Okay, we're beginning the agenda session.

Um, this is the agenda session planning for next week's meeting, which is Tuesday, December 2nd.

Is that right?

Um first up, we will have next week a couple of council meeting presentations.

The first is we'll have the regular sales tax and monthly financial report from Stephen Dotson, our CFO.

We will have a housing and community services update from Marley Stark, our chief housing officer.

This won't be as lengthy as her first one, we'll, but will be more of uh what will turn into a brief uh highlights uh monthly update.

And then I'll get right on to reading our consent agenda.

First, we'll have two approvals of the November 4th and November 18th meeting minutes, respectively.

A three, a resolution to approve the purchase of an asphalt paver from JA Riggs tractor and the amount of $582,000, $582,984 pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees.

And in any moment with any of these, particularly on consent because they are on consent.

We had not planned agenda session agenda session presentations, but we do have applicable staff for all of these items if you have questions about it.

So please let me know.

Um A4 is a resolution to approve the purchase of a Kohler generator, an automatic transfer switch from Nixon Power Services and the amount of 79,000 79,295 pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges and delivery fees.

A5, a resolution to approve the purchase of a Bobcat toolcat from Williams Tractor in the amount of $83,269 and 30 cents pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees, and to approve a budget adjustment.

A6, a resolution to approve the purchase of two work trucks from Randall Ford Inc.

in the amount of $88,050 pursuant to ordinance 6491, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges and delivery fees, and to approve a budget adjustment.

A7, a resolution to approve an agreement with Ozark Dumpster Service LLC for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville for a period of two years with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.

Yeah, Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, on A6, um, I was just looking on the memo, it talks about that there was an at fault accident and pending insurance total loss for asset 2207 that we're replacing.

Um I just wanted to understand um what are our procedures when we do have an at fault um or there might have been you know something where there was an error for operator, knowing that these are expensive pieces of machinery that our taxpayers invest in.

I just don't know like what our steps are when things like that happen.

Yeah.

Typically what we'll do is we'll file an insurance for getting money back on the vehicle and we'll apply that towards what we've collected on the replacement charges for the vehicle and the fleet, and then we'll combine the two and make the purchase.

And this probably is not a fleet question.

I think what I'm getting at in my question wasn't clear.

I apologize is like what um uh corrective actions or remedy are made with staff when they're at fault.

I see, I understand more of what you're asking.

Keith, can you weigh in on that, please?

So to me it's a multiple-level approach.

One of it is we have telematics in our vehicles that kind of track and we use it as a coaching mechanism.

So if we have uh individuals that we have an access, or you're specifically referring to an accident.

The memo says it's an at-fault, is why we're having to do the replacement.

I think that that's something that Ross has really brought a lot to the organization by using telematics as coaching.

So we have software and GPS and vehicles where we can watch uh if there's an incident that occurred, we can go in there and look at that and see what's leading up to it.

And then we also kind of if we have kind of triggers to set up some of the heart breaking or something like that, or if they're speeding in a specific area, we can uh utilize that as kind of a metrics working with the departments, working with their uh supervisor and the staff can utilize these are issues that are that you should we should need to be addressing, and then we can use that software to kind of monitor to make sure that they're having corrective behavior.

Is it fair to sum up that it's kind of a case-by-case situation depending upon the correct?

Yeah, this is something that we have alerts that pop up.

It's not something that we go in there and monitor, it's not something necessarily we proactively do it, but if we see a bunch of alerts popping up, that's something that supervisors are trained to look at.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

I'm gonna um so does anyone have questions about A7, which is the agreement with Ozark Dumpster?

Okay, so A8 is a resolution.

This is exciting.

It's a resolution to approve amendment number two to the contract with Ozark Compost and Swap LLC and the amount of $15,000 for residential food waste curbside collection and to approve a budget adjustment.

A n yes, Councilmember Moore.

I just um didn't know on the compost.

I believe we can go to our um current drop sites right for no cost, but just to know when we were doing the analysis on the $15 a month, if we thought about additional households that maybe just have a barrier because of the cost, and like if there are any considerations for those households that maybe can't take on an additional 15 that might potentially have interest in composting.

Uh, if you're asking if there's a uh another discounted rate, no, the uh it's actually 15 gonna be 1590 per month will be the uh cost for residents to participate.

That's actually about uh just under half of what it costs currently through the program that we've been piloting.

So we're steeply we're able to steeply discount the rate at that 1590, um, and that's as low as we were able to get it.

So we're pretty excited about that number and and hopeful that that'll encourage a lot more participation.

But for those who uh don't want to pay the 1590, then the drop-offs will certainly be available, and we're continuing to try to expand the geographic area that we cover with those uh free drop-offs.

Okay, thank you.

Do we think it's possible, Peter?

If with ex I don't know, with expanded participation and increased participation that those rates we could eventually even lower.

It's possible.

Um I don't want to make any promises though, but yeah, as we have.

I mean, what we definitely heard from Ozark Compost, um, the vendor on this project is the more participation we have, the the lower they're able to reduce the cost.

So this the number that's in there now is predicated on and assume that we can get to a thousand households participating in the program.

Do we have any initial if I missed it in the deck?

I apologize.

It's possible I did.

Do on the initial pilot.

Do we have an um idea of the breakdown of the types of households that did participate at the rate?

Uh in terms of uh what their makeup would be, household income.

No, I don't have any of that.

Okay.

If that's something that we can get gather and cite going forward, I think that could maybe be a help.

I mean, I'm just hypothesizing that our lowest income levels are probably not participatory, and so that may be incorrect.

Um, but would like to see that data to understand, you know, are we only seeing compost habits that are coming from you know households that have you know hundred thousand dollar incomes because they feel like they can spend that amount, or maybe we'd be surprised and it's it's different than that.

We can we can look into that and see if that that data is uh possible to gather.

Okay, thank you.

And um, I'm hearing thank you, Peter.

I'm hearing that um Dr.

Jones is um awaiting a panelist link.

So if we can we can get that, Keith.

That would be great.

Okay.

Um right?

Yes, A9.

A resolution to approve an agreement with Republic Services for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville for a period of two years with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.

A ten is the source well contract.

It's a resolution to approve the purchase of that's not the best title, sorry.

A ten, a resolution to approve the purchase of recycling and glass carts.

That's what the title should be.

