All right, we're now gonna call to order and get going with the city council agenda session planning for um next week's meeting.

Thank you, everybody.

Sorry, I'm almost late.

I know what is that.

Does anyone else hear that?

Maybe if I turn the volume down up here.

No, it is, it's gonna bug me.

All right.

Well, you have an echo this evening.

Oh, it's oh, it's like here.

Oh, the sound is on over here.

Turn that leave.

Oh about that better?

Okay, all right, great.

Um, so um we will be having an announcement and a recognition of uh Fayetteville community member um James Blair, better known as Jim Blair, who many of you all knew, and so that will be um we will be recognizing him next week at the meeting in light of his um passing last week.

Then we will have a report from the nominating committee, and I suppose uh council member Stafford, that's you leading that report.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Great.

Okay.

Um then I'll get right into the consent agenda.

After the meeting minutes, we will have vehicle parts tear-down inspect and repair services, a resolution to approve the purchase of parts and repair services from original equipment manufacturers or their authorized vendors or repair locations in excess of 40,000 to tear down, inspect, repair, and maintain warranty where applicable for vehicle and equipment repairs as needed through December 31st, 2026 within the approved budget.

Also, Ross is here if you have questions about this item or would like more info about this item or the next.

The next one is also from Fleet, and it's a resolution to approve the purchase of vehicle monitoring equipment and services from Sam Sarah Inc.

in the amount of a 107,302 dollars and fifty-seven cents for 2026 and to authorize the ongoing purchase of equipment and services through April 23rd, 2029, pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract.

Yes, thank you.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, in the memo, it talks about on the Sam Sarah telematics.

Um that it uh has improved data around, and I guess one of the things it takes in is based on information from the vehicle modules and cameras.

I was just hoping we can understand that better.

Yeah.

And sorry, I was late in calling you up, Ross.

Do you need her if you get it?

Sorry, yes, I can repeat that if that's easier, Ross.

Did you hear me?

Yes, please repeat it.

Yeah, sure.

Um, so with the Sam Sarah telematics, I'm not real familiar with that technology.

Um, I did notice in the memo that it talked about it's for uh improved data for the fleet to better look at our our mileage um and also looking at individual drivers based on their information that comes from the vehicle modules and cameras, and so I was wanting to kind of understand how that works and especially trying to understand the use of the cameras.

Sure.

So basically we have gateway modules that are plugged into all assets, and we're able to do predictive maintenance as opposed to maintenance after the fact.

So we get mileage updates, engine hours from all equipment basically every hour that data dumps into our fleet management software.

Same thing with diagnostic codes and and issues that might be going on with the equipment.

So when those things happen, we get alerts and we can actually schedule ahead of time for vehicles to come in and be repaired as opposed to waiting for them to break down.

And then what role?

It sounds like that's a lot of data can collection, but what role do cameras play in it?

I'm just not quite sure how that plays a role in it.

What is it capturing?

What's it looking at?

Does it capture some of our citizens as vehicles are going past individuals and households?

Does it look just at like drivers of vehicles?

I'm just not quite sure on that.

Sure.

So city policy kind of dictates what kind of cameras we use, whether it's forward-facing or dual-facing towards the driver or forward facing directly over the hood, so it sees other vehicles on the road.

So if we have an incident to where somebody actually hit one of our assets, we can go back and kind of find out exactly what happened and provide that data as necessary.

Okay, so it the cameras just follow what our other policy is for the way we do collection, storage, and accessing that information.

That would be absolutely okay.

All right, thank you, Ross.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Um A4, Community Access Television.

It's a resolution to approve an amendment to the professional services contract with community access television doing business as your media in the amount of $220,725 to extend the agreement for public access television for one additional year, contingent on approval of the 2026 annual budget and work program, which has been approved.

So okay.

That brings us to item A5.

A resolution to okay, this is similar.

This is also with Doug.

A resolution to approve a budget adjustment and the amount of $10,000 to recognize public access activity revenue for future promotional activities for Fayetteville Public Television.

And item A6 is a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $122,000 to recognize and appropriate revenue from the court automation fund for upgrades to court servers, software, computers, and related technology equipment.

