Okay, we will go ahead and call the agenda session to order.

And we are reviewing the agenda for next week's meeting, which will be Tuesday the 18th.

Is that right?

November 18th.

Okay.

Thank you, Jonathan, for nodding in the thumbs up.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

Okay.

So the first um items up is we have a everything seems brief after uh last Tuesday's meeting, which was quite lengthy.

So we have a, I would say a pretty typical consent agenda, and I will start reading that now.

Um it's not a business meeting, so you don't have to vote.

So jump in if you would like a member of staff to come and talk to you more in depth about any of these consent items.

Uh the first two, or well, the first one is from Peter Nearing Garden.

It's a resolution to approve an agreement with red line contractors for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville for a period of two years, and that will automatically renew for an addition for additional two year terms.

Okay.

I think that one was pretty straightforward.

The next one is a resolution to authorize a contract with Hub International Mid America pursuant to RFP 25-13 for insurance brokerage and consultation services in the amount of $13,000 per year, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $1,300 per year.

And Steven can discuss that with anyone who has questions.

Is that for building insurance, vehicle insurance, health insurance?

It's uh primarily our I would say our buildings, and we've got our procurement director here tonight, too.

If uh you want to dig into that in a little more detail.

Yes, I it's it's not the health, it's not related to health insurance.

It's liability, property, cyber, and casualty coverage.

Um three, a resolution to authorize total expenditures and excess of 40,000 for all maintenance, repair, and operations supplies and commodities across all departments citywide using corporate accounts with purchasing cooperatives or state contracts for the fiscal year within the approved budget.

Steven, can you speak to that one a little bit, please?

I'm actually gonna defer that one to Amanda.

Forgive me, sorry for putting you on the spot.

Amanda, can you tell us more about this one?

Sorry.

So the city uh various departments utilize corporate business accounts using cooperative purchasing agreements to procure essential supplies and commodities to support city operations.

Uh purchasing cooperatives and state contracts are utilized across city departments to save the city time by being solicited already on a national level and saving money, as there are oftentimes discounts offered with cooperative contracts.

Uh procurement has consolidated multiple corporate business accounts across all departments in order to leverage quantity discounts, align spend with our environmental purchasing policy, collect measurable data on spend analytics, and remove the risk of fraud and ethics violations.

Some of these businesses, for example, include Amazon Business, Office Depot, Canon, Gray Bar, and CentOS.

Thank you.

One thing I'd add, this is something that we've uh we've done in the past, and we're just continuing it for the following year.

Great.

Thank you, Stephen.

Um the next one, a four is a resolution to award RFP 25-17 and authorize a one-year contract with Dotchery and Dottery Investments LLC, doing business as first employment staffing as the city's primary provider on an as-needed basis for general clerical positions and as a secondary provider for janitor custodian transportation maintenance workers and other positions as needed with automatic renewals for four additional one-year terms.

I've got questions about I guess this one and the next one.

Um I'm just wondering how much uh we depend on uh these temporary staffing uh uh organizations or businesses.

Uh do we use them for all our janitorial needs?

Is it just when we're lacking people and don't have positions filled, do we use them?

Kind of if you just give me a quick uh rundown.

Yes, and so not every department uses temporary services, but you mentioned one that does janitorial services when we have peak seasonal changes or we have vacancies, it's a way to get someone in.

It's also a good recruiting ground for us too, so that if we can try someone out and see how they work and when we have vacancies, encourage them to apply.

Um, some of our other departments like transportation uh seasonally and uh parks, we'll need to use people to fill in.

Okay, thank you.

And just to clarify, so we're not outsourcing like whole positions, we're just using it like you said seasonally or peak times or when we have vacancies.

That yes, that is, and each department has their own budget for that as well that they have to stick within.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

That's a great clarification.

Um, as you um mentioned, A5 is very similar, and it's a resolution to award RFP 25-17 and approve a one-year contract with HQ NWA LLC as the primary provider at on an as needed basis for janitor custodian transportation maintenance worker and other positions, and as the secondary provider for general clerical positions as needed with automatic renewals for um with automatic renewals for four additional one-year terms.

So those are just the reverse, they're the primary on the janitor and maintenance and the secondary on the clerical.

So thank you, Missy.

A6 is a resolution to approve a cost share agreement with Greater Productions LLC in the amount of eight hundred and seventy-one thousand twenty-six dollars for the greenway.

Did I say that right?

$171,026 for the Greenway Trail Connection associated with the Park Hotel project, and to approve a budget adjustment.

And uh Wade, are you available for questions about this item?

I believe Ms.

Turk has one.

Hi, Wade.

Could you just kind of remind us uh about the agreement a little bit and and because that's uh quite a bit of money and um and appreciate that?

Sure.

So uh resolution 25123, uh approve the real estate contract, solidifying the letter of tent, which require both the city and developers to coordinate design and share in the cost for trail, street, landscape, and infrastructure around the hotel.

This item represents the final connection of the Greenway Trail within the Ramble.

The section will provide uninterrupted uninterrupted travel for trail users along the greenway, especially during planned events held in the upper ramble.

The design has input from our Ramble architect consultants, curbs, pavers, retaining walls, segmented retaining walls, lighting, and other trail elements will be consistent with the ramble.

This also includes the city's share of water storm and electric utilities needed for the public restrooms, park storage, and the underground electric to the upper ramble.

So is the city's cost the 871,000?

Um, and what is the developer's cost since we're cost sharing?

It's just over a million, 1.049.

So they're paying 1.049, or is that the total amount?

That's the portion they're paying.

Okay, all right.

So the sidewalk project is basically close to two million over 1.9?

Well, it's more than it's uh sidewalks infrastructure and uh walls for uh routing the trail up near the metro.

And then also there's an electrical pricey.

Sarah, thank you.

Uh thanks, Wade.

Um, I thought I heard you say street in there, and knowing that this is kind of sitting off the street.

I just wanted to get some clarification about that.

Yeah, so uh part of the uh the spring street uh it stops right at the at the hotel itself.

So we've got some costs associated with uh the street down to the turnaround.

Okay, and then part when we had this conversation, I don't even remember it's been years probably at this point, over a year.

Um I remember in that conversation, I'd mentioned about hoping there would be some softening there in that particular area where spring street comes because that's just a lot of paved and creating softening.

I mean, is this the portion then that's gonna address some elements of softness there as well?

Can you be more specific and softness?