A resolution to approve the purchase of recycling and glass carts and related products and services from Ray Rig?

Is that right, Peter?

Rare rights.

Rare rig Pacific Company.

I'm gonna let you say that.

In the amount of $17,630 and 24 cents pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract.

Councilmember Terrett.

Thank you, Mayor.

Minister Jones, we're on A10 of consent, just so you know.

You're welcome.

I'm just wondering since we're changing over uh to a different recycling cart, and then we have already a whole bunch of these other containers why we need to add or purchase more containers.

Yeah, great question.

So this is for the purchase of additional food waste compost carts.

So the the green carts with the brown lid uh that our commercial um food waste uh compost customers participate in, and then it's also for the purchase of the um blue glass recycling carts that our commercial glass program participants uh participate in.

Um so we we're not planning on buying any more of the green bins.

We're we've got enough of those to get us through until we transition over to new carts for residents.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

When will we be making that transition?

I forgot about that.

That's an exciting question.

Uh, right now our target date is June 1st of next year.

What if someone such as myself had a green cart that was just barely hanging on?

You have a uh one of the existing cars.

One of the uh for your trash or for your recycling?

My trash.

Oh, well, those carts are gonna stay the same, so we'd be more than glad to just swap the colour.

The recycling carts also are going, you know, because those are your trash cart's not going to change at all.

Recycling.

But you're gonna get a new one saying the bins.

Yeah, yeah.

The bins, if someone had one that needed to be replaced between now and June, do you think that's the same?

We can absolutely replace that.

Sure.

Just have them get a hold of our office.

The duct tape won't stick together anymore.

Yes, no problem.

We can take care of that.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

Any other questions?

That's it.

A11, a resolution to award bid number 25-50 and authorize a contract with Carl Hawley Plumbing for installation of private service lines associated with the relocation of a water main along Ridgway Drive and Crestwood Drive in the amount of 560,134 and 64 cents and to approve a budget adjustment.

And council members Berna and Bunch, this is your ward, and this is where we had all of the neighbors that had the questions about Ridgeway and the current service lines are going through the yards and yeah, yes.

That's good good to know.

And I would like to say that I know the city crews have been out there working very, very hard.

They were out there late before we got the rain, late that night.

Yeah, just with big lights on.

So I know everybody's very appreciative of that.

Tim, I just want to let you know that.

So I hope you guys are getting some good cakes and cookies from the neighborhood.

Are you good?

You there's more coming, I'm sure.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just had a question about the workload of this um being with an outside entity as we're like looking at some of the replacements.

I just didn't know this one in particular.

This was based on just workload that we went with an outside um agency to do this, and just wondering as we kind of think about the future workload, like how we're looking at these, whether or not we're gonna be doing these internal, or are we gonna see more of these outside um vendors that are going to help to maybe do some of the replacements that are happening?

Thank you.

That's a good question.

Uh these service lines are private service lines, which the city is not authorized to work on to get on private property.

So, like the mayor said, we're moving this uh relocating this beds water line from the backyards between the houses to the streets, and then the contractor will move the service line from the backyard to the front yard.

So it's quite an endeavor.

Uh, but we did bids for this so we could get the best price possible.

And just as a follow-up, again, just thinking about um that we probably have other areas of the city.

I mean, do we anticipate over the next year to three years that there are other neighborhoods that might experience similar things with failures and those changes need to be made?

Or is this a unique instance?

Well, I don't really think that there's similar neighborhoods like this situation here, which uh we would have to hire a contractor to do all these service lines like this.

We are uh gonna be doing more in-house line laying in the years ahead, uh especially once we get caught up on our service line replacements, reduce the water leaks, then we're gonna have more time to uh replace infrastructure.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um A12.

Um is Tim, if you don't mind to stay up here just in case there are questions about this item because you don't have to walk all the way back.

A resolution to approve a 15-year water purchase agreement between the city of Fayetteville and the city of West Fork to allow the city of Fayetteville to furnish wholesale potable water to the city of Westport and its residents.

Yeah, Ms.

Moore.

It says a lot of legal ease, but I just wanted to double check that this basically just says that for the next 15 years we will sell water.

It's not necessarily saying that we have to be at a set price for the duration of that time.

It just says that we are saying that we will sell the water.

That's true.

The uh agreement does mention that the rates will will fluctuate as as normal business.

Uh it's just a renewal of uh of a 15-year contract.

Great.

Thanks, Tim.

Um A13, a resolution to waive competitive bidding and approve the purchase of 3D laser scanner hardware and software from Phaero Technologies Inc.

in the total amount of $71,092 and 72 cents.

Okay.

I'm just I'm just curious as to uh what kind of uh scanner software that is.

Is this uh for doing uh just enter it?

Just curious.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, no problem at all.

Um so the pharaoh technology, it's uh it sits on a tripod that does uh 3D imaging.

Um a lot of engineering firms use it uh in construction, a lot in architecture.

Uh the application for law enforcement would mainly be for collision accidents.

Okay.

Um certainly, you know, we have some serious collision accidents uh involving injury, and unfortunately, some that result in fatalities, whether it's pedestrian or vehicular, um, and then also uh crime scenes that we encounter as well.

Uh you know, it may be something as significant as a homicide crime scene, and so it allows us to accurately gather that data and present it in a form that's 3D, and something that I think that most juries, most defense attorneys and most prosecutors are expecting in this day and age.

Could this be used for forensic uh purposes as well?

Certainly, it could be used for forensics and and certainly for arson investigations as well.

Oh wow, cool.

Okay, thank you for answering the question.

You're welcome.

Is this is this something that just was budgeted?

Yeah, I'm sorry, it was something that was budgeted in the specialized police equipment in the CIP.

And you and you intend to purchase more than just one over a period of years, or is this just um a trial project?

No, it's it's it's one piece of equipment, and uh it's over a five-year period, and the five years covers the hardware warranty, but it also covers any software as well.

So any uh enhancements to the software.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Um council person, thank you.

Um I see in the language that it talks about that FIRO integrates directly with Axon.

Um, and so Axon, I believe, is um like our body cameras and and different cams and things like that as well.

And so just curious.

I mean, always you know, ask this question about you know, acts at who has access, you know, how long, you know, is this being uh stored?

Um, and then also because it could be to hide to the axon, and I think about you know, it could be law enforcement activities for an individual.

Um, are is that foyable?