Mayor I have a question.

Yes, Ms.

Turk.

Um, it would be helpful for me, and I don't know if my other um colleagues too, if we knew that any of these items were budgeted for or not budgeted for.

I'm assuming they're budgeted, but um I just want to make sure because there's a lot of items today.

No, there are a ton of items, and it's in the memo, but you're right.

I think that would probably be it would be nice to be able to see that just in the um thank you.

Got it.

Yes, no, you're welcome.

That's a good point.

Um, Miss Moore.

Excuse me.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I was hoping um we could get an idea of the different technologies that were being uh and upgrades that are happening, says and related technology equipment.

Um, I know I've spoken um in this body before um in regard to in particular um court reminders and that not being a tool that Fayetteville uses despite it being best practices across the nation.

Um, and so I didn't know in the language that that was gonna also include um knowing that our player to appear rate has gone up in Fayetteville district courts this year versus last year, um, if that was something uh that was going to be a part of that package.

Yes, we do want to be able to implement automatic call-outs for failure to appear, and I think Keith, you can say more about about the pathway to that and about this purchase in general, and also Brad is here from IT.

So I kind of give a high-level summary.

So we have a structured replacement schedule for core technology and this, and we do have reports on that that we can provide that uh is a portion of these purchases, and then we've had a recent staff change in our court, and with that, they've had some different direction on the use of technology.

So part of that is we're uh upgrading their audio visual within their courtroom is a pretty significant portion of that expense.

And then uh to kind of comment on the notification for failure to appear.

That's something that we spoke with the court administrator, uh, Beth Ledbetter today, and she spoke with uh Judge Jones, and that is something that they're interested in us and helping IT or having IT help them look at.

Uh judge actually reached out to several courts today to talk about that uh that situation, and then we committed to the judge that we would help them research that in the very near future.

I appreciate that update.

And the hope uh that this is a court notification or reminding people of courts so that they don't get a failure to appear.

So unfortunately, their notification on a failure to appear is usually a warrant or an arrest that happens.

So we want to try to prevent those, hopefully.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate the update.

And I'll be happy to share.

I mean, e court date uh data or e-court is one of the um tools that's being used, I believe, both in uh Springdale and in Judge Stevenson City courts in the county, and so I know that they found value in using the same tool just for ease of use of users that are gonna be in multiple courts in the county.

So I'd be happy to provide that information to the the court and to the IT department as well.

Okay, thank you.

In addition to that, we've been navigating the possible you know, statewide system that they're working on.

So, whatever we implement, we're trying to implement something that's economical uh just in case the state does kind of push us to that uh single system.

I think you're well aware of that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um item A7 is a resolution to approve the purchase of learning management software and the amount of 85,767 and 25 cents from governmentjobs.com.

Inc doing business as NeoGov, pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract, and this is a budgeted purchase.

And Brad can answer questions about it if we have it.

A eight is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the contract with the area agency on aging of Northwest Arkansas in the amount of 182,577 to provide public recreation services for senior residents.

This is a budgeted expense in the 2026 budget.

And Lee Farmer is here and can speak more to that if you have questions.

Minister Jones.

Can you explain what you mean?

I'm I was very clear because it's I think this is being only pushed towards the Fayetteville Senior Center.

Yes.

And not all seniors go there.

So how do we make sure that this is accessible to all?

Certainly.

So for the several services that they provide for this funding amount includes to facilitate daily and health wellness classes, provide nutritional classes, weekly social and recreation activities, and they also provide transportation services to both the papal senior center and the Pilcrest Towers.

So most of the activity is based out of the PayPal Senior Center, but they do provide transportation services to Hill Crest Towers.

Got it.

Thank you, Lee.

I'm sorry I didn't understand the question.

I get it now what you were asking.

Do we have uh the Ms.

Lee don't go yet?

Don't go.

Yeah, we may have more questions.

Sorry.

Ms.

Moore.

Um, and and it's fine if this is additional information to get in the future.

