters.

Okay.

Clerk Pikston, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

And I would like to thank Dane Eifling, our mobility coordinator for his work on that item.

Thank you all.

Okay.

That is passed.

So we will be moving on to item C6.

An ordinance to require low frequency fire alarm notification appliances to be installed in each sleeping unit of group R1 and R2 occupancies by amending section 173.02, Section C, amendments, additions, and deletions to the fire prevention code.

And I believe Mr.

Williams, and then after you, I know we have um Fire Marshal Jeremy Ashley here.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and NFPA 72 require low frequency notification appliances to produce 75 death spells at the pillow level in all sleeping units.

And whereas some contractors attempt to install only one notification device per housing unit, tested by testing by the Fayel Fire Marshal's office has shown that this approach often fails to achieve the required sound level once doors furnishing and finishes are in place.

And whereas the f the fire marshal's office has been requiring notification devices in each sleeping unit, which includes bedrooms to come ensure compliance.

And whereas establishing this requirement by ordinance will formalize the practice, eliminate inconsistencies, and reduce project delays.

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

That the City Council of the City of Fable, Arkansas, hereby amends section 17302 C amendments, additions, and deletions to the fire prevention code by adding section three as follows.

Quote Section 3.

907.2.8.4.

Occupant notification for R1 occupancies, which include hotels, motels, and boarding houses with more than 10 occupants.

Notification devices are required in all sleeping units, bedrooms in accordance with 907.5 when a sprinkler and or fire alarm system is required by other sections of this code and shall activate throughout the notification zones upon water flow switch or detector activation.

Sleeping units shall include bedrooms.

Section two that the city council of City of Federal Arkansas here by amend Section 17302 C amendments additions and deletions to the fire prevention code by adding section four as follows.

Section 4, 907.2.9.4.

Occupant notification for R2 occupancies, which include apartments, college housing housing, fraternities and sororities, and dormitories.

Notification devices are required in all sleeping units, bedrooms in accordance with section 907.5 when a sprinkler or fire alarm system is required by other sections of this code and shall activate upon throughout the notification zones upon water flow switch or detector activation.

Sleeping units shall include bedrooms.

Great.

Jeremy, you'd like to go ahead and speak on these items or this item, C6.

I will rule briefly.

So we're requesting this proposed ordinance requiring the low frequency fire alarm notification appliances to be installed in each of the sleeping units of group uh R1 and R2.

Hotels, motels, apartment complexes, college housing.

The Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and the FPA 72 require this low frequency and a stat 75 decibel level to be heard at the pillow level when the fire alarm is activated.

We have tested this over the years multiple times.

We're not getting that 75.

So for years, we have been requiring that they put them directly in the bedrooms.

Um the code does not state it goes directly in the bedroom.

It says that it has to reach that 75 decibel.

Like I said, we we through our testing, it doesn't, and so since I've been the fire marshal since 2019, so since 2019, we have been requiring this.

What we're wanting to do is formalize this.

This is not a new request.

It's not a new requirement.

This is something that we're already doing, but we want to formalize it to level the playing field.

Uh, I think Councilmember Turk uh in the agenda said we want to front load the information.

That's what this is.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any questions?

Okay, that's great.

I'm gonna take public comment now.

You're good, thank you.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to uh speak on this item?

Do we have anyone on Zoom, Keith?

Okay, we do not bring it back to the council, Councilperson Stafford.

Um I motion we suspend the rules move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

It's more yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

In order to require low frequency fire alarm notification appliances to be installed in each sleeping unit of group R1 and R2 occupancies by amending section 17302C, amendments, additions, and deletions to the fire prevention code.

Okay.

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

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Church.

Yes.

Okay, great.

That moves us on to item C7, which also Fire Marshal Jeremy Ashley is here to speak on.

It's an ordinance to require fire department connections to be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant by amending section 173.02 of the fire prevention code.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code previously required fire department connections to be within 100 feet of a hydrant, but under the current code, fire department connection placement is left to the discretion of the fire code official, requiring only that the connection be visible, immediately accessible, and approved.

And whereas to ensure consistency and operational efficiency, the fire marshal's office has been requiring fire department connections to be within 100 feet of the hydrant in line with existing standpipe requirements and F NFTA standards.

And whereas the fire department recommends standardizing the requirement for fire department connection placement, providing both design consistency and operational efficiency.

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 here by amends section 17302 C amendments, additions, and deletions to the fire prevention code by renumbering the subsections existing language as follows.

Quote, subsection C amendments, additions and deletions to the fire prevention code.

The fire prevention code shall be amended as follows.

Number one, sprinklers.