Is that information that the public since we're using taxpayer dollars to purchase that?

Will they be able to access that?

Yeah, the answers to that is yes.

And so uh the the importance of it being tied into Axon is that it's tied into the evidentiary software system that we have at the police department.

So we don't have to have two evidentiary uh software uh providers, so you don't have your evidence in this software or this software, it all goes to some one central location.

Um, as far as uh how long uh the it is retained, and so we have a retention schedule.

Uh obviously the retention schedule is by policy, which this governing body passed for the police department, uh, and it all depends on the seriousness of the crime.

Obviously, the most serious crime, which would be a homicide, we have to keep that evidence uh permanently.

Um if it's something like a um, you know, let's just say it was something like an assault or battery.

I think you're looking at seven years on the retention of that.

And then the FOI, yes, to answer your question, it is all FOIAble.

Obviously, if it's an open and active investigation, which you're very familiar with, uh Council Member Moore, um, it would not be FOIAble until the prosecutor deemed that it would be FOIAble, but certainly the defense attorneys could get the information through discovery as well.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Umfinished business is the ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-48 for approximately 26.7 acres located south of North Marksmill Lane and Ward 3 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre and UC Urban Corridor rezoning to P1 institutional.

This is the Remy project.

Um that we left, it was not tabled, it was left on the first reading, and so we will open up with the with the second reading.

Um Britton can answer, I think general zoning questions.

Jonathan is not here this evening, but he will be back next week if you all have questions, but just we'll we will be doing that again.

Um I just have a question.

Sorry.

Will the traffic survey be given to to you and then you'll share with us.

How does that work?

Which traffic survey, ma'am?

Um for the Marts Mill lane.

I can check with Mr.

Kurth on that, and if there's something available, he can certainly bring it to the next meeting.

Thank you.

And I can answer so that I think I think I can give an answer from our conversations with Jonathan Keith, and that the traffic study was not part of the rezone request, but was part of large scale development.

And so it's been submitted as a part of that process and is online and available.

And I think Jonathan has sent out the link.

Is that correct?

Did you I believe the council members should have received the link?

But um I can also we can double check the sure that's done tomorrow too and send out so you have more time to look at it.

We can reason.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

And I just don't know in the event that the city staff gets updates at all before the council meeting in regard to the district's conversation.

Uh, there was the outside agency that potentially was raising funds, and we heard a lot about that, but it would be helpful just for preparation in the event there's any new information that comes to light before Tuesday, that could be passed along.

I'd be very appreciative.

Yes.

I have no, I mean, Keith, can we make sure that if you're that if our team is getting looped in on those?

Yeah, you know, you're welcome.

Um I agree we want all of that info.

Um C1.

So that brings us to new business.

The first one is a resolution to authorize the city attorney to seek condemnation and possession of certain lands owned by individuals needed for the Cato Springs Sewer Extension and Lift Station Project.

You know, we're always looking for more work in my office, so we hope you'll authorize us to grant these uh condemnations and file suit if we have to to get the land or easements for the city.

Thanks, Kit.

Uh yeah, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Uh so this is just in case that after we've exhausted all other avenues that we may have to go down this route.

Yes, uh, you know, actually this uh city council and maybe a previous one is authorized over 50 um uh condemnation actions uh by my office.

We filed a little over 30 because we were able to still settle a bunch of them before we had to file suit.

But uh by the time it gets here, it's already uh pretty controversial.

We haven't been able to work out anything with the property owners.

The land is needed for our project, and so we need to have a condemnation action file in time so that we can get possession of the land and not hold up the project.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kit.

C2 is an ordinance to amend section 11.07 outdoor refreshment area to an opt it to adopt a new downtown outdoor refreshment area boundary map.

And I believe since the initial publishing of the memo, um Devin Howland has a um your title's wrong in this memo, Devin.

You need to update that form.

Um our director of the of economic development has is going to request that uh I believe an amendment be be brought forward.

Would you like to explain that, Devin?

Yes, Mayor, thank you, and good afternoon, Council.

Devin Howland Economic Development.

Next Tuesday, the item before you is to amend the ordinance to include a new emerging restaurant we have in downtown, 1834 Tavern Lafayette will soon open its doors at 572 West Martin Luther King Junior Drive.

This is right next to the Walmart neighborhood market on MLK.

We've added a route down prairie and down government.

We work with our police officers to make sure this is going to be safe.

We'll get signage of.

And after we submitted this request and it was working its way to you, another restaurant called Moonhouse.

And um, Moonhouse is located at 129 West Lafayette Street at the intersection of Lafayette and St.

Charles.

And so um you might have seen this new business here.

They've been opened up for a little while, and they are eager to join.

We thought if you would be so kind as to amend this request, you would actually save them around 50 days getting to participate in the program.

And so um, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

That additional route only adds from Watson to Lafayette on St.

Charles.

I'll have visuals next week that show it.

Thank you.

Um we'll go first to Mr.

Stafford, then to Ms.

Turk, then Ms.

Moore.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um just uh with the map that was included in the agenda packet.

I was a little confused as to what's existing and what we're adding.

Um so I don't know if we have a copy of that map.

Uh have a visual next week that shows and folds in exactly what we're adding for each of the restaurants within that map.

It can be a little confusing, but that map getting it right is critical because it's actually what governs the ordinance and what ABC uses to verify participation.

And it is there a way to predict like I mean, is it best to do this on a case by case basis, or is it best to predict like you know what this is where it should be, and we're just gonna change the map, or you you think it's best to do it as as these restaurants open in a correct.

Um I would believe the first two iterations of aura really got it kind of what are those best case scenarios under the current downtown master plan that it was adopted at the time.

As of right now, these additional extensions are really to be inclusive so that more folks can participate in the program.

However, each one that we do has a little bit of additional extra requirements that we have to do.

Every aura business goes through an orientation with representative from Kitts office, the police department, and myself.

And when we have businesses like this that are on the edges, we've got to coach and work with them, you know, direct folks back in, make sure that signage is good so it doesn't bleed out in any neighborhoods because we're at five, six years and we haven't had an issue.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Okay, um, Teresa.

Thank you.

Hey Devin.

Well, this was interesting.

This is uh a big expansion, and I guess what would be helpful next Tuesday if you could really kind of go through it with us, like across the street from Washington Elementary.

I mean, that seems to be our very residential area and neighborhood.