Um, I just I didn't know what our um planning looked like as we're I know I've been approached and had different conversations about um the needs of our seniors, both from uh residents that are part of that population as well as um I think a previous director that was at the um center here in Fayetteville that it expressed this growing need and concerns around gaps, and so I just don't know um at what time we have you know more meaningful conversations about potentially what those hurdles and those gaps look like um when we're considering where we're investing the money.

I just am not quite sure.

And then I don't um know enough to have an opinion on is this the you know appropriate agency?

So I am not critiquing this agency at all, but I'm also just in the conversations over the last several years where we've discussed about um particular services that the city of Avill invest in from our taxpayers.

What does that look like to um uh package that up and have the conversation that community operate as an RFP or in some way that allows for any providers that potentially are in that space because we're becoming such a bigger region and community, so that we don't always know every agency and player that participates in these, and so I just I don't know how we look at all that if we've already partnered in one way and one slice and don't know again, I don't have the right to understand for our seniors everything they're facing, just don't know when that planning does occur when there's an opportunity for that.

Sure.

Does that make sense?

I think so.

Yes.

Yeah, I mean, yes.

So I may have to do some more research to get back a full answer on that.

But um, there has been some turnover at the Fayetteville Senior Center.

We have been in contact with the new director and have a great working relationship with her.

Um, this funding request actually comes through the annual work program through the outside agency um funding mechanism, um, and it just supports all those operational items that um I previously listed.

Um, but we do stay in regular contact with them about their usage and their services they're providing.

They do quarterly reports that uh are part of the funding requirements that we submit for accounting purposes, but certainly could follow up on that.

I don't know how the submission works particularly for this because it goes through the outside agency funding requests, which goes straight to our budget division.

Um, I do have a preview of viewing that, but I don't know how those allocations are and Lee.

We can also talk since we've changed that process up a little bit on the accounting and budget side.

We can also look at making sure, I don't know what's been done in the past, but making sure that those reports get sent on to council.

I because I don't know that they always have been, and so Keith, is that something that we have several like that that are required to do report and they they do submit, but we might not we might not have done a good enough job giving council visibility on that.

So yeah, we can definitely afford those reports, and I think that's one thing the mayor's had staff working on is having some consistency with those outside agency agreements.

And just to kind of follow up, I know when we hit that staff change, the mayor and I met with the the outgoing person, just kind of brainstorm on what was you know what was working, what can be improved.

I think those are things that are on a kind of a long-term thing for us to address.

And I might also add that earlier this year, the former director did um an annual report to this council kind of talking about all the services provided, so hopefully that gave you a little bit of insight.

Um, Mr.

Burnout.

I was just wondering, um obviously there's an article in the paper this weekend about challenges that Biton County was having with their agency up there.

How is our is our structures similar to theirs, or is our structure of how we operate the senior center completely different than theirs, and if it's the same, or are we having some of the same challenges?

I think it's completely separate.

I think the one up north is completely managed by city staff where this is more of a lease agreement.

We do have this um agreement in place for the services they provide and the funding that they seek for it, but it is a complete separate entity and in the operation they do.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lee.

Yep.

The next oh, actually, if you want to, in case there's another question, if you want to stay close by, um, the A9 is a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $70,000 eleven dollars representing donation revenue to parks, natural resources, and cultural affairs from residents and local businesses.

Good job on that, guys.

Um A10 is a resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the amount of 486,948 dollars representing donation revenue to the animal services division.

So, Ms.

Turk, and I think Justine is here, right?

Justine, can you come on up, please?

I just wanted to make a comment like, wow, that was uh really impressive.

I don't remember any donations quite like that in the past.

Maybe I have a short memory, but um I thought this was very, very generous and um and outstanding on uh for some of our citizens to make that that amount of donation.

Yeah, it was it was a very big deal.

Um in the 15 years or so that I've been here, it's definitely the the most amount of donation revenue I've ever brought at this time of year.

Um we've had a few larger gifts through over the years, but certainly not multiple really large ones.

Um so we're extremely grateful.

Obviously, sad that these people have passed away, but that they chose to you know pass on their legacy and to continue to help our community and the pets in our community means a lot to us.