In addition to the requirements of the fire prevention code and the building code, any new building or alteration or addition or change of occupancy of existing buildings which exceeds three stories, including the basement, or 50 feet or greater in height at the highest point of said building, shall be protected by a complete automatic sprinkler system designed and installed with compliance to the applicable NFIPA standards.

The following as defined by the fire prevention and building code shall be exempt from this provision.

Airport control tower, open parking decks, and F2 occupancy.

Section two that the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas here by amend section 173C, amendments, additions, and deletions to the fire prevention code by enacting the following new requirement.

Subsection 2, 912.2.3 Proximity to Hydrant.

Fire Department connections for each sprinkler or standpipe system shall be located not more than 100 feet from the nearest fire hydrant connected to the approved water supply measured along a path of vehicle travel unless otherwise approved by the fire code official.

Okay, great.

Jeremy we're requesting that uh this proposed ordinance requiring fire department connections for sprinkler and standpipe systems to be located within 100 feet of the nearest fire uh fire hydrant connected to an approved water supply unless otherwise approved by the fire code official.

This is again something that we're already doing uh for years.

The the 100-foot requirement was in the code uh in 2021.

Uh they changed the code, took the number out, and just said it was up to the fire code official.

So what we're what we have done is we have kept that standard because it was in place for years and years.

We've kept that 100-foot standard.

Uh what we would like to do is formalize that.

So again, front loading that information uh to all developers that they know that the FDC, which is the fire department connection, that's how we hook up uh and get water to a building in the event of an emergency, uh, will be within 100 feet, and everybody knows it on the front end.

Great, thank you so much.

Uh Councilperson Moore.

With the development I've been seeing happen, I just have a curious question.

Um, what is the typical lifespan for one of the fire connections?

It seems like some of those are you know aged in different parts of town, but I assume they work just fine.

Is there a typical lifespan on those?

So they're tested uh every year, um, and then uh every five years they're pressure tested uh to a higher rate.

So I mean, we've got we've got fire department connections at like Washington schools that have been there long before I got on the fire department, and that's a long time council person burner.

Thank you, Mayor.

So you're saying if I understand you're correct, you're saying that even though this is not in ordinance, you are already applying this same.

If a new development came through right now, you would apply this same standard now.

Yes.

So right now the code basically says it's up to the fire code official, and we have followed that 100 foot because it I mean it's been in it was in the code for 25 years, and so we we just want everyone to know up front this is this is the the this is the requirement.

This is what we're we can I mean I I guess according to the code we can choose whatever we want.

We we've chosen 100 because it it is from a tactical standpoint, it's the way our trucks are set up, it's what developers have been doing for 20 or 25 years, and we just want to we want to standardize that okay, thank you.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

Okay, and I know we don't have anybody registered on Zoom for this one, so I'm going to bring it back and ask for a motion.

Council person more.

Maybe that we suspend the roles and go to the third reading.

So good.

Hey, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Hudson, will you please call the roll?

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Is Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

In order to require the fire department connections to be within 100 feet of a fire hydrant by amending section 17302 C amendments, additions, and deletions to the fail to the fire prevention code.

Okay, before we move to the final vote, Keith, I think you had a comment um addressing uh Miss Moore's concerns or Ms.

Morris Conference.

We reached out to a contractor recently to do some maintenance on our fire hydrants, and our fire department went out and did a complete inventory and identified which hydrants need to be repainted.

So that's something that working on right now.

So you'll see it in your budget proposed for 2026 is painting all our hydrants.

They're hopefully getting a glow up.

Uh Clerk Paxson, please call the roll.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turt.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

That brings us to item C8.

Architectural contract for Aquatic Center Design with Crafton and Toll 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 for design of an aquatic facility and to approve the related budget adjustment.

Wade.

So Mayor, I'd like to review the uh scope of the initial phase that we talked about in the agenda session.

So they're going to evaluate and refine the original feasibility study with the city administration, staff, and stakeholder groups.

The program and designs presented in the initial study are a tool that our new consultants can reference and build from for the design.

Illustrating how soccer fields could be incorporated into the overall plan.

They're going to conduct multiple public input sessions to gather community feedback.

They're going to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates for off-street infrastructure improvements, including roadways, water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater systems.

This phase presents an opportunity to explore how this project might improve stormwater management in this area.

Develop a conceptual facility business plan outlining projected operational cost.

And identify and evaluate potential revenue generating programs and facility components.

So why now?

Why do we need this now?

At this stage, the project scope and budget are not clearly defined.

Moving forward will allow the city to establish a realistic conceptual design and cost projections to clarify which components can be funded with the current resources and which may be needed to be deferred as future phases.