So kind of how you selected these boundaries and um, you know, of course, there's two new restaurants opening up, but these are somewhat outside of those areas.

And so I, you know, if you could go through that on to next Tuesday on a step on an area by area basis, I would really appreciate that.

Happy to.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Well, um, mine is a little bit similar to Trace's, just I didn't know what considerations we need to do.

I I think about like liquor stores have a certain distance.

So with Aura, I just didn't know.

It doesn't bother me as a Washington parent.

I've been to Moonhouse, it's lovely, went with my daughters.

Um, love that it sounds like we can maybe do Aura there.

Um, but I just was curious if there are any considerations we need to make if there is a school nearby or if there needs to be a distance, knowing that it is right there.

I just maybe there's nothing, we don't have to worry.

Our team had a kind of this conversation with the ABC's attorneys this week, just to verify not on this project, but a separate one that was looking.

The retail distance provision on alcohol is only on retail liquor stores.

It does not go into bars, restaurants, grocery stores that may sell the other wine, etc.

It's just on the straight, have to be over that 50% threshold to trigger that.

Okay.

And then I know with our downtown master plan, we're looking at you know, the footprint of downtown could potentially change.

And I just heard you talk about it's kind of like a restaurant by restaurant, but also it somewhat matches uh kind of the flow of downtown.

And so I'm curious too, is there an opportunity to align the aura map to the downtown kind of master plan?

What's we potentially look at that adjustment?

Is that something where potentially we'd look at additional area that would make sense and how might we need to think about executing that?

Because it sounds like it is kind of laborious to bring folks on board.

Um, I don't I would I don't know if I would say it was laborious.

I would say it's definitely we want to be precise and make sure that we're complying with ABC rules.

Britain, is that a question you'd like to expound upon about whether or not this, you know, there's that coordination between you and Devin and as you lead the downtown master plan?

Thank you, ma'am.

Um we're certainly certainly we'll be looking at that along with several other kind of mapped things.

And so I think the more we can align boundaries the better.

While we all know we also want to respect the fact that any kind of regulatory boundary might be specific to the thing being regulated and may not necessarily match um with other regulatory boundaries.

So I'm really looking forward to coordinating with our economic development department on this.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Devin.

I look forward to more next week.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um business C an amendment to C3, an amendment to the Unified Development Code, an ordinance to align the unified development code with the urban forestry management plan by amending section 167.04, tree preservation and protection, and 167.05 tree protection measures and constructions.

And I'd like Willa, if she's here for urban forestry.

There she is.

Yeah.

Hi, Willett.

Could you tell us a little bit more about this one?

Because I know it's been one we've discussed for some time, and we're glad to see it come to fruition.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good afternoon, council.

Um, my name is Willow Thomas and I'm an urban forester and development review.

Um, so this item is a set of amendments to um chapter 167, which is our city's tree preservation and protection code, uh, for the purpose of better aligning this uh this ordinance with the 2024 Urban Forestry Management Plan that was adopted by city council.

Uh so without getting into too much detail today, um saving that for next Tuesday, the item includes um a requirement for an ISA certified arborist to uh submit a report on projects that do not meet their minimum canopy requirement.

And then also clearer, more consistent tree preservation plan requirements for parking lots within the HHOD for certain sized grading permits and a clarification of the definition of significant trees.

So just to reiterate, the purpose of this is really to implement priorities that were outlined in the urban forestry management plan, particularly the emphasis on preserving existing canopy and to address issues encountered during development review where maybe the code either lacked clarity or sufficient enforcement tools.

So we did receive public comment on this, both in support and opposition, and the comments and support really centered on a concern for sensitive areas that do have canopy and concerns in opposition centered around added cost and time associated with hiring an ISA certified arborist.

So ultimately the planning commission did recommend approval, and with that I'm happy to answer any questions y'all might have.

Okay, uh we'll start with Council Parson Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Will Uh I guess my question might be a little uh oh, I think it's it's in here, but like I'm just gonna bring up an actual on the ground uh antidote.

So uh on Huntsville Road, there's a piece of property uh where they took down uh four significant trees along Huntsville Road before even starting the process.

They tried to come back and remove more.

I actually went down there and said, you cannot drop down these trees, you don't have a tree plan, you know, you can't be doing this.

Um when I looked at their tree plan and and the existing uh trees that were marked out, those four trees that they had already taken out were not part of the mitigation or not acknowledged in any way on the tree plan.

And so it going forward, are we gonna have a way to make sure that you know somebody gets a piece of land?

Are we gonna have a way to make sure that they don't just don't go in like this person did, knock down the trees and say, oh, look at there's no significant trees here.

I mean, actually, the two that are on the plan which aren't marked as being saved are the ones that I kept from getting cut down, but um and it doesn't even look like those are gonna need to be saved, but but when they list the mitigation trees or the you know, as far as the existing canopy goes, the ones they had taken down aren't on there, and it's a that's a little bit disturbing to me.

And will this will these changes help rectify some of those?

I think so.

That's part of the the goal of implementing the uh necessity to hire a certified arborist to essentially ground truth and be you know a third-party uh qualified individual who is able to uh verify that the plan, the surveys that have been submitted are accurate in terms of both you know the existence of the trees and their location, their health, um, their species, all of those metrics that staff are not able to verify because there's simply not the time to go to every single one of these sites and uh verify every single one of those surveys.

So that's that's certainly the goal.

Good, good, thank you.

Uh Ms.

Dark.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you all for bringing this forward.

I haven't had a chance to read carefully over these provisions, so uh it may be already in there, and I'm just not aware of it yet.

But are there any penalties associated with kind of the situation that Bob just described for uh errant contractors going in there and cutting down trees before they have authorization to do so?

There is currently in code um 167.04.

Let me see if I can find it.

So currently in code, there is a requirement if you remove canopy below that uh minimum required by your zoning designation within five years preceding application for a development, a 10% penalty, I guess you could say is incurred.

So let's say you're uh you have a 20% minimum, you remove canopy uh down to 10%.

Well, when the urban forestry staff reviews your development plan, we look at aerial imagery, we would see that prior removal, you know, or if we're able to visit the site, if an ISA certified arborist visits the site, we would see that removal, and then that 20% would become 30% as a minimum.

Thank you for um identifying that that uh code.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, you're welcome.

And Willow is is that already in effect?