We're extremely grateful and excited.

Thanks, Justine.

Yeah, thank you.

Um A11 is a resolution to approve a lease agreement with the Arkansas Air and Military Museum Incorporated for property located at Drake Field to automatically renew for an additional one-year term.

The next item is oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Bob.

Yeah, um, and Joanna, I saw you start to get up, so I think this question.

Um, and I just want to make sure we we had uh and and we may have already done this, I can't remember actually, but we're we're gonna is this gonna include the um the heating or or the money we gave them, give them is going to be cut codified into the lease now.

No, that is not going to be in the lease.

We're gonna do that as a separate agreement once this lease is set up.

Wait, we're gonna we're gonna handle that separately from the lease.

Yeah, okay.

Going forward.

Um, this is the Arkansas Air Military Museum also received some outside agency funding from the city to compensate for the incredible heating cost of the historic hangar.

Was the original idea that we were gonna put it in the lease, but we backed off from that or uh it was not the best uh thing, but not the best way to proceed forward.

Okay, thank you.

And I think Bob, just to shed light on that, is there's the lease agreement, which is one thing because we want them as a nonprofit to be able to use the space.

But what we're trying to do with all of the funding that goes to any organization to not tie that so closely to the lease so that we can put in place those deliverables and those metrics.

And you know, that might not necessarily mean they were breaking the leap when the when the dollar amount when the contribu you know financial contribution is tied to the lease.

We want to judge the performance that results and the deliverables that results in getting the contribution differently from are you following suit with just the lease of the property?

And so that's kind of why.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks, Joanna.

Um I think I'm lost my place.

A twelve, a resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize the purchase of granite net asset inspection and decision support software from Qs Inc.

in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per year on an as-needed basis through December 31, 2030.

And this is something that we had planned for in our 2026 budget and work plan.

And Tim is here.

Oh, Minister Jones.

And Tim is here if you want to go ahead and come up for questions.

Hey, did you could could you give some more information on why we'd be waiv this?

And yeah.

Certainly, this is a platform that we've been using for several years.

Uh it in the past has been low enough price where it did not have to go in front of the city council, but the inflation has caused it to breach that threshold.

We do have to have city council approval.

The extra things on this software now, which we are sharing with Stormwater department, is the uh what we find with the condition of the pipelines will go directly into our work order system.

And also uh the system will help analyze and prioritize the severity of the pipe damage when we do uh TV of sewer pipe.

Um it doesn't just rely on our eyeballs when we're looking at the video that goes on a on a method.

So that's going to be very helpful to us in the future.

What was the previous amount or the percentage of increase from previously charged to now that would cause us to launch?

The threshold is 40,000.

It was slightly under 40, and now it is slightly over.

And did they give details or it just is a rate increase?

It's got the two extra benefits that we're gonna have from this new purchase with the going restrict of the work order system as well as the prioritization.

Thank you.

So if I can add one thing, this was uh we have a state law that provides an exemption for software.

So this is we had an existing software that we're using for the sewer sewer system, and then we added on storm grain, and so when we added so now we have multiple trucks doing a similar thing, and we wanted to leverage the same exact software to do both, and that's what kind of pushes pushes over the top.

Thank you.

Tim, if you'll stay up here since the next several items are yours, uh, and we may have questions.

Um item A13 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the contract with Inframark LLC for the wastewater treatment up sorry for the wastewater treatment operations, maintenance and management services in the amount of eight million four hundred and fifty thousand dollars for services provided in 2026, and this is um something that is included in the budget.

Yes, Ms.

Turk.

Uh, I just want to make a comment.

Um, I mean, this is a huge amount, and normally I would I would pull a large amount off of consent, but this company has done an incredible job.

The um they haven't increased the budget at all, so the amount is the same that it was last year.

We kind of reviewed this during the water and sewer meeting uh last month, and so um I just wanted to note that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um item A14 is also with water and sewer.

It's a resolution to award bid 25-51 and authorize a contract with Grant Garrett Excavating Inc.

for construction of the Cato Springs Sewer Extension and Lift Station Improvements Project in the amount of two million eight hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred fifty-seven dollars and ten cents to approve a project contingency in the amount of three hundred thousand dollars and to approve a budget adjustment.