Yeah, so um I was talking about, you know, when I think about especially, you know, um neurodivergent folks, if there's a lot going on at the upper ramble and there's like music and loudness, you know, there probably folks will seek refuge over on that grassy knoll that's over by community creative, but I was like, it'd be so nice because a lot of the rendering showed, you know, the steps are paved, the the ground was all pavers, and we kind of talked about the potential there to kind of soften.

So they're uh on the south side of the hotel, there's some planners and landscaping areas uh on the east side is that separate from what this would be then, or okay, yeah, is there opportunity or is this already designed where when you're talking about the street being a part of that and thinking about the potential to create some softening there?

Is that an opportunity at all, or is that already everything's been fully fleshed out?

They pretty much have it flushed out.

Okay, yeah, but there they do have some uh uh landscaping introduced in that whole area on the both the south side.

I'm really hoping for some softening because it just feels like there's a lot of hardness on that part currently.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is a resolution to approve amendment number 12 to the contract with environmental consulting operations incorporated in the amount of 63,500 for wetlands mitigation site monitoring and management in 2026.

If we have more questions for Tim, he is available.

Item A8 is a resolution to authorize acceptance of the 2025 community oriented policing services hiring program grant or COPS in the amount of $25,000 to fund two new police officer positions for expansion of the school resource officer program for a period of four years with a required local city match of 193,135 and to approve a budget adjustment.

I guess for clarification, it's 250,000, not 25,000.

Is that correct?

I'm so sorry.

That was not on purpose.

That was a mistake.

You are correct, Minister Jones.

It's an acceptance of the grant and the amount of 250,000 to fund new police officer positions.

I was reading too fast.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm just asking for this to not be on consent.

Okay.

Mr.

Burner.

If if we're gonna pull it off consent again, I'd like to put it at the first item of the business.

Okay.

Clerk Paxon, can you all do that?

Do you have any um questions this evening?

We have deputy um chief of police Ted Scott, if there's I'm just making that available if you want to ask him anything this evening.

Um it definitely would be helpful when these um positions are coming forward.

One of the things we talked about um during the budget is um when they're grant funded to talk about what the cost incurred is once they fall off the budget.

Um, I believe that we were told that the current positions now are fully being funded outside of the grant period.

So I'd like to understand at what point financially we take on additional responsibility.

Um, and then secondarily um would be appreciative of being able to have the most up to the uh date kind of stats on what the impact has been.

I know they've showed us in the past um what's happening between those referrals that are happening from staff versus the law enforcement encounters that are happening from those cops that are on campus.

So if we are able to have those numbers, that would be appreciative.

Okay, great.

And I'll make sure that the school district can also have have their data as well.

So I expect that they will be here anyway on Tuesday.

Great, okay.

Minister Jones, do you have questions for Deputy Chief Scott?

I I I had a question for you, Mayor.

I wasn't I didn't understand that these were staffed funded positions after the grant ended.

That was never an agreement that I heard this board agree on.

So I was just that's my question is it was for grant period, and after the period, I never heard it come before this city council to add those positions to the staff.

Got it.

Um my understanding is that when the grant, and this has been several years since we started applying for this and doing this.

I believe the council made um the commitment in 2019 to have a set number of school resource officers and um Deputy Chief Scott, I'll ask you to come up.

Um, and that when we voted and that when you all voted on the cops hiring grant, that I'm not for sure what you're you so you're saying you your understanding was that the grant that the that the police officers would no longer be on staff after the grant period?

Got it.

Okay.

No, they will be they are we budget for them to be permanent members of staff.

I don't I don't think that was ever communicated, and I just want it for clarification because before they were voted into this grant, there was some disagreement in the community of staffing because there's some adverse impact to marginalize and underserved community members with SROs being in schools, and there is a school to prison pipeline that's tied directly to SRO programs.

Okay.

Chief Scott, can you give us a little bit of background about when this program began and when the city?

So Pat's got sorry, Deputy Chief of Police.

Excuse me.

Can you pull that mic a little closer so you we hear that?

I may go back and forth here.

And I if I don't answer your question, please let me know.

Just to kind of get all this information.

Um so we've had SROs for a period of time in the schools.

2020, I'll start with 2020 was kind of a COVID year.

Then we go to 2021 where where we asked for the award, and the city council gave us the approval to ask for the award, which generally happens at the beginning of the year.

This this past year it was June 17th.

So then we were awarded, and later on in 2021, we were awarded, but that is when I think you're you're speaking of Minister Jones when we had deeper conversations and the council denied the acceptance of that grant.

So fast forward to 2022 again, beginning of the years is when these funds become available, if you will, where you can request them.

So 2022, we did not ask.

So obviously we did not ask or accept anything.

In August of 2022, the city council approved a resolution.

I don't want to read it word for word.

I I certainly can, but basically to put to add two school resources, two school resource officers as FTEs every year until there was there's 17 schools.

Um at that time there were 17 schools, obviously we're building more, but at the time to add two a year, two SROs a year until there was one in every school.

So excuse me.

So 2020, that was August of 2022.

2023, we asked, we requested beginning of the year, uh council approved us asking.

We asked, we accepted that.

And of course, added so prior, obviously, prior to this 2022, so 2023, hey, we we only need two additional FTUs for the school resource officers to fulfill this res this council resolution from August of 2022.

So 2023, we asked and council uh approved and we accepted, and we place those two officers in the schools.

Same thing happens in 2024.

We asked, excuse me, and we were not awarded in 2024.

So 2025 is obviously where we're at now.

So 2025-2026 budget, we asked for two additional FTEs to fall within this resolution from August of 2022 to have two more school resource officers.

June 17th of this year, we were of course we asked council approved, and we were uh awarded the funding, and that's what brings us here to today.

Thank you for clarification.

My my second clarification, and maybe it's it maybe it's to you, Steve, about the sustainability of full FTEs after the grant awards, because to me, just like in the year of 2024, they were not awarded, and so we just keep paying as a city and keep adding staff.

There is statistical data that supports that the more SROs are in schools that black and brown individuals have contact with police officers that they would not have otherwise under any other circumstances had that contact with them.

And so that's why I'm asking as a city.

I don't have a problem with accepting an award of a grant.

I have a problem that we're staffing for some positions that can possibly cause harm to our community.

Well, I can't speak to that second part of uh of your comments, but I can and talk a little bit about the budgeting aspect of that.

Um these are positions that we budget for.

Um it's in your current uh budget document for 2026 as part of the position control discussion.

It's I can refer you back to page 229.

We have uh extensive uh discussion of our personnel changes, and this is something that we we do budget for, so we understand what that expense is going to be when the grant funds drop off and when the city is expected to pay for the full cost of those those officers.