We provide voters with clear information on anticipated operating costs and how those costs will be supported.

And when I we can also identify potential revenue generating opportunities to offset ongoing operational expenses.

Okay.

Do we have questions for Wade?

And then we also have other members of the team here that may be able to address those questions as well.

We're going to go this way because I think we'll have a lot of questions.

So council person staff, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Would you say this is like standard operating procedure doing this step before the bond?

Yes.

And we hope to bring the same contracts forward for the animal services facility as well as the fire facilities.

Okay, so that was my next question, actually.

It wasn't just for the pool, but or sorry, aquatic center, but that we'd be kind of going through the same process with other things on the bond.

Correct.

Those were my two main questions.

I guess my my third question is just a follow-up question to a question I think I had at agenda session, which was so the this money will this be coming out of general fund.

No, it's uh HMR.

HMR funds.

Oh, so be coming out of HMR?

Yes.

Okay.

Which I believe oh.

Oh.

I'm so sorry, I was gonna ask Stephen can also speak to the their restrictions on what HMR funds can be used for, but they can specifically be used for tourism purposes and an attraction, which this would be considered.

Okay.

So yeah, I'd love to hear from Steven on this.

Yeah, um, that's that's correct.

Wade uh Parks Development HMR fund is gonna fund this.

And then I think this question came up at the last council meeting when we talked about bonds as well.

These expenses are recoverable from those bond proceeds.

So that's something it's basically part of our first reimbursement, um, assuming that the bond would pass.

Okay, great, because that was my next question.

So thank you for answering my question before I asked it.

Thank you.

Um I saw Minister Jones first.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I didn't hear clearly why is this the standard for this type of funding to be spent in advance?

Because I've I asked this question to Jonathan before.

Why don't we spin funding on developing infrastructure around when somebody's going to develop?

And the words were said to me is because we don't know we can't do that in advance because we don't know if they're really going to develop.

We have to wait.

So I guess my question is why is there now a standard operating procedure that we spend money before the bond is even voted on whether or not the city wants to do it.

I'm I I just don't I don't understand your answer that just saying this is standard operating procedure.

Why is that standard?

Well, we're just speaking to this specific project.

We want to look at the overall infrastructure, like I said.

And uh Chris has actually requested that we study the uh off-site streets, water, sewer, and stormwater.

There's this is not a standard for anything to be paying for it in advance of a bond.

And I'm looking at Steven now because generally speaking, we when you're gonna go forward with the bond project.

I mean, you need detailed information to provide to the voters so that they can understand what they're voting on.

And this is part of that process.

This is what we did in the last bond issue as well.

When you think about things such as our uh the new fire department that's in the bond as well as the the fire training center, I mean, those are things that we would likely be needing to do anyway as a city if we didn't do it now at a future time anyway.

And so what Wade uh presented when he discussed this last time is these provide us with a deliverable report that we can reference back, even if it doesn't end up going forward now that we can utilize when the time comes when we need to make those purchases in the future.

So it's not basically everything is lost if uh if the certain bond question does not pass, we're we're still left with the deliverable that we can utilize going forward uh when we have that opportunity again.

And then you mentioned something was being deferred.

What was that?

You uh well we can look at the overall project and work based on our budget.

If some items need to be put in a future phase, we can determine what those are.

Thank you.

And I can expand on that too a little bit.

Um when we passed the 2019 bond issue, basically we ended up with three bond issues from that 2019, 2022, and 2024.

So you don't really you don't draw all the bond funding immediately at one at once.

You do not issue all those bonds immediately.

But what we need to provide um to our underwriters is a a detailed schedule on the planning on when we're gonna be spending this funding so they can package those bonds and market those bonds as part of the overall bond issue process.

Yeah, so we'll we'll ask the uh the construction manager to give us the overall payment schedule for the entire project, and we can provide that to Steve and he can uh get that to the bond council to know how much we need to draw throughout the project instead of drawing it all up front.

Thank you.

Trying to go in order, so I believe that's Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Um you may have answered this already.

Uh, but what happens if it doesn't pass after we pay the money for them?

Right.

It's like you said, we have we'll have a deliverable, we'll have conceptual designs uh that we can use in the future if and if and or when we approach this again.

And will will that be the same protocol for all of the projects?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Burnton.

So I think you just answered uh you took my thunder.

You you asked my question.

But uh that's okay.

Uh but would it be fair to say that in doing this study that you are providing the voters a complete picture of what's going forward for what they're voting for?

Correct.

That you're outlying here's how what our proposed budget's gonna be, this is how uh any possible revenue streams that we're gonna have so that the voters can make an equated decision on the if they think they want this or not.