That is in effect.

That is 167.04 D1.

Okay.

Could I contact you and and Brittany maybe about this specific lot because I think maybe they're a candidate for that punishment?

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Willie.

Great job.

Um, that brings us to C4, an ordinance to approve vacation 25 27 for property located at 2411 West Megan Drive, Ward 2, to vacate 0.02 acres of general utility easement.

And if we have questions about this, uh Miss Bostick will be playing the role of Mr.

Kurth this evening.

Oh, can I yes, ma'am?

And if you have information, if not, I mean, I'm guessing it maybe will be in the presentation Tuesday night, but um, does that mean at this time when we rezoned this previously, we didn't have any plans before us, but like specifically, I'd had some questions about um from the residents about whether or not the additional unit that could be added to that lot would potentially access Porter with that vacation, it appears potentially like that might be what's moving forward, and I just don't know if we have any updated information since we were having that conversation with that neighborhood.

Thank you for the question.

Um so my nerds my notes for Mr.

Kirth are that um one we'll have a full presentation for you all explaining what's being proposed.

There is an existing single family home.

Um, and the vacation, the the portion or the 900 square feet or so that's proposed to be vacated does land directly along that house, and I believe there's a slight encroachment, and so this vacation is proposed to clear up that conflict, and he'll have more details uh during his presentation.

Thank you.

Uh and the have the utilities already signed off on this.

It looked like there weren't any conflicts or anything, but it I didn't see any uh in the packet.

I didn't see anything that definitely stated that that all the utilities that are had signed off already, and I that could just be my lousy reading.

Uh no, I don't think so.

Um I believe the utilities have signed off.

I don't think you have um I don't think you have like the body of paperwork that could potentially go with all of that.

Um I do know that staff's recommendation was approval with the one standard condition um that we do for these easements, and that is that any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner or developer's expense, but no other conditions were provided.

And we won't need to amend that's going to be in there already.

Correct.

And um and staff is recommending approval on this.

That's correct, sir.

Okay, as did the oh, not the planning commission because these don't go to them.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Okay.

Um C5 is an ordinance to approve vacation 25-23 for property located at 65 South Duncan Avenue in Ward 2 to vacate 0.11 acres of right-away.

Okay.

C6 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-52 for approximately 0.20 acres located south of 111 East Rock Street in Ward 1 from RO residential office to DG, Downtown General.

Mr.

Stafford.

Um, do we have the planning commission get any info on what uh Flinkos, what they're why they're making this request or so this one is a rezoning that proposes to use the new um alley frontage allowance for street frontage.

So the property does not currently have street frontage, it has alley frontage, and then under that rule change that the council approved earlier this year, we can now have housing in places that we've not been able to have it previously.

Um I understand that it is supposed to be residential in nature.

Um I'm not sure that an absolute decision has been made on what type of housing.

Um it seems to be more single family structures or some kind of cluster housing is being considered.

Um, but downtown general does allow for single family through multifamily, meaning apartments would be potentially feasible.

Okay, it be so they could do it because they do own the two lots to the south, which are already already DG down DG.

Would they be so they would be able to build like alley-facing apartments?

I think was one of the concerns.

Um so the rezoning doesn't necessarily address whether there's a future recombination of lots to change the lot area for a project.

Um, so I wouldn't be able to speak to that.

Um but anything that's rezoned to DG and that is a buildable lot, which this then would be um multifamily apartments would be feasible, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, C7 repeal coordinates.

Sorry, Matt Mike was not to repeal ordinances 6427, 6625, 6710, 6820, 688, and 6936, and to enact this replacement ordinance to legalize the operation of short-term rentals pursuant to reasonable regulations.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I'm standing in for uh Jonathan, so please uh don't hold me to his standards because I certainly will not be able to meet those.

But uh just wanted to give you a little bit of an overview on on what we're bringing.

Um we're bringing basically a two-part amendment uh to the short-term rental standards.

Um the committees met three times over the last month, and and this particular ordinance has been worked on for years.

So uh multiple uh council members have been involved in this.

But basically uh first and the most straightforward aspect of it is the removal of language uh referencing the short uh sunset uh of the of the short-term rental ordinance uh uh which in effect removes the provision that all short-term rentals will appeal repeal be repealed if the sunset date is reached.

Um I think we've had six different uh sunset uh uh extensions uh since uh the start of this, and the committee agrees with the legal department uh upon their advice that that they think it's appropriate at this time to do away with the sunset.

Uh secondly, and much more complicated are the several changes to about half a dozen sections of the ordinance in the development code and business regulations.

Umong those uh and probably the most prominent one changes are to uh the allowed number of occupants, uh the potential for escalating penalties and the method for reducing the concentration of full-time, also known as type two short-term rentals.

Um moving from the the simplest to the most complex, the occupancy change proposal brings short-term rentals closer in line to the occupancy for conventional long-term residents.

Uh this includes changing the current allowance from two guests per bedroom plus two to only two guests per bedroom.

Um as an example, a three-bedroom house under current standards allows uh eight guests, six plus two, where the new proposal would only allow six guests.

Uh next is the proposal for escalating penalties.

Uh this came specifically from staff after instances of uh unlicensed type two short-term rentals were sent violation letters, did not receive relief through their due process uh due process hearing, had their services terminated and continued to operate to address this.

The proposal includes the ability to for staff to increase the duration of the service terminations uh from one to six months uh for repeat offenders and then remove their eligibility for licensing for two years if the violation uh if if in a violation three times.

Uh and finally, the most complicated is a framework to reduce the concentration of type one short-term rentals.

Um while ordinance already does this for multi-family and smaller attached residential units like duplexes, single-family homes have no specific protections.

Uh the ordinance before the council will create these protections in two ways.

First is by preventing a type two from operating in a single family home within a hundred feet of an existing one.

Uh, the second is by limiting the number of type two short-term rentals operating in a single family home within close proximity of each other.

Uh this is measured as a 500-foot radius from a property, which gener uh generally captures about a block or two, and then limiting the number of type two short-term rentals at four percent of the total single family units in that area.

Uh staff and uh the committee evaluated multiple existing addresses uh to put them into this model to see what was most effective.

And uh this recommendation seemed to be uh everyone was in agreement this was the best way to move forward.

Um let's see um I'm sorry.

Okay, yes, it does this does provide a grandfathering provision for existing units.