So it is something we budget for.

Okay, so what I heard you say is as a city we're budgeting for 17 new officers.

No, we're we're budgeting for the additions.

So we add two new officers.

And let me tell you why I got the number 17 was from him.

He said we're gonna grant a pos we're gonna accept the grant until we get all 17 schools fully staff.

That's correct.

So what I hear you say is as a city, we're gonna budget until all those positions are filled, which would totally be 17 over a period of time.

That's correct.

So we're adding uh roughly two SRO officers per year.

Thank you.

Um I have uh I don't know who was first.

I know Dr.

Jones is on Zoom with his hand raised, and but I'll go to you first, council member Berna, and then Dr.

Jones.

Okay, uh Deputy Chief.

We're talking about adding officers, but I think it needs to be clarified that what percentage the school district pays for the officer versus what the city is paying for the officers.

So I want to clarify that it's not a full um total cost there to the city, correct?

That that is correct for a period of time in there.

It it varies over so it's five years, so you have one year to hire year two to year four is when your exhausting grant funding, if you will, to help pay for it, and part of the grant process is you have to retain those officers for one year, that fifth year.

So with that in mind, for example, uh I'll run through this cost of this specific um uh item here.

So the estimated cost for these two additional SROs is a total of 792,072.

After applying the 250,000 grant, the remaining local matches 542 dollars and 72 cents, which would be split proportionally between the Fable Public Schools and the City of Fayville based on our current MOU with the Fable Public Schools, a four-year cost share estimate is is 348,937, which is for the for a hundred and seventy-eight days.

So the 340.

I'm sorry, it was 300.

So for the fable public schools of the 542,072, the Fabral Public Schools picks up 68 percent of that 348,937 for the 178 days of the school year.

So that's in our MOU.

So the excuse me, the city's so this is over that four-year window, if you will.

So the four-year cost share is estimated to be 193 dollars.

I'm sorry, 193,135 for these two SROs over that four years, which is 32 percent.

So the schools, whether it through the grant process or outside that fifth year, or the ones that we can currently pay for, and I say we city, it's a cost share with the federal public schools.

They pay 68 percent under the grant or outside the grant, if you will, and we pay the other 32 percent.

And there is I'm sorry, if that answers your question, ma'am.

And just after the grant period, after the five years, the city absorbs 100% of the cost to staff.

No, ma'am.

They're 32 percent.

There they still they stay at 32 percent.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

No, okay.

Dr.

Jones.

Yeah, it's um uh thank you.

Um uh 15 feet, Scott.

I have a question.

When was it passed?

The resolution, sir.

Yes.

Um August, I believe it was 20 August.

I'll get you into a specific date here, but August of 2022 was the resolution to add two additional SROs each year until there was one in each school.

It was August 2nd of 2022.

Uh okay.

I thought that that was passed.

Uh I thought it was passed between 2021 and 2022.

And so I don't think that I think that we as a council, I just want to share this as a council and as a city.

I think that we've been really transparent as it relates to this.

Uh, there's been a lot of conversation around this.

So I don't think that there are any new developments.

I don't think anybody's trying to conceal any information.

Perhaps someone may have misunderstood something, but I don't think I I think that we've been very transparent with this process.

Thank you with your it's the same, same process, same terms as the last four times we've applied for.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, so we are moving this item.

Um thank you, Tad.

Okay.

Um to the first item on new business.

Please.

Okay.

Okay.

The next item that we will um be discussing on Tuesday is unfinished business on North Penelope Lane.

This is an ordinance to rezone rezone the property described in RZN 2025-46 for approximately 2.5 acres located at 2079 2097, North Penelope Lane in Ward 4 from RA, residential agricultural, and RMF 24, residential multifamily 24, to RIU intermediate urban.

And this was one that last Tuesday, I believe the applicant intended to have slides and did not, or perhaps there was confusion about the information we might have.

And so Jonathan, if you could go ahead and kind of get us up to date on this one so we know what we're walking into, that'd be great.

Certainly, Mayor.

Uh thank you, Jonathan Career Development Services Director.

Uh it's still not perfectly clear what it was that the applicant expected to be pulled up.

There had not been a request prior to the meeting that slides be pulled up.

Uh, there was a document provided to the planning commission at the planning commission meeting.

Uh, and staff had asked for a copy of that to attach to uh the agenda packet that was submitted to you all.

That is in there that's been in your packet since the item was first considered.

So uh if I get clarity on that, I will make sure to have it available for the applicant to share with you all on Tuesday if they're interested.

Uh otherwise I have no updates, Mayor.

Okay.

Would anybody like to hear more generally?

Just or Bob, do you have a question?

Um and Jonathan, that was the I think there were two images of what they plan to do on the property, and uh one thing that um I didn't realize until taking a closer look that they're also planning on building a bridge across the creek as part of the plan.

Uh that is part of the conceptual plan, yes.

Yeah, so um, yeah, it would be great if we could see those on on Tuesday.

Um, and I know they're in the packet now, so I appreciate that.

Then I'm sorry for Clarity.

You said you want to see them for Tuesday, you're you you have seen them in the packet, or you want to I've seen them in the packet now, but I I don't know if if the if the applicant wants them to be part of the presentation, I think that's fair.

Gotcha, yeah.

Uh and it is important to remember this is not a PCD that is a rezoning request.

So uh if the council were to take action, they would not be held to that conceptual site.

Yeah, yeah, it's just rezoning that's correct.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Um that brings us to new business, and the first item of new business is the city council to name a new city park.

It's a resolution to name 1.28 acres of parkland located at 700 South Lieutenant Colonel Leroy Pond Avenue as South Yard Park.

Um, Allison, since this is I think this is probably with intent was put on new business instead of consent, but it council of course could decide to change that, but could you give us a little bit of background, please?

So the for the park naming facilities policy, the parks and recreation advisor advisory board recommends names for new city parks and those are forwarded on to city council.

Um this park was a little bit atypical in the way it was developed, so I want to provide a little bit of context around that.

Um in 2019, specialized real estate group agreed to dedicate 1.2 acres of parkland and fees and loo to meet the requirements of the residential units in South Yard development.

Um additionally, the parks board later then decided uh or not decided, but recommended using approximately $64,000 of those fees to contribute towards the development of the park with remaining development funds coming from specialized real estate group.

Specialized provided the park design in coordination with parts staff, and ultimately a cost share agreement was approved by city council in 2025, committing the $64,000 in parks fees to go towards the construction and requiring specialized real estate to maintain the park for 10 years.

At their September meeting, the parks board discussed three potential names for the park.