Right.

Plus operational costs.

Okay, thank you.

Councilperson Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Wade, I don't see on the packet, and I might be missing it um what the timeline looks like based on moving forward prior to the vote.

Um my question is um what does it do to the timeline in the event we waited for the the bond vote to then move forward with the timeline?

Like what you know um considerations do we have as far as timeline implications?

Um, you know, what other kind of risk or unknowns will we have if we we maybe make that choice?

So uh as far as the timeline on the conceptual design uh for this for the bond package, we hope to have deliverable in February.

Uh and uh yeah, I don't when you say deferring so if we said, hey, we're gonna not spend this money until this goes before voters, and in March, we get our answer, so we hold on to those monies and then move forward.

Right.

Um, I understand you've explained the benefits that you know we get better details, we potentially see some of that value engineering, maybe some stormwater, but my question is in the event we wanted to hold and waive.

Well, you know, there's a benefit of if we are successful with the bond question that that gets us four months ahead of schedule, basically.

And uh escalations on sixty million dollars for four months is just under five hundred thousand dollars.

So it just it accelerates the schedule, which could decrease escalations.

Okay, and then I had a follow-up question is are we um firm and final on the site location being Lewis Park, or are we still making that determination?

Because I know a lot, I feel like a lot that's been disseminated, it's been very focused on Lewis Park.

I'm getting a lot of feedback from residents that are very sensitive to that not being the spot, and so I'm trying to understand where we're at and what that process will look like.

I'll let uh Keith speak to that.

I know we're we've got ongoing discussions with the school district.

Yeah, I think either Keith or Alison, either one, Keith, whatever you'd like to do.

Okay, Allison, can you speak on that?

Don't go too far, Wade.

I think we may still need you.

Umuding to, we are in uh discussions with the school district and what a partnership there might look like.

This site was also chosen as the preferred site out of about I think it was maybe 12 sites in the feasibility study that we did.

And um, those were based on a whole set of parameters, including access, both vehicular and alternative active transportation service area.

We were looking at service area gaps, um, land that we already owned.

Um that was the a benefit to us.

Um, and uh vegetation stormwater developability if you that's a word.

Um so we're looking for sites that were not wooded hillsides um that were relatively flat that were less expensive to develop thank you.

So, as far as that that is most likely the site is what you're saying at this point.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, um council person turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, hi, Wade.

Could you remind us how much we've already spent on the feasibility study?

Uh maybe Alison has a number.

It was roughly a hundred twenty.

Um about a hundred.

So we've already invested a hundred thousand, and I I guess that was enough um enough information to be able to satisfy the requirements of um actually putting it on the ballot.

So I'm very hesitant to go forward and spend another 232,000 dollars before we hear from the people.

And and I might feel the same way about some of the other bond issues too, because we haven't asked the voters what they want yet.

I mean, they're they're ultimately gonna tell us something.

Um so I just want to make sure that this more detailed report is not required by the state or feds or or any entity uh be this additional information that we're talking about tonight in order to get this measure on the ballot, right?

Right.

Uh I'm not aware of that.

Okay.

All right.

Um, thank you.

That's all my question.

Okay.

And I just want to reiterate that the uh the parks development fund and the HMR and HMR funds are are one and the same.

So the parks development fund is made up of HMR funds.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, and so it cannot be.

So this money for this is not coming out of our our general fund.

It can only be used for those parks and tourism purposes and for those feasibility studies.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um let's take public comment.

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

Good evening, Mayor.

Um's uh kind of asked the question that I was gonna ask.

I understand this is standard operating procedure.

But just because we've always done it this way doesn't mean that it's the best way that we should be doing it.

Um we'll get from the scope of work in this contract is should have been information that would have informed the amount that we're asking voters for to get the aquatic park that we're telling them that they want.

Um but you've already set a 62 million dollar firm price tag by writing the ballot language and sending it off a couple weeks ago.

Um, so if that'll be enough, I don't know.

Uh I guess we'll find out what it covers from this study.

But um it just it seems backwards that uh we're spending money now to find out what we can produce for the money we've already asked for and whether it'll fit.

This is really the only item that seems to be uh causing a lot of controversy uh among the community that I've seen.

And so it seems like in five months we'll we'll know whether the voters approve of going forward with this or not.

And I know you asked the question what will what will it cost to wait until February or until March to uh to go forward with this contract, but if it's a quarter million dollars now that may for for something that may not be approved or half a million dollars if we wait a little bit for something that may not be approved, that sounds like uh potential savings to me.

So um I think this is too early.