But it we we made a really concerted effort to uh recognize some of the the comments that was coming from our citizens, but also recognize you know that uh these are businesses and and we want to I mean what do we what do we say reward the good operators but pay attention to the bad operators and uh this is this is you know we feel like as a as a committee that that this ordinance is uh is doing that we'll do a a more thorough if if anybody's got any questions that we can't answer tonight uh we'll we'll certainly between myself and Miss Bostick um uh take any questions and we'll have them ready to answer for you on Tuesday night, but that's kind of give you an overview.

Thanks, Scott.

Minister Jumps.

Thank you.

Scott, I just had a question.

Um so what you're saying is if you're a grandfathered in the new rules don't apply at all.

The the rules, for example, on the and on the 500 feet.

That's what that's what caught my attention.

On on that, if you have a short-term rental uh conditional use permit now, those rules will not terminate your you'll still continue to operate.

Where it will be affected is on the occupancy.

Okay, so you will be held to those occupants occupancy standards, but they will not eliminate your ability to operate just because you're within close proximity.

If you have one now, you're good.

You just have to follow the and it does give them the availability, say for example, uh if they've already got a booking that's six months out, they can't there is a provision to uh to allow them to show that occupant show that contract to city staff, then they can get a waiver uh for the occupancy for that particular booking that they already have.

Right.

And then my other question was is the intention of the new rules to not have a um a cluster of those in a community, and if they're already there, will all of them already be grandfathered in?

Again, if you yes, that is the go stated goal uh or the purpose of that.

However, if you have a short-term rental conditional use permanent business license, these radius and and what you're asking about won't affect you.

Now, once once you let that uh conditional use permit or business license, say they go uh you decide you're not gonna then that will affect going forward, but it does not take away someone's ability to operate now.

You're welcome.

Okay, uh Bob, thank you.

And then Scott, before I ask my main question, uh just to follow up on uh Monique's question on that last point.

Um in the event of a of uh a sale or something, uh does in the event of a sale do you think stay grandfathered in or does it follow the owner or does it follow the property?

That's what you're saying.

Does it follow the property or my memory is it follows the property as long as there's not a six-month period of time that that does not operate?

Okay, and then um first I want to thank you all the ordinance review uh for your hard work on this, and I I appreciated uh sitting uh at the last meeting and and being able to go over this.

I think what you guys came up with is is awesome to me.

It looks great.

I don't plan on uh uh nitpicking any of it at all.

I think I think you did a great job.

But there was something mentioned, and I'm just wondering if you could uh summarize in a nutshell, and I'd rather do it here than have you do it at the council meeting, maybe because there was mention of disagreements that y'all have between each other on the the forming of this language.

I could just wonder if you just summarize in a in a nutshell what some of the uh challenges y'all had coming to to this final document.

Well, I think for example, um we looked at okay, if we take four percent, five percent, six percent, where does that get that number two that's manageable for where we identify where we have good operators that are you know and and where we we feel like that cluster we went from radius, okay, it's this far out, it's gonna affect so many houses.

Is that really what we're looking to do, or do we want it to go a little wider or a little little smaller, or do we want the percentage to go up or down?

That was put into a model by Jonathan did a lot of work on that, and he was able to present us with spreadsheet and a uh you know something we could look at, and and they uh IT department came up with a great tool for us to look at, and you're able to visualize it, but that was some of the back and forth that we'd say, oh, that's a little bit too much, or that's no, that's not gonna get the effect we're looking for.

So there was a lot of back and forth there.

Gotcha.

Yeah, okay.

Well, thank you.

Well, thank you.

And again, I think it it what you guys came up with uh is looks great, I think.

Thank you.

Miss Morton.

Thank you.

Um, I I know there's been a lot of work fit into this.

So I do appreciate all the effort.

I know if there's been a lot of hands, so no, I mean, I I think this is a hard one to get full agreement on, and so I do appreciate all the energy and effort that's been put into it.

Um, I have a kit question.

Um, over the years of getting to be a part of this process, I know part of why we put the sunset clause or what had been explained to me was that um it gave us flexibility because of like the property protection act where you know we could be hit with takings.

And so I'd like to really understand um once the sunset ends and we solidify this, uh, would the city um be liable for a property protection act or a taking if we suddenly decided as part of our tools and our toolkit of trying to address our housing crisis that potentially we needed um a lower number of type two short-term rentals in the city and wanted to reduce that by I'm gonna pick an arbitrary number, 100, and we wanted to go to say 300 or 375.

Would we be at risk by solidifying this today and pulling the sunset clause that we lose that flexibility and could be accused of a taking?

Well, I recommended the sunset clause to try to give the city as much protection as possible if they wanted to change uh the rules and the numbers and everything else when it comes to the short-term rentals.

It's not a solid we can ever get sued because of the sunset clause.

What the sunset clause did is it said that the same ordinance that established the legality of short-term rentals, because they're illegal without the regulations and the authority, also put the same regulations on them.

So that would make it difficult for someone to say, you've taken my property because you're not letting me have a short-term rental when prior to the ordinance they couldn't have a short-term rental.

Uh so that is the basic theory behind the sunset clause, and I did that to try to protect the city as much as possible.

It's not a sure protection, and therefore I would be very concerned if we went from what the city council has approved of about 475 short-term rentals in the city of Fayetteville and said now it's only a hundred.

I think that would be very difficult to apply which hundred gets to stay, and to which 375 get closed.

So I do think the short-term the sunset clause was good for the short-term rentals.

And I think that that's why uh we're gonna do both get rid of the sunset clause at the same time.

We're reenacting the legality and the regulations for the short-term rentals, as been explained by the ordinance review committee at this meeting tonight.

And so that gives us some continuing protection at that point, but I don't know if it'd be very good protection if we actually slashed the number of short-term rentals that were allowed.

Um and they were also, I think, because of the fact that Fayetteville has been very reasonable in their short-term rental regulations and allows 475, that makes it much less likely that we're gonna motivate the legislature to say, oh, you can't regulate it all.

So I think this is a good place for us to be.

Hopefully, the legislature will see we were acting reasonably to existing people and allowing a certain number of short-term rentals in town, and therefore make it less likely that the short-term rentals will just be completely taken away from our regulation, which the state has done in numerous other times when when the city has made certain regulations like on single-use styrofoam containers where we had good regulation for that, but they took it away.