Those names included branch line park, junction park.

Both of those were proposed by staff in South Yard, which was proposed by specialized real estate group.

An internal staff vote supported branch line part, however, the parks board recommended South Yard Park, which is uh presented for your consideration for the policy.

So happy to have uh answer any questions.

Uh Teresa, or oh that's we'll just go this way in order.

So council person chart.

Um so Allison um you know specialized owns South Yard or at least developed it.

So is there any uh conflict with the commercialization of their um property by naming that, even though uh you know the city's kicking in some money too?

I mean, how does is there any conflict there?

I guess is what I'm asking.

I'm not that might be a better question for Kit.

I don't think there's a direct conflict with that.

Uh however, you should know it was a five to four vote at the parks advisory board.

And your rules say that once a recommended name has been selected, the parks and recreation staff will forward the name to the city council for its final park name selection, including a potentially different name.

So you're not bound by that.

It is strange that I don't think it's a conflict, legal conflict, but to name it after the development.

Yeah, yeah, I don't know how many times we've done that with the park.

Well, what was the staff's recommendation at that we support Allison?

It was branch line.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Sarah.

Uh oh, thanks, Allison.

Um, I just was gonna check.

I know, like our streets kind of in the in the past kind of history was like they kind of got random names based on developers, and then we ended up kind of coming up with lit with a list, and so I understand you're talking about these were voted on by the um board, but I didn't know.

Do we have kind of a generated set of names that exist somewhere, and I maybe I've just missed it, or kind of what are guidances around naming?

Because I definitely, as we've okay, Kit saying maybe Kit wants to speak on that.

Thank you, Kit.

It says the following items should be considered when proposing names for any parks.

It says park facilities, geographic location of the facility, outstanding features of the facility, commonly recognized historical event group or individual, individual or group who contribute significantly to the acquisition or development of a facility, individual who provided exceptional service in the interest of the park system.

So those are five things that supposed to be considered.

Okay, thank you, Kit.

And that's like within code, then that we consider those.

Okay.

Um, I guess my question, just and this might be for just some homework for later, is just knowing that we'll be looking for revenue generation through our parks and things, and kind of thinking through the commercialization potentially when you're talking about one item is allowed, you know, whether or not it's gonna be the JB Hunt Park or the Tyson Park kind of thing.

I'm just curious if there are any considerations to really think about um whether or not we we necessarily would want things to be named after a like commercial entity in the city, or if it is more towards there's more leaning potentially towards like more of the characteristics of the area.

Do there is there like a weightedness to the five or there's not awaitedness, no.

So those five criteria are in the park naming facility policy that's that's in chapter 97.

So that is codified.

Um like equal weight as far as it can be any of those things.

Yes, okay, and there's no set set of names anywhere that we've kind of designated.

We don't, um yeah, because I assume that the park name might reflect something of the history or of the place parks located in that way.

Thank you.

I'll just be very candid and and and Allison is being very diplomatic and and uh professional and I appreciate her very much.

I I liked the name that staff recommended better than naming it after the the developer, but the rules state that the majority vote of the parks board is what gets forwarded to you, which is why it's forwarded to you to vote on South Yard.

Bob.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I think this is a fine name.

I think it's a a name that the because we already call that South Yard, or at least I do in my circle.

So I think it's a very uh good name that gives a a uh placemaking uh as you will.

Um my question is just because the drawings weren't showing up very clear uh for me on the on the agenda packet, uh the way they came up on my computer screen, and also uh when I tried to Google it, that's not very clear.

So I is just a logistical question.

And this is the this would be the park, the greenway that's uh runs uh southwest of South Yard loss, basically, that goes along the trail there.

Does it stretch all the way from MLK to school?

Is it's just a piece of that?

It's just a piece of that, yeah.

Okay.

Um are we looking to preserve the rest of that greenway, or is some of that still open for development?

The rest of that is privately owned.

Okay, yeah, I'd have to look at the floodplain map, but most of it follows the creek as well.

Okay, so this is just the piece that's really at the intersection there, Razorback Regional Greenway and Solidy Trail.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Alison.

I have one more question.

Sorry, Alison.

Is that finished?

And can when I go biking tomorrow, can I stop in there and see what it looks like?

You sure can.

Yep.

The construction is fairly wrapped up.

I was by there today.

Okay.

No, there's no construction pensoring or anything.

Thank you.

Sure.

Is this one that we could put on consent?

I don't know if we no, you don't want to.

Okay, that's okay.

Okay.

Um the next item.

I'm hoping that we have an update from staff, Keith, on this one that was put in as a placeholder, a resolution to award bid 25-52 related to the restoration of Skull Creek.

Mr.

Pugh.

Thank you, Mayor.

Members of the council.

Yes, we do apologize for the the number of blanks that are on your agenda.

Um unfortunately, just due to the grant timing um and the construction period, we were uh really needing to make this particular meeting.

We did receive bids on that yesterday.

Uh so the title should read approval of a contract and the amount of 114,900 dollars and 20 cents with flow state LLC for the restoration of Skull Creek downstream of Floor Broad Expressway pursuant to bid.

Forgot to write down the bid number, apologize for that, and approval of a contingency of $18,000.

Um so we did uh receive those.

Uh as you may remember, uh, this is a portion of a wetlands program development grant that the council approved back in 2020.

Uh, this is really the last piece of that puzzle.

Uh that grant is scheduled to wrap up in January of 26th.

Um, and we hope to have that particular project constructed and uh report to the EPA that we are complete.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Mr.

Barner?

Is there any reason anybody have any adverse reaction to put their sole consent?

Kara?

I just want to let the city council know that if you'll take a look at the handouts that are placed at your spots, you'll see the updated resolution that'll be placed on the final agenda.

Oh, wonderful.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So we can put this on consent, right, Kit, because we have it now.

Okay.

Um do you all want that to be the second item right after or or do you just doesn't matter?

Okay, so oh, it's can you're right.

I'm sorry.

I would consent it, doesn't matter.

You're right.

Okay, never mind.

Thank you, Alan.

Oh, I just was gonna check and see how many respondents we had to the RFB.

For the bid on this one, uh we had two bids.

Um unfortunately, the low bid on this one was deemed unresponsive for a few reasons by our purchasing division.

Okay.

Um, one was uh I think the experience requirements uh not quite met, um, and they included uh more in their mobilization than was allowed in the contract.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Alan.

Item C three is an ordinance to amend ordinance six eight eight eight passed on June 17th, 2025 to extend the sunset clause effective date to December 30th, 2025, and to declare an emergency.