And so I believe Ms.

Turk to your earlier question, this was this is coming out of 2025.

Is that correct?

Tim, which is coming out of a HUD grant, it's actually not coming out of water sewer funds.

Got it.

I apologize.

We're just trying to do yes, yes.

Okay.

Um, the next item is A15, a resolution to approve amendment number one to the contract with Crafton Tall and Associates in an amount not to exceed 135,000 for design of the sanitary sewer lift station, gravity and force main lines associated with the South Cato Springs holding LLC economic development project.

This one the Cato Spring, the that economic development project is a little bit.

Can you explain?

Can you answer Minister Jones' question about whether or not this was budgeted or not?

This also comes out of that same HUD grant that we discussed earlier.

It's uh craft control was selected for the original design, and this is gonna be uh to take it further uh further along down this process.

So same HUD money grant.

Got it.

Okay, on that HUD grant, just to get clarification.

Is that funding that we already have secured that's here?

Is that over time?

And so we've got a disbursement currently in our possession, but are gonna get future disbursements.

I was just trying to remember if we already have all the amounts or they're coming to I think Devin Helen can answer best, but I do believe that we've had this money for quite some time.

Okay, that's I was thinking it was older, but I that's why I was thinking we maybe had it, but okay.

It's or that okay, we do have it.

He's shaking his head, so I'll just won't make him come up.

He says we do have this in our possession.

Thank you.

Teresa, thank you.

Um, this is all tied to the SLS um right?

Yes, it is.

Okay, project.

So just wanted to wrap that up.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, okay.

Thanks, Tim.

Um I think we were at A16.

It's a resolution to approve a planned service agreement with Johnson controls and the amount of $79,100 for three years, plus the cost of non-scheduled service calls.

Uh, we do plan for this in the budget, and Byron can speak uh to this if you have questions for him.

I'm gonna move on to A17.

I'm sorry, Minister Jones.

Can you just give me some details?

It didn't really give details, it just says a plan service agreement with Johnson Controls, and it says plus the non-scheduled service calls for what type of um services.

Yes, let me give it.

Do you go ahead?

Sure.

Byron, yeah.

Yeah.

Our building uh this is our building control systems that controls our thermostats and our HVAC units, and um almost every building except uh City Hall won't be on it, and the police department is not on it, but it helps with um setting temperature, setting schedules, and our service uh providers use it when they come and troubleshoot our HVAC system.

This is a it's the software for the building control system itself.

Uh and one of the key elements of this is to keep us up with the most current version for cybersecurity issues.

Thank you.

And to clarify, we that amount is the total value of the contract.

And so when I said it was budgeted, I should have been to be more specific, year one.

So what is budgeted for next year is just thirty-six thousand dollars.

But we bring it to council based on the whole value.

So that year two is twenty thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, and then in the third year it's we're 22,000.

So those haven't technically been budgeted yet because you haven't passed those work plans, but yes.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

So just to follow up on why is the police station not on the system?

And I I can imagine why City Hall's not, but I'm just wondering about the police station since it's so new.

Uh when that system was built, it was the cheapest uh building control system was not Johnson controls, and so I think it was a budget issue at the time.

Yeah.

Okay.

PD does have their own system, it's just not this one.

Okay.

A 17 is a resolution to authorize Mayor Ron to sign a release of notice for property located at 2301 West Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard to remove a potential clout on the title.

And Devin is here and can provide.

I believe Devin is here.

Is Devin here?

I don't see.

Oh, there you are.

Okay.

Um, if you all have more questions about this one.

Okay.

Just to you know, just maybe a broad understanding of what this is exactly.

Sure.

Yeah.

Good evening, council.

In 1970, um, then 1750 was passed.

And at that time frame, um, we didn't have the current zoning districts that we currently do.

And Jonathan, please correct me if I uh alter here on anything how but this waiver just releases a notice that with our current code isn't applicable anymore.