I think it could wait until after the bond vote.

Thank you.

Do we have other members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Hi, my name is Helen Ames, and I live at 1420 West Mount Comfort Road.

So I am just a road away from Lewis Fields, and we've had a lot of development in our area, and so I appreciate you guys taking the time to really consider what's going on.

And uh I am not against us approving this bond.

I think having the information and knowing what we're gonna do with it is awesome, and being able to vote on that with that information, but this bond was not set on where we are going to put the site.

That site wasn't predetermined, like was we just mentioned.

That was completely you know conceptual, and so to not waste this money.

I really urge us to make sure that we have at least one other option.

Uh being that we are in a low area, it is flat, but that is also one of a big major floodplain.

So it's protecting a lot of the homes around from being flooded.

Stevens has already had a lot of flooding issues off that drainage dish ditch.

So uh not only that, but to create more equality in our community.

This is a really important field space for children that have low income costs, the aquatic spinar, although incredible, and I hope that we do have that happen in Fayetteville to cut out these fields in a centralized location is taking away the opportunity for these kids that don't have any other option to get out and play, to play soccer, to grab a ball.

Uh, it's taking that opportunity away.

We don't have enough fields and parks.

Well, we have a great amount of parks.

You guys have done a great job with that, but actually field space where we can get out, play sports, join a team.

If you've ever been a part of a team, then you know that that can be the one thing a coach, a teammate, a parent, that might be the one thing that brings a child up and out of the depth of their family that doesn't have enough food that doesn't have the support because they're having drug or alcohol issues, it can send them on a path and change their life.

So I uh again, I think we could approve this under a couple conditions.

No site pre-selection.

I'd love to see at least one other site represented in this, so that if we do decide to pass that, we're not wasting all this money off one site.

And also doing uh an analyze going at an analyzing field capacity impact.

Uh what are we doing to our community by taking these fields away and the opportunities for children to play sports and be able to walk to leave their home, walk to sports.

We uh you know, Kessler is great, but it's extremely far away for most people that are centralized in town.

If you don't have the money to buy a new prosthetic leaf, you're definitely not gonna get a ride up to Mount Kessler and back.

And I'd also like to bring back the pack for land acquisition instead of covering up a park that we have existing and is really really used.

I mean, if you go around any weekend on Lewis Field, that park is full of teams of kids.

I played Ultimate for years.

We fight for field space.

There's not enough of it.

My daughter.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else in the room that would like to?

Yes, come on up, please.

Please state your name and address.

My name is Patrick Randall.

I am at 491 Kabala Street in Farmington.

Uh I'm very invested in Fayeville.

I own a small business here on Dixon Street.

Um I'm one of the owners of Bulgers and Bruce rock climbing community in the outdoor space.

Um I have played at Lewis Fields for the past 18 years.

That's honestly why I chose to stay in Fayetteville before I ever made a small business here was because of the ultimate Frisbee community that brought me here.

Obviously, I don't want to get too much into the feelings of where this project was.

Again, like most people stated, no one's against aquatic sports, but I think if it would have laid out where the site was determined, there would have been a much more heavier resistance.

We are catching this on the back end.

And the fact that the city hasn't even got a chance to vote is I think you guys all brought up great questions.

Why would we approve something that we're not sure if the voters even want?

And as a voter, I do not want.

So I guess my thing, I guess my question is if we are going to say that more fields will be put back, I would like to see those plans first.

If we're going to take away, I want to see what's going to be brought back first before, just like Helen said before this, um, we do have to fight for fields.

Um, if you look at the walker plans, they're also taking away.

So if we're gonna take away at least half, if not three fourths of the soccer fields at Lewis, that means all those sports have to go to Walker.

And if you look at the walker plans, we're taking away more soccer fields.

So that means seven sports are going to be competing for three fields at the same time in the same season.

So you're talking about youth football, youth soccer, adult rugby, ladies' rugby, uh, competitive frisbee, and um softball and kickball, competing for three fields.

So that being said, um, I appreciate y'all's time.

Uh hopefully we can get a little bit more information before we hit yes on this thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I might ask if Alison Jumper could come up.

I I am, or I'm sorry, do we have any more public comment in the room.

Hello.

Hello.

I'm Joy Endicott.

I live at 1495 North Stevens.

I'm the president of Friends of Lewis Park.

Um first, I'd like to say this feasibility study surveyed for the money we spent, which was 151,000.

It surveyed about 1.5% of the population.

Okay.

So that section wants an aquapark.

Great.

I think that the focus of the surveys and the feasibility on visibility, accessibility, and sustainability do not fit Lewis Fields.