Mr.

Berna, would you like to speak to this one?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um we're working as ordinance review, we're working towards uh hopefully a finalized version of the uh uh sunset provision and the ordinance for short-term rental.

Uh so I we're just asking for extending this through the end of the year so that it gives us an opportunity to fine-tune and make sure we're bringing up uh uh an actual ordinance that everybody's pleased with the legals looked at, uh planning staff is looked at and we've looked at.

So we're just asking to extend it for 30 days and or yeah, 30 days uh to give us that final little window.

Bob, thank you.

Um do we feel we're close now and that we're that this is the last we'll we will have you uh finalized version.

Okay, yeah.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, we just we thought we had it, but we had some random revisions that we wanted to look at, and okay.

We didn't have enough because of the holiday, we couldn't get uh the meeting room this week, so we had to push it to next week.

Gotcha.

And so when will the ordinance review meeting be?

Because I think I might want to attend just so I can wrap my head around this since it is such been such, you know, it'll be next Wednesday at four o'clock.

What's next Wednesday, four o'clock?

Wednesday, four o'clock.

I appreciate that.

Um I believe it's gonna be in the rock uh don't hold me to that on the location.

I've just I think it's in the rock street uh meeting room.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you.

Oh can I ask a clarifying question?

Because I haven't watched probably if you've met recently, I haven't watched that one.

Are we looking at the density and and making a definition as part of your recommendation on that as well?

Yes, okay.

All right, thank you.

Um just uh is there is there a working document that we could get a look at uh maybe prior to the ordinance review meeting?

Is there a a draft uh kit this might be a question for you?

But I think that we can probably get that out to uh Bob also on that, or or any of the rest of the council members will want to see it before that meeting.

I'd appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

Okay, moving on to our next item is C4, an ordinance to approve ADM 2025-40 and amend the master street plan to remove a portion of a of planned neighborhood link street from property located at West Elm and North Leverett Avenue in Ward 2.

There's a mimic if anybody has questions, would let me know, please, and we can have Jonathan address those.

It would be nice to have a little bit of review on that, Jonathan.

I don't we haven't seen it before, right?

It was a I think it was at Planning Commission.

Correct.

And this is actually a companion item to something that the council did see last week, so the address may ring familiar in that regard.

Uh so there's three components to this project at this point that have had uh public hearings for actually.

There was a conditional use permit for student housing that was approved.

There's a large scale development that's in review.

What council saw last week was a request to vacate a portion of the Elm right-away between Leverett and Garland, which was conditioned on rededicating uh additional right-away uh to make that connection complete ultimately.

So that's what that was before council.

I'm sorry, a week and two days ago.

Um, this this item is a uh companion piece of that that is proposing to remove a small piece of master street plan connectivity.

Uh if you see the map in the packet uh to the north of where the Elm right-of-way is, uh, there's a street called Ernie Jacks, which is very short uh dead end street currently.

Uh uh many years ago is contemplated to potentially extend Ernie Jack's uh through the corner of this property and onto the University of Arkansas' agricultural properties and create a new connection uh eastward to Leverett as this project has come forward as the city has developed the the uh I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the name of the trail, the Valley Valley Trail there.

I'm sorry, somebody knows what I'm talking about, running along the south side of the Agra farm there.

No, that's sorry, this is a different one, but so that the trailblazes, yes, there's a trail along the south side of the agricultural property.

Uh and uh that those are factored in that we feel like we are between Elm Street being connected, that trail having been developed since this connection was proposed on the Master Street plan, we're still accommodating connectivity in this area.

Uh so staff recommended in favor of it.

Uh, the planning commission forwarded it uh to you all, uh, and then when the uh transportation committee uh considered it, those in attendance forwarded it to uh the city council supporting it as well.

And I was just peppered with uh comments from my cohort and staff that it's the Meadow Valley Trail.

So thank you all.

And the good news about this when you amend the Master Street plan, almost always you do it just by resolution, does not have to be an ordinance.

So uh I've already got the change to a resolution if you all want to move it to consent, if unless somebody has a uh an objection to that.

I think that'd be great.

Okay, great.

Jonathan, is there any reason why we cannot do that from your perspective?

I cannot think of what.

Okay, great.

So if we could add this to consent, Clerk Paxton, that'd be great.

That brings us to West Megan Drive, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-47 for approximately 0.33 acres located at 2411 West Megan Drive in Ward 2 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8, residential single family, eight units per acre.

Doesn't look like we have many questions about this one, so I'm gonna go ahead and jump to the next two items, which I know we may have more questions about.

Item C6 is a resolution to adopt the 2026 annual budget and work program.

Steven is here if you have questions about that this evening.

Steven, do you want to go ahead and jump in and do it?

Yeah, I'll go ahead and jump in.

However, you want to do it.

Sure, thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just have a brief presentation.

I'm not gonna go through all the slides again.

I think we had a pretty uh good and detailed conversation of the budget at the uh workshop that we had last week, but I would like to touch on a few of the most important items in the budget.

Uh to start off with the total proposed budget for 2026, that's all funds is 273.8 million dollars.

And looking at the total budget by fund, approximately 30 percent is the general fund at roughly 81 million dollars, another 25 percent is our water and sewer fund at roughly 69 million dollars.

Our sales tax bond funds, roughly 12% or around $34.5 million.

Recycling and trash is over 7%.

And our sales tax capital and shop funds are just over 5%, or roughly $14.5 million each.

The remainder of our funds individually account for less than 5% of the uh the total budget.

And although the total budget is increasing this year by approximately $19.5 million overall, one of the things I had pointed out at the last meeting was uh, and you can see it on this comparison slide here.

Um the city budget by fund is approximately equal to the 2025 budget.

I mean, there's some small variances of roughly 1% depending on those funds you look at, but really um not much is changing aside from the addition of the new uh stormwater management fund.

Next slide, please.

We also discussed the total um city budgeted expenditures by category for all funds, and some of those major categories include personnel expenses at 35%, and that's to be expected, as I mentioned before, and as Paul has always mentioned, we need that personnel in order to provide the essential services to the residents of the city.

Uh services and charges, that's at 14%.

Uh 7% of our total expenditures are accounted for by purchased water.

Debt service is at roughly 14%, and our wastewater treatment plant operations is roughly 5%.

Next slide, please.

Once again, if you go out and compare the 2025 budget by expenditure to what we're proposing in 2026, it is roughly uh equivalent.

This is kind of just what it costs to provide these services when running a city of this size.

Next slide, please.