So I think it's this is a good solution.

Thanks, Kit.

I was gonna try to reframe my question just a little bit.

Is what avenues are available to us whenever we approve and make this solid as an ordinance and no longer under sunset clause.

What available avenues do we have to making changes?

So if we did want to change then number available and it was going to go down with this being what what avenues are available to us in changing that.

Well, we the city council would still have avenues to make changes in the short-term rental ordinance.

Uh, but at that point, it would be more dangerous, especially if we're taking away someone's right to do something that they're doing right now.

But there's other changes we could potentially make to fine-tune it more.

But at this point, I don't know what those changes would be.

And we would lose some protection because the sunset clause is gone.

But I think really the sunset clause has done its work and has gotten it where we've had plenty of time to actually get this ordinance in pretty good shape.

And I think at this point I feel comfortable enough to say it's time to undo the sunset clause and make this to be the permanent uh short-term rental, but you could still change around the edges in the future.

Thank you, Kit.

Um okay.

We that is the oh, I'm sorry, Miss Bunch.

Uh yes.

Um next week, I I was approached by uh someone who had a rezoning request.

Yeah, uh last week, and it was denied.

And I I was one of the people that voted against it, and I was approached by this person to see if I would bring this back for reconsideration.

And I did agree to do that.

So I wanted to give everyone the heads up that I will be doing that next week.

I'll bring uh this item.

This is rezone uh 2025-46.

It was brought to me by uh Tracy Hoskins, and I'll bring it forward, and I guess our uh what we decide is is I bring it up for reconsideration, and if it does not pass reconsideration, that's the end of it right there.

If it does pass, then we would probably put it uh table it until the next meeting to allow you know the process to start again.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, you're able to do that, I think anytime during new business, right?

Is that correct, Kit?

Anytime during the whole meeting.

Oh, during the whole meeting.

She can start off with that if she wanted to.

It's generally done during new business.

Got it.

Do you want to just do it at the very beginning of new business?

I'm gonna do it in mid-sentence when you're speaking.

I'll please do.

Maybe right in the middle of the RAMI discussion.

Yes, let's do that.

That's that's what we'll do.

We'll do it then.

I will plan to call on you at the beginning of new business.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh we have one final that's it for the agenda, unless we have any other proposed additions.

And we have one final thing for today, and that is the energy report from our environmental director, Mr.

Peter Nieringarten.

And I believe you should have all gotten a handout that looks like this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let me get this to full screen.

Oh my gosh.

Sorry.

Sarah, well, he's getting ready.

What was the address of rezoning?

I do not remember the exact address, but it's Penelope Lane.

I don't I I gave you the rezoning number.

So Britton, do you have the address on Penelope?

I'll get that shortly, ma'am.

Okay, thanks.

And what will happen is that she will make a motion to reconsider.

She can do that because she voted with a majority.

That requires a second.

And then if there is a second, then there will be a vote by the city council, and it requires a majority of city council voting to be able to pass the motion or reconsider.

Okay, but then it can be re it can be then tabled.

You don't have to then settle it that night.

You can then re-if it is reconsidered, it certainly can be tabled.

It doesn't, but that doesn't require we'll see if it gets approved.

Just additional procedural questions.

Does a second need to come from someone who also voted against, or that doesn't anybody can second it.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Uh yes, Britton.

Mayor, the address is 2097 North Penelope.

Thank you.

And can we clarificate?

Did I can't remember staff staff recommended denial originally?

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Staff recommended denial and the planning commission recommended it to you all, which means they recommended approval.

Yes, thank you.

I'm getting close, Mayor.

Technology's not my there we go.

Here we go.

They got just kicked at that button.

There it is.

All right, sorry for the delay.

Again, I'm Peter Nearingarten.

This is your monthly energy report uh for the month of September.

Um in September, the city spent a combined 297,386 dollars on natural gas and electricity expenditures.

This was about a four percent increase as compared to September of 2024.

On the graph, the blue lines are 2025, blue line and dots are 25, and the red is 2024.

Um, our utility expenditures year to date for 2025 or uh just a little bit over 2.7 million dollars.

That's a 6% increase as compared to where we were at this point last year.

Our electricity use actually went down three per 3%, but our costs went up 4%.

And then natural gas use was up as well as costs were up, but natural gas is generally pretty low in the month of September since we're not heating much then except hot water.

Solar generation was down about 18% in production, and our correlating cost savings were down as well.

Next slide is our fleet fuel expenditures.

We spent about $143,000 on fuel for our vehicles.

This was a 34% increase as compared to September of the previous year.

So then next I want to move to our update on the SWEPCO rate case.

So you all will remember that in March, SWEPCCO, the Southwestern Electric Power Company, one of the two electricity providers in the city, they filed for a rate increase.

27.3% was the residential increase requested.

$31 million associated with that increase was for improvements to the Flint Creek coal plant.

In March and May, you all approved a resolution allowing the city to intervene in that rate case.

So that allowed us to participate formally and submit a testimony in that rate case.

We did submit test testimony in August.

SWEPCCO then filed rebuttal testimony.

We filed surrebutal testimony, and then SWEPCO filed Surge sur rebuttal testimony.

All that culminate culminated in a settlement hearing that happened last Wednesday in Little Rock.

And so Blake and I were down at the public service commission.

The result of that settlement discussion is a reduction in that rate increase to instead of the 27.3%.

It's basically been cut in half at 13.8%.

So that's really good news for us and for our residents.

Additionally, we were able to get a concession from SWEPCO.

They are going to pay Southwest Power Pool to conduct a resource retirement study that has two early retirement dates included in it for the discontinuance of operation of that Flint Creek coal plant.

So retiring that plant.

Currently, the planned retirement date for that plan is 2038.

So that's good news, and we're going to be able to participate in the scoping discussion in that study.

And then the other concession we got is a commitment from SWEPCO for procurement of clean energy as part of their next all-source solicitation for energy supply for our load pocket.

I did want to point out that there's a public hearing on the rate increase.

That'll be at the Northwest Arkansas Community College next Thursday evening at 6 o'clock, and that's their campus in Springdale, which is located near the Rvestball Park.

And if you've got any questions on that, I'd be happy to take those.

Yeah, go ahead.

I'm just curious, does it have to be in person or can people submit through email or written comments at all?