If you want visibility to attract tourism, this new feature needs to be out on 49 so that when people drive by they can see it.

Lewis cannot be seen from the interstate.

Accessibility, same thing.

That Mount Comfort in Lewis is a dangerous place.

I live there.

There have been many accidents at that Stevens and Mount Comfort.

Someone died in the seven years that I've lived on that corner.

There have been four major accidents.

I'd like for you to look and see how many times that fire hydrant has been replaced in the last five years.

That's great, but we should be looking to expand field space in this community, not limit it.

The field study that they are showing reduces from six full-size fields to one.

Four half-size fields and two many fields, replacing floodplain grass with parking lot and other concrete.

Not helpful.

Look at other spaces that are more suitable, such as the persimmon and Shiloh area or the drive-in.

Great, let's use that.

It's visible, it's flat.

We don't need to lose what we've already fought so hard to gain at Lewis, which is in better shape than it's been in 20 years because it's finally not overused.

It's still not great.

I've played on great fields.

Those are not great, but they're better.

So let's work forward to gain more field space and not lose Lewis.

We've already spent this 151,000.

I don't know about spending this next 272 to plan on the wrong site.

If this feasibility study or planning goes forward, it needs to have more than Lewis as the focus.

Lewis should not be the focus.

Please consider these.

It is a highly used field space that suits many activities, not just team sports, rugby, lacrosse, ultimate, kids.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any more comments in the room?

Okay.

And I just want to remind everyone that the matter that we're voting on is awarding the architectural contract to Crafton and Toll and not the slight selection piece of it.

But just yes.

Now it did say it was 400,000 visits.

So you would recoup some money, but only 70%.

And that was a very optimistic viewpoint.

There were other things in the study that got pointed out about the media age in Fayetteville.

And if the median age is lower, then that is a positive for building an aquatic center.

But it also pointed out that we have the University of Arkansas that brings our median age down.

So I'm opposed.

I do not want this to pass.

I hope that you don't even fund this extra 250,000 or 223,000 to do another study.

There's enough information for voters to decide whether they even want to go forward with an aquatic center.

I hope we do not do that though.

I'd like to keep Lewis open.

I love Lewis.

I've been playing on those fields for 25 years.

And I think that's pretty much it.

Do any of you have any questions for me?

We can't do that at this time.

I'm sorry, but thank you for your comments.

I appreciate it.

Do we have other comments from members of the public?

We have Carl Doji on Zoom.

Okay.

Mr.

Dogie.

Uh Carl.

Oh, sorry.

My name's Carl, 421 Saying Faith Orts Almost 701.

Um I just speaking to I mean you people that have been there, and um in the past we had the fight to St.

Lewis, and I will just say that I think there will be a decent amount of opposition to the project as it is.

And I spoke up whenever we were doing that.

Or maybe greatly because of the aquatic center, especially with it being on Lewis.

Um what's the idea there?

And so just what Kyle said as far as like possible savings.

I just think we already did a study, I feel like 100,000 to say what you know the outlines of the plan should be more than enough money to be spent for people to make an educated decision.

And um I think it could be uh like 50-50 proposition, whether it passes or not.

And in general, I would say probably you shouldn't pay for things before they're passed as much as you should do the minimal to be able to then give people information and um just for all those projects, but yes, it's something like more than you know very well supported, but I do think just based off people speaking and what I know for the public.

I just think that this project could go either way.

Um I think spending more money uh is not a smart idea until it's passed.

We have information, the letter voters decide and spend the money.

I think it's worth even if it costs a little more later throwing money down during the century, or I know we have the study, but maybe then that never gets done, or then we have to spend more money later.

So just waiting for voters.

Yeah, that's all okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carl.

Okay.

Keith, do you have things you wanted to add?

Yeah, just a couple things.

One thing just uh when we when we reviewed the feasibility study, what six or eight weeks ago, we did have close to three thousand residents that commented on that feasibility study that wanted an aquatic center.

So that was a very strong public out.

I mean, a lot of public comment on the need and desire to have one.

One of the things that will really help us if we do approve this is help us design the facility in a way, as Wade mentioned, is help with cost recovery and trying to design the appropriate things to bring to the voters.

And one thing we haven't brought up tonight uh is the partnership with school district that we've had some high-level discussions on, and that's something that I'm really needing to get some more additional details to them to see what they can participate with as far as a competitive uh pool as part of that.

Um that's something that's critical in us in that design to work towards that cost recovery goal.

And a couple other things is I think if you ask our parks and rec staff, we definitely realize that we need a lot more fields in the city, and that's something that we're actively looking at uh as part of the bond.