And you'll notice uh the same trend as well when looking at expenditures by operating activity.

Historically, our water and sewer does make up roughly 28% of our operating activity expenditures with another 27% for public safety.

I also touched on our um our personnel adjustments in our position control at our meeting last week.

And you can see from the changes from the 2025 budget to what we're adding in 2026, it's actually a reduction of 0.2 FTE.

Some of the main changes that we have here is we are adding two FTEs for police officers.

Those are the SROs that we um had discussed earlier.

And we are also bringing media services and animal services back to full 1.0 FTE positions for those two positions.

We're finding that it's difficult to attract uh people into those positions at less than one FTE right now, so we're making the correction uh to bring those to full time, and we are offsetting those additions by some reductions up here as well.

Uh, one thing that I will point out is we are not having a true reduction in community services.

As I mentioned, we did add personnel mid-year in 2025, and that is not reflected in the budgeted 2025 numbers.

We added about 18 FTEs overall for the city, and one of those was uh a new housing development director.

Next slide, please.

Now I'd like to touch on our general fund.

In total, we're presenting a balanced general fund budget of approximately 80.9 million dollars.

Um see from this slide, uh, we've got a few differences when you compare our 2025 budget to what we're proposing here in 2026.

In our revenue side, some of the biggest changes are what we're proposing for sales taxes in the county and the city, as well as uh property taxes.

We do also have a one-time transfer from the sales tax capital fund that I did discuss uh at length at our at our last meeting, approximately $800,000 there.

That would be a one-time uh transfer to to balance out the general fund for this year, and this is going to leave us with an estimated ending fund balance of approximately $32.4 million in the general fund.

And uh that should be more than sufficient to handle all of our requirements uh for 2026.

I think that might be the oh this slide uh was another one that I I like to present.

This is uh the the changes between 2025 and 2026 in the general fund budget.

And as I had discussed earlier, uh personnel and personnel benefits is a significant component of the change.

Once again, we did add some signific a significant number of personnel mid-year and 2025 that is not reflected in the adopted 2025 budget.

So that would have been in the amended 2025 budget.

And that's something that we do from time to time, but we try as much as we can to get our uh personnel additions in during this budget process.

But once in a while, when things come up and we need to add new personnel like we did in 2025, we'll bring those forward to you mid-year.

And that's something that I would want to point out too that we we do keep a close eye on, and we are in uh you know, coordination with our department directors.

If they reach out to us and indicate that there is a need for new personnel immediately, um, we would definitely bring that forward uh at that point in time.

I think uh let's see, one of the other things I would like to point out here is the increase in our community partners uh roughly uh two and a quarter million dollars up there.

Our cost of our ambulance service, um that contract went up over 200,000 in 2026.

We are part of a um a local agreement, and so that is based on uh um the city's use of the ambulance service as well as the uh number of residents in the city.

And so when that goes up, um all the cities basically are charged an additional amount to cover those costs.

And uh once again, we are presenting a balanced general fund budget this year, approximately 80.9 million dollars.

Um, and with that, be happy to answer any questions.

And uh, you know, once again, I'm available if you uh think of anything after this um discussion tonight that you'd like to reach out to me on, you can give me a call or send me an email.

And we'll also have the council meeting itself to answer any questions uh that you might have thank you, Mary.

Um Steven, I didn't or or I don't know who else this would be for, maybe, but um I didn't know if we had record of what had um that's in the packet that I've missed about the personnel requests that we didn't do for 26 that were requested but not budgeted.

Is that in there that I've missed it maybe?

Uh I can get you that information.

We we don't tend to have that information here.

Question because I really like the I would just I love many of the pages that are in there the way they're formatted.

I really like on the personnel that we have the history um where the columns of like what was budgeted and actual, and then we've got our budget for 26.

Is there any way to put a column of the requested at that detail level of the line item to see where those requests were so I can look at that all together?

Does that make sense?

I can email that.

Okay, yeah, if you want to send me an email of what you're looking for, no problem, we can get that information to you.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And then um I also um knowing that we made some tough decisions to balance the budget.

I didn't know if we had um a list somewhere um that could be um provided of the projects or the things that were going to be funded that maybe fell just right below for a department, so that's somewhere that's succinct that we could look at.

I apologize.

So you're looking for things that we did not fund?

Well, I know there were probably some incredibly tough decisions, and so I just was curious about the things that maybe just didn't quite make it, the top kind of three to five things that departments were looking at moving forward with that just didn't quite make it.

Yeah, we can get that information to you.

Okay, thank you.

And then um, I know Stephen, you and I had had conversations about in community services that historically um, and I think we we as a as a um council have kind of had that discussion that um those positions have been historically funded by CBDG funds, but they don't have to be funded in that way.

Um I believe the way that the funds are uh set up for 2026, are they still those personnel are still fully funded by CBDG, or do we have any ability to pull any of the headcount into general fund instead?

I think the short answer there would be if you are planning to pull funding into the general fund, that that would uh definitely tip us into a deficit balance position.

Um that is something that you know certainly could happen.

We we do run personnel expenses through the CDBG fund, and that is I mean, that's customary, that's how it's handled in most cities when they operate their C D BG programs.

And but I will say to answer your question, it can be it can be paid, those salaries can be paid out of general fund and act, and some of them already are some portions of them.

So there's more opportunity for them to do roles outside of just the okay.

And one of the things that Marley is, and I don't want to speak too much for her as chief housing officer has been really excited about is like how can we get shift more and more of those personnel costs into the general fund long term so that more CDBG funding is is freed up to do the service the things that we all want to do.

And I'm excited about I'd love to see us get there because um that is my I mean my desire as well.

It is fine too.

It just opens up our flexibility of what we can do.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Um I think those were my questions.

Thank you, Stephen.

Sure.

Minister Jones.

Yes, thank you.

Stephen, you and I had a conversation on Wednesday, and I went back and reviewed it.

Um if you go back to the first page of your presentation, I think the CDBG is 0.06 of the budget.

Is that correct?

I guess 0.6%.

0.6 um and when I looked at that, I I thought back.

Um, we've had several conversations about housing not being included in um our bond project.

So I guess my question to you is, and I actually wrote it down.

How are we budgeting for housing to be compute included in the budget for next year?

Where where does it fall?

Does it fall in in the CDBG?

Where do we we have a chief housing officer?

That's not the question.

The question is where can we include a housing?

If we're if we're talking about it cannot be in a bond project, where in the budget should it be budgeted?

Well, I guess one of the things I would ask is what what types of expenses specifically would we be talking about here?

Because you know, and and as uh you know, we discussed in our our conversation.