There is an option for submitting online comments through the rate case, and you'll need to go to the public service commission's website and then use that number 25-003-U.

So they make it easy, is what you're saying.

Yeah.

Precisely.

But you can't.

Well, I'll try to help constituents take it to that then.

Sure thing.

And then the final uh update I wanted to bring to you all is a progress on the solar array project that's been under construction in Southwest Arkansas near Nashville.

So this in total is about a six and a half megawatt uh site, um, solar site ground-mounted solar array.

We're actually sharing the site with uh three other um entities, their SWEPCO customers, uh, first Security Bank, uh, the Jones Center in Springdale, and then the University of Arkansas.

We have the largest share in this solar array site, so 3.77 megawatts uh will be dedicated to the city of Fayetteville and help us offset 6.5 million kilowatt hours annually of electricity.

We anticipate saving about um seven million dollars.

And um the uh the savings just associated with the SWEPCO rate increase alone will be about a hundred thousand dollars next year.

So really, really good news.

Um, we're working through the final paperwork on that, and the project will be online and um offsetting our SWEPCO electricity consumption um by January 1st.

And that is all that I have.

Be glad to take any questions.

Thank you.

Um what is our breakdown of energy providers across the city?

Do you have that, or is that something that we can get about how that breaks out across yeah, uh roughly speaking, so City of Fayetteville, local government operations, about two-thirds of two-thirds of our electricity footprint is in Ozarks electric territory, and about one-third is in SWEPCO territory.

It's the opposite of that for residents and businesses in the city.

So about two-thirds of our residents and businesses use SWEPCO and about one-third is Ozarks electric.

The reason we're reversed from that is because our wastewater treatment plants are both on Ozarks, and those are our largest energy consuming facilities.

And they're of course at the edges of town, which is Ozark's territory.

Thank you, Peter.

Well, and thank you too.

I just want to say I really appreciate the efforts that have happened in the city because that's a you know quite a slog to you know, get down to Litterock, and then those are not the most you know easy to get in spaces and the times are also not usually agreeable with folks' days.

And so it means something.

I mean, as we continue to still pursue equity in our communities, I think energy is where in our everyday cost for our households is so important.

So thank you for the leadership that's been done on this.

Yep, absolutely.

Thank you, Peter, for your work, and thank you for um the great conversation that you and I just to brag on you.

We had an open up.

Sorry, yeah.

No, it's okay.

I'll get it all right back to it.

You had a uh great conversation with a reporter from the New York Times who wanted to talk about our climate action plan.

So that was very exciting.

So hopefully we'll get to read about that.

And yes, sorry about that, Teresa.

No, no problem.

Um I was shocked at SWEPCO's um request for you know such a huge increase.

Did what was the justification for that and what was kind of the flaw in the analysis?

If you could give us a little bit more detail.

So there's a number of elements that are um baked into the rate increase.

Um cost escalation across the board, you know, uh higher um consumption of energy, so the need for new generation.

Uh, some of that is uh clean energy investments that they're making over in Oklahoma.

So we do want to give them some credit for that.

Uh $31 million for upgrades to the Flint Creek coal plant.

Um there were some elements associated with uh uh profit allowance that we were able to get reduced.

Um, and then there were a couple of other elements related to just the distribution of uh overall costs among the ratepayers, and we were able to get those reduced as well.

And I certainly can't take all the credit for that.

Um there was a number of other parties that were there at settlement discussion, Walmart, University of Arkansas, Sierra Club, Autobahn, and others all helped in that effort.

Was uh were data centers mentioned at all?

Was that any part of the discussion or the calculation?

Not specifically, um, but certainly data centers and um AI and just you know the elect the um more and more electrification um widespread is driving up energy consumption and and that's um more broadly the um the driver of higher electricity prices that are they're not just unique to Swepcoast territory, but but we're being seen and felt across the country.

Okay, thank you.

I I just I appreciate you bringing up data centers, Teresa, and I guess that becomes the question too in these conversations.

I know we're looking at population and increased growth, but also Ozarks go uh with some of the investments they're asking for from Washington County to double their grid.

Part of what they say is very vague from all the utility companies about growing industry, but there's no specificness of industry, and not every industry right is the same in how they use energy.

And so I guess that is something that I'll be curious about how we because it doesn't necessarily um protect us what we only do within the constraints of the city of Fayetteville, because it's really everybody across the state with the investments that we're making, but uh trying to figure out where is it that we can get greater clarification and specificity of the type of industry because I think that is a very valid concern that even everything we're doing in the city of Fayetteville will be negated.

the same and how they use energy and so I guess that is something that I'll be curious about how we because it doesn't necessarily um protect us what we only do within the constraints of the city of Fayetteville because it's really everybody across the state with the investments that we're making but uh trying to figure out where is it that we can get greater clarification and specificity of the type of industry because I think that is a very valid concern that even everything we're doing in the city of Fayetteville will be negated if in our um areas outside of our area um they're right for data centers to come in and they're going to impact our population and we'll all be subsidizing these larger energy use um and and it may you know it's data centers right now but it's like whatever industry it is though that maybe takes more than their fair share the everyday taxpayer household should not be subsidizing that and so I guess I challenge all of us I don't know what the language is but I feel um really perplexed about how we really helped to solve for that because right now I feel like we're overly subsidizing that industry and that's a problem.

Yeah yeah don't disagree with any of that I don't either good points thank you um and Keith you want to wrap us yeah I just have a couple announcements I do want to add uh thanks to Blake Pennington he helped a lot on the Swepco case so uh thank you kid he was a big help to Peter and the work that he did down there two announcements city offices will be closed uh tomorrow or I mean sorry not tomorrow okay third uh Thursday November 27th we are open tomorrow yes we are so the city office will be closed Thursday November 27th and Friday November 28th in observance of Thanksgiving and we're doing things a little bit different and Peter has more details on that if needed but we are running our trash and recycling services as normal on both Thursday and Friday.

And then we do have a transportation committee directly after this meeting online on a separate link and then down in room 11 for people that are in person.

And this weekend so Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday four days in a row you we will not be charging for parking on the Fayetteville square and or on Dixon Street is that is that correct yes that's that's great.

So no downtown charges for parking so we want to encourage you to go out and shop small and support those local businesses and restaurants and uh we will not be assessing a parking fee on those four days.

So okay that's it.

There's a meeting right after this I believe it is transportation.

Okay.