And Alison, you correct me if I'm wrong, as part of the uh one of the bond questions, we do have money allocated to uh to purchase some additional fields because we realize that's a huge need, and we do realize how much the fields are utilized in Lewisfield.

I played high school soccer at Fayetteville High, and I played there, we practiced there.

I played there when I was in Air Murals practicing when I was in college.

It's a very, you know, it's a heavily used area and has been for 35, 40 years.

Uh, and that's something that we realize, and we're trying to leverage the design of the new aquatic center to have available public space where we can field space on that site and and consider that along with what we're doing at Walker.

I believe we're adding two fields currently in the new Walker design, and then hopefully if that bond passes, uh purchasing additional land for uh fields.

Allison, did you want the opportunity to add to that?

Yes, please.

With regard to field space, the Walker Park improvements, we're actually we're adding three fields that will be lit right now.

The fields that we have at Lewis and Walker are unlit, so that will allow us to have more playable hours.

We know we have to balance that with the use of the fields, but um, so we are adding three fields there.

Um, the park acquisition funds and the bond would be acquiring land and also adding new fields at Kessler, and the hope is to make those turf fields.

So again, we have many more hours we can play on those fields so we can spread out those uses.

Um just want to clarify that.

Great, thank you.

Do we have anyone else on Zoom?

Yeah.

I'm gonna bring it back to the council and we'll start with Councilperson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Allison, could I I I think I've I think my questions are probably gonna be you're probably gonna be the best person to answer them.

And and you kind of just did, but I just want to I want to make sure I understand this correctly.

So uh number one first question I just want to get out of the way is uh the site for the aquatic center, is that set in stone at this point, or you are we still considering other sites, or is is Lewis the this like that's it, we're not gonna consider anything.

Do you want me to answer that?

So to so that you're less on the spot, the feasibility study came back recommending several.

It was narrowed down to a few more.

That is contingent upon what we learn from this architectural contract with Crafton and Toll.

So we think from what we know now, which is limited because the feasibility study was conceptual and was broad, we think that that works as a site.

One of the things Wade mentioned that I want to highlight is that part of this contract calls for public input sessions.

Did you not?

Yes, that is a piece of it.

So what we're inviting Craft and Toll to do is like, do you still agree and support that Lewis is the best site?

Or if not.

So right now, yes, that is what we think.

I do think more light will be shed on that through this process.

And also, quite frankly, a lot of that is going to be dependent upon the school district because part of the appeal of the Lewis site that the feasibility study took into account was potential opportunities for cost share with the school district.

So, but in order for them to want to or agree to a cost share for us to bring to you, they would want to know that they get an indoor competition pool.

We can't tell them that with our without architectural designs.

So we are we're I think that was a yep.

I know that's not as simple as a yes or no, but I'm trying to give you all this go.

That's great.

No, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And then and then I I guess uh the what I want to ask you, Allison, is you know, there's talks about losing field space, and where do we recruit the field face?

And you kind of address that, but I just want to make sure.

So are you saying that Walker Park will have a net gain of three fields from what it has been?

Net gain of one.

We have two existing unlit fields right now.

In the in the long-term master plan, those two fields will be repurposed.

So we're currently building three fields on the south side that will be lit.

So Walker will be uh just the same as it is now.

It'll be plus one, plus one, and it'll be lit.

Okay, that's what I'm trying to get to.

And then and then Lewis with the with the just the schematics and the plans you have now be minus how many, how many will we be losing?

We don't know that exactly until we go through some of this design work.

Um but there will still be some fields.

The idea is that we the idea is to keep some fields there, yes.

Okay, but some of them may be half fields or right, and when we talk about fields, we we talk about them generally in full-size fields for a lot of purposes, those are broken up into many smaller fields.

So we may have a full-size field that gets broken into six smaller fields depending on the age group.

And then and then other than Kessler, because uh as one of the commenters pointed out, Kessler is kind of out there a little bit.

Are there other existing parks or maybe parked land you're looking to acquire that is more central located?

And are you specifically looking at again kind of making sure that we don't end up with a deficit of fields that we that the plan is the we may have to move fields, but that we maintain the level fields in the city that we have or increase them?

Is that I mean, can you correct?

Yes, so um, with the other part bond project question, there is funding in there for land acquisition for fields, so we have been looking at space around the city.

There's not a ton of it left that is developable for fields, but we have been looking at that and are targeting some of those for acquisition.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alison No, anyway.

I I'm I've been looking at since this data track information, and based on us talking about Walker and Lispark.

This is possible Title VI violation.

We have to protect areas where minorities will prosper by offering those type of fields.