Many of the things that we fund out of that C D B G fund we can only do because we are receiving federal grants that specifically allow us to do that.

For instance, I can't transfer general fund money over there, and then all of a sudden it becomes eligible for us to spend it on the same types of things.

It really has to come uh from those federal sources that specifically will allow us to do that.

And so that's that's one of the the challenges that we do face as far as funding is concerned.

Can I address that right quick?

That's confusing to me because I want to know specifically what can you transfer if we identify the expenses that's needed for housing.

So we have a chief housing officer, and I'd like to see money put toward housing, but if we identify those expenses, what I just heard you say was we cannot transfer general funds for those expenses.

Is that correct?

That's generally speaking, that is correct, and we know Kit might want to weigh in on that as well on the add something, Stephen, that I think might may or may not be helpful.

I think one of the and then I have a follow-up question.

One of the things that can be confusing is that it depends on what the expense is, and that's not an answer to try to like obfuscate or not be specific, but we can't blanket say we can't do anything with housing with general fund money, but we don't know specifically what it is, and the specifics of what that funding would be used for matters.

And so one of the ways that Marley and I, in the one month that she's been here have talked about increasing those CDBG funds is by offsetting the overhead and the salaries in that department from the general fund so that we have more of the federally funded funds, if that makes sense, of available.

And so I think it's hard to answer.

Um there is for the first time ever money in the CIP in the capital budget for housing and community services.

Um, I believe over the full extent, it's well over a million dollars.

I think next year's 250,000.

Is that correct, Stephen?

Or maybe it's a hundred next year, and then it grows, but there is capital projects in there.

Um we had earmarked it for potentially a food storage locker that we're just waiting to get more information on.

Um, I know that's not housing specific, but it is in that realm and under that umbrella of helping those that are food insecure or housing insecure, and so that those funds could be shifted to something different if need be.

Great media, Mayor, because that's why I was going with my question.

You I was trying to finish my question with Steve.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So I was going there to say, because I've had this conversation with Marley, sent her an email as well about we have a certain amount of funds through the C D BG budget for staffing, no housing.

And um, I sat through the C D BG meeting and I asked the question how much funding funding was available, 20,000.

How many people attended that meeting?

I don't know.

But I do not think it's fair that our nonprofit organizations within this community scramble for crumbs.

And I would like to find a way for us to look to fund more money towards community services.

So 20 people aren't filing on with $20,000 to get a thousand dollars each.

That's minimal to be able to serve our community.

So maybe it is in the CIP fund.

Maybe that's what we need to go back and talk about.

But I still want to talk about housing as well as community resources for our nonprofit organizations and an opportunity to talk to Marley about the application, how it's um one of the most stringent applications in Northwest Arkansas of all of the C D C D B D applications.

But I don't want to continue to make it so hard for individuals to apply for funding with our city because we make it in order to continue to put barriers up to access those funds.

So I'm gonna be very specific the next time you talk to me about what expenses I'm looking at for funding and what expenses we should be funding as a city around housing, around child care, around rental assistance, around gas vouchers.

I'm gonna be very specific, but this is why I'm being specific now to say tell me where housing can be funded, and I'm gonna come back and give you an exhaustive list of housing that we should be looking at.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um I just had a clarifying question, Stephen, on a comment you made about um the federally funded things you know needed to be done only with federal funds.

And I feel like we've had a lot of the discussion about housing and got an AG's opinion, and there's language that says that our taxpayer money general fund can be used for the purposes for the general public good if it benefits the public good.

And so I guess I just want to get clarification that it is kind of like the mayor said, more case like specific to services that could expand within community services.

That general fund could be available to provide services directly to our uh residents that may be federal programs but could be offset and and incremental dollars could be added from general fund if if it continues to be in line with like what the state requirement would be of this this public good.

Well, I think uh that that really kind of dives into to kids' realm here, and so I would kind of defer what could and couldn't be funded uh definitely the city attorney's office.

When when things come to me when I get um asked these types of questions, I generally have those those conversations with Kit and his staff as well.

So that would be something I would you know confer with him on.

Well, and I guess my follow-up would just be in the event that we think that we need clarification in that area that I'd probably want to be proactive to seek either an AG's opinion or yeah, to have an exhaustive um opinion on that, just because I do think that that's an area that we know has been stagnant since 2015 of investment, and our population has continued to really struggle in those areas.

It's probably an area that we have the most opportunity in the city to have uh bigger solutions, especially given uh the constraints that we're seeing at the federal and the state level on some of those responses, and so um it would be helpful in follow-up conversations, especially if we get headroom in this budget for 26 and over um a project their revenues and are able you know to have extra funds that we maybe can uh deploy in this manner, it would be helpful uh to to better know if they can be in those specific areas.

Does that maybe make sense?

It does.

That's what we spend uh quite a lot of Marley's time talking about is like making sure that we will be in a position financially so that we can launch those projects that we have been talking about.

Yeah, and I think it would also be helpful for me when we all talk about housing to understand if you are talking about like land use if you were talking like money for housing if you are talking about shelter or if you're talking about permanent like that is that is also helpful for us as a staff to understand what you mean when when you say housing, because that can I mean we can talk about all manner of ways in which we support housing, but I think that we'll communicate and talk across each other if we're not being clear, and so I think if it's if you mean shelter, let's talk about shelter.

And and that that helps us know so that we are giving you accurate information and so that we're working towards the things you want to see us working.

We need that that will help just that vocabulary.

Okay, the next item on new business next week will be Marks Mills Lane.

It is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-48 for approximately 26.7 acres located south of North Marks Mill Lane in Ward 3 from RSF4, residential single family, four units per acre, and UC Urban Corridor to P1 institutional.

Jonathan, you want to give a little bit of an overview.

I know most I know we are all very familiar with this, but you could give a any any updates or anything that you'd like to share since the planning commission decision.

Sure, absolutely.

Uh I don't have any new updates to share.

If you're not familiar with the property, this is in North Central Fayeville.

Uh it's about 26.7 acres that extends from Walnut Avenue and Ash Street, where there's a 90-degree turn on the south side to Marks Mill Lane on the north side, and it parallels College Avenue, roughly uh to the east of it, contacting at roughly the point where Poplar and College have their intersection.

Uh it's currently undeveloped, almost fully under tree canopy, and includes slope approximating 20% uh across the full extents of the property.

Uh prior to last year, if the council will recall, uh, it was zoned a split distinction or split designation of RSF4 and ROK a clear picture of future development staff proposed it to be uh rezoned the uniform zoning district of RSF4 across the full property during the 71B rezoning.

Uh as Mayor noted, the request uh for you all on Tuesday is to rezone it from RSF4 to P1 to develop it as a school.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request.

It's at you all from the planning commission uh by vote of seven to one and with one recusal.

Uh we've received a substantial amount of public comment, uh, which I can characterize if that's helpful today or next week.

Um otherwise I uh can take any questions that the council has.

Um okay, thank you, Mayor.

Um, yeah, this one's so easy, I was wondering if we could move it to consent.

Joking, joking, joking.

Um I I do have some questions.

Uh the there was a a diagram I saw, and I think it was presented to the environmental action committee.

The I haven't seen an R packet uh that is um from the previous developer of how they had the land plotted already under RS4.

I don't know if that's available or available to us and if that could be included in our it is.

I I have it actually on a presentation slide, but I can send that to you all in advance if that helps you contemplate what an alternative to this looks like.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And then um I am wondering um there's been some articles that are I guess just I I just got them sent to me today.

Um that uh I guess there's a group now that's going to try to raise funds to purchase this from the school.

I don't know if this school is even interested in hearing that, but I am kind of wondering uh on the school side, is there a time crunch on this?

If it takes us more than one or two meetings to get through that, is that a problem that we know of for from the school district's perspective?

I I'll I'll let the district know that that's a question that they can touch on next week.

If you all have been following the larger district conversations, this school is a part of their uh realignment of their their their system of how they're funneling different children to different schools throughout the city, and that there is a need to have certain schools available at certain times in order to accommodate that that timetable, but I'll ask them that like uh to to share that in case that has any urgencies.

Okay, thank you.

Um I thought you had yours on, sorry.

Oh, okay, got it.

Um Teresa.

Um Jonathan, um, I I looked through the packet again.

I didn't see a topo map.

Could you provide that to us as well?

Of that, that I think that would be really helpful.

Um, when you talk with the school district, could you find out when that I understand they're starting to do the geotechnical boring, and I think that kind of information would be really uh important for us to know.

Um so if we had maybe a timeline of when that would be completed and perhaps a report uh available and why they had to go back in and do more geo boring.

Okay, I think I understand the question.

Uh I'll see if they have an update for you.

Okay.

Um I wanted to um also I understand there's a traffic study that's been done.

Could you add that to our packet?

Uh if that's available.

Yes.

And then I don't know if there are any other documents that have recently been uh provided to you all, but if you could kind of see if there's any other additional information, that would be that'd be terrific.

Um if I can anticipate what you're asking, I'm sorry if I interrupted Maggie.

Go ahead, please.

Uh given their timeline and an interest in I think painting a fuller picture of what's intended for the property.

The district has submitted a large scale development for the site, um, which includes a much higher level of detail.

That is publicly available.

That's not something that I'm gonna obscure from you all, and and I can certainly make it available similar to my comment on the previous item.

I do think it's important for the council to understand that the the wide the full scope of the zoning request that I mean if the school district were to find out that there's something that um prevents them from being able to develop the schools uh or the property as a school, uh it is I do hope the council can keep a full picture mind of of what potentially rezoning this property to the P1 represents.

So uh, but yeah, I'll I'll I'll share that information or give you links to to where it can be accessed.

Yeah, that would be super.

And then finally, um, I think it would be great if we went on a tour.

Um, and so um, you know, the tomorrow is a great day or Monday.

Uh either I think I have an EAC on Monday.

Um, but you know, if we were able to take a tour up there, I think it would be really helpful because this is such a this is a big um, you know, obviously our community is very much engaged in this project.

I can answer that.

Yeah, and with it being private property, we would have to coordinate.

Is that right with the school?

Yeah, Dr.

Mulford recently reached out to me.

That was one of the things I was gonna ask you tonight.

He they are offering a tour at 1 30 tomorrow and asked if anybody from the city council would be interested in attending.

That's kind of an atypical time for us that makes it difficult.

Could could they not do it later?

Uh they currently have it scheduled for 1 30, but I could forward them a different time.

What would what time would be good for you?

Well, I think usually we go about four because you know folks are working.

I think they were trying to avoid with their school staff because that's school let out time, and so that's their I'm trying to be mindful of students.

And I also believe we have a game tomorrow night that may be affecting that timeline.

That's true.

We are getting dark sooner.

Um I think I could try to make one thirty.

Um, I'll have the school district forward the information directly to you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and one final request.

Um, I'd really like to move this ahead of the budget discussion.

So if we move if we move the budget discussion to the last item, um, that's what I would requ request.

Um, may I just inquire uh uh the reasoning?

Well, I think the budget's gonna take a long time, and um and I think there's a lot of people that would prefer to have this discussion about Mark's Mill before the budget.

Okay, yeah, I think they're both gonna take a while, but uh so I I I hear your point though about people here to speak.

So can you make that switch?

Thank you all.

I have a um addition, agenda addition, and I'm sorry I don't go print out, but you got an email from Kit this afternoon.

Um there was a uh coordinates uh vacation 25-24.

That was passed by the planning commission on Monday night.

Um and the homeowner, it's it was something that came up kind of late where they got a new site inspection that was delaying their closing, and so I let them know that if it did pass it planning commission, I'd go ahead and get it onto this agenda.

Um so I'm asking uh to add that on and um open to where it would get added.

Um but I would hope to maybe not have to put them after the budget or the school item, please.

But I'd be happy to put them at like C6 if that sounds okay, since I know I am adding them.

I don't have a problem, but I I don't show that I uh got an email.

You didn't get it?

I don't know.

So I mean I don't have a problem with it, but but I'm just saying we didn't get it.

Oh, I apologize.

It says city clerk and not city council.

I'll forward it.

I apologize.

No, it's it's uh it was approved, and maybe Jonathan can say it better than I I can, but it was approved.

It just it had been a longer process than this homeowner had anticipated, and so our normal procedure for the flow of this would have been our next council meeting, and it's delaying the closure of the cell that's been pending for a little bit, and so just trying to go ahead and move it ahead.

Okay, okay.

So uh Clerk Paxson, can you just use your best judgment on a recommendation for where that could go on the agenda?

I think it could probably go anywhere.

Okay.

But please before the budget or the yes, I was thinking thank you.

Early item.

Okay.

Does anybody else have anything before we adjourn for the evening?

I think we have a water and sewer meeting, is that correct?

Correct.

We have a water and sewer committee uh on a separate Zoom link and in 101.

I don't know.

Right.

Clerk Paxon, can you confirm if it's in 101?