But I heard you say, Mayor, that there were several options for locations.

My question in this study, why isn't Craft and Told looking at all the locations?

So we're driving them towards Lewis Plaza, but I'm gonna tell you it's real close to a Title VI violation.

I need you to look at the census track data information around those areas, and we are disproportionately impacting minority children.

You want to know how it impacts them?

Equity and environmental justice, youth and community engagement, public health and wellness, environmental benefits, economic and community value.

We need to reevaluate how we do things and how we're impacting underserved and marginalized communities.

Okay, I'm not saying thank you, Allison.

I'm not seeing any other comments.

It is a resolution, and I also want to just make sure that, and I think it was just a I'm I hear you and respectfully with Minister Jones.

I do want to make sure you knew it was Lewis Park and not Lewis Plaza.

I think that was just a misstep, but I just wanted to make sure in case anyone thought it was Lewis Plaza.

Yes, no, completely understand.

I just didn't want that to be misunderstood.

Um okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council.

Uh Dr.

Jones.

What are some of what are some of the other places that they were looking at?

Alison, do you want to speak to any of the other sites under consideration?

Sorry for putting or Keith if you'd rather either one.

Sorry, I'm trying to pull this up as I'm walking.

So I did I looked back, it was 18 different sites that were evaluated.

So I had that number wrong, sorry about that.

Um sites were on the very periphery of the city.

Um many of those had lots of tree canopy.

They weren't in very accessible areas, in other words, um they weren't surrounded by residential, which we feel like is a positive, so that people can walk or bike.

Um they weren't surrounded by residential, which we feel like is a positive, so that people can walk or bike.

They're not required to have transportation to get there.

Um I if I can just pull up the map.

I can call those sites out.

Um some of them were um many of them were potential commercial sites that would need to be redeveloped.

Um sorry, I can't find this as I'm talking.

But it is all available in the aquatic study.

All of those were identified on a map.

There are 18 of them.

One thing to note is that we did like this, uh, we did agree with the feasibility consultant on the location of Lewis Fields just because it's proximity mentioned to the school district and proximity to the walking uh to our trails that are we have a new trail going along the Midtown Corridor Trail, and then also to support that community.

I mean, there's a lot of people I think in the community that would walk to that facility uh versus some of the other areas we looked at it didn't have the walkability for kind of a community hub.

Question Go ahead.

What do you like?

That was my next question.

I was interested in knowing what the school district thought about that about that site, because it sounds as if they would be that they may be that that may be a site that they would prefer, maybe.

I want to be careful in that I certainly don't speak for the registrar of the school board, but my understanding, and Alison jump in if you feel differently, is that the conversations we have had with them thus far about the opportunity there have been have been positive.

Okay.

But again, that I I want to I'm not I don't work for them, so I just want to make sure, right, right, right.

Right, right, right.

Uh because it sounds like to me, whatever site they that's that's chosen that there would be challenges.

And it sounds like that, you know, that what's presented so far is it sounds like that that's the most it makes more.

I mean it's more sense.

And we're not voting on this side.

Absolutely, yes.

Absolutely, thank you.

Absolutely.

Councilperson um uh Verna, okay.

Verna and then Turk.

Understanding we're we're not technically taking this, the location site location into consideration and I but would I be accurate in saying I assume that you're taking in the location, the demographics that are associated with uh if you do go to Lewis, uh, that there would be opportunities for scholarships for kids that could not afford to go to the pool regularly, but but we can scholarship them to allow them access that they wouldn't otherwise have.

We have that program existing now, um, even at Wilson Park Pool, our friends of Faithville Parks and Pag Nazi Parker scholarships are available for that for entry and for swim lessons.

So I don't see that changing.

Um but but those kids in that area would be able to walk to that facility versus having to get a ride to Wilson.

Okay.

Council Person.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, 10 years ago there was a big movement to save Lewis Park or um because that was that was going to be used to uh for development.

Um so I mean we really only only had the control of that for 10 years, and everything that I've heard, people were really, really satisfied, really happy that we were able to come together and coordinate with the school system and be able to save that from development since the U of A was was selling it.

So I really kind of hate to give up that location that people fought so hard for to save, and that so overwhelmingly are happy with.

Uh more information or call more detail.

And I think they probably should have done an outreach, you know, uh a survey about what people thought, and that would have given us a little bit more insight than what we do now.

So I'm not gonna be able to support spending this money ahead of what the voters decide.

I just I just think that that is that's just too risky, and um, and I I just don't think we need to do that.

I think that money can go to acquisition acquisition of some of those fields in the future if the voters deny um the aquatic park.

Thank you.