First, the property is currently zoned C2, um, and that does not impose lot width requirements.

And then second, West Best Friends Way street was constructed on the property subdivision, actually giving it street frontage.

We consulted with Mr.

Kirth over this and the city's planning director, Jesse Masters, confirmed they have no objective to the city signing this, given that the current zoning district wipes that out.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Can you stay right there?

Yes.

Okay.

Um sorry, my mic wasn't on.

I hope everybody could heard me.

This was planned for in the 2026 budget.

Um, it did go out to bid, and since this is one that we have had in the past, and then when a few years without, I'd like to just go ahead and ask you to give um some updates on it, please.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good afternoon, council.

The item before you per consideration is to authorize Mayor Ron to sign a one-year contract with the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.

On October 13th, we issued RFP 25-24 calling for assistance with economic development work that supports increased employment and wage growth in Fayetteville.

We received five responses.

After reviewing alignment with the scope that we requested cost, capacity, and overall value, the selection committee chose the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.

Their proposal offered the highest capacity, most strongest alignment to the services we actually requested, and the most experienced credential economic development team that we received with 45 years of experience.

The contract matters a great deal to us right now.

Um Fayetteville's experiencing real and sustained economic development momentum.

In just the fourth quarter alone this year, we've responded to six employer requests for information.

We held round tables with 43 different businesses, and we are currently actively working on over 20 different retail restaurant or commercial real estate projects.

We can't remember a time when we've been this busy, and that's a good thing, but it's also stretching our capacity.

This contract helps us keep up with that momentum.

It ensures we are fully capitalizing on every single opportunity that we want that comes to our door.

It adds 4,000 hours of annual dedicated support.

Essentially two full-time employee equivalents to work hand in hand with the city's economic development team.

The added capacities allows us to not only continue to focus on raising jobs, but advance other strategic initiatives outlined in our master plan.

Beyond capacity, this contract provides other meaningful value.

It includes built-in travel expenses for proactive employer recruitment, on-demand economic impact analysis, revenue modeling from the Chamber of Commerce, and more than $20,000 in annual data sharing subscriptions.

This is not outsourcing of the work.

What this is is an extension of our team.

The chamber will lead work alongside us to carry out the full scope of this contract.

And the scope of service that we asked for is this.

First, to assist in creating and deploying innovative business and industry engagement and retention programming.

The second is implementing proactive industry and employer recruitment.

This is about growing quality jobs where people can thrive.

And third, they're charged to serve as a true extension of the city's economic development team, providing technical assistance on a wide range of fronts.

And fourth, marketing and promotion of local businesses, something we have heard since February, as we've been with Mayor Ron from the business community, that they desperately want.

Progress in these areas will be measured through clear performance metrics.

Now in the output and outcome model you're familiar with with our entrepreneurship and innovation contract from how many women in minority owned businesses this contract serving to the actual average hourly wage of the jobs that it brings.

You will receive real data each year showing the impact of this work.

They bring decade of economic development experience, and they will be ready to hit the ground running with us on day one.

This is a one-year contract.

It was included in Mayor Ron's 2026 balanced budget you adopted in September or adopted in November, excuse me, and it includes up to five additional one-year renewals should the council wish to continue it.

I'm happy to answer any questions if I missed something.

Thank you.

I just I had a question.

Sorry.

Yeah, no, no, it's okay.

Go ahead.

Mayor, I know you said this was for possibly two full-time employees who include some travel experience expenses, marketing and promotion.

Do you have a breakdown of the budget that of the for the whole 250,000?

Um, in regards to the specificity around that, you can actually look at this chambers proposal, which is an attachment to this memorandum.

It has a more refined breakdown.

Now I will notice that you might have seen in the memo.

They originally responded with 263,000 during contract negotiations.

We brought that down to 250,000.

And so that's the difference you're going to see.

Thank you.

You're very welcome, Councilmember Turk.

Um, yes, I are you are you done?

Okay.

Um, I just wanted to, you know, you kind of talked about this as an extension of the team.

So when we get a report, is it all going to be uh comprehensive or will it be separate reports?

How how will that structure sort of work?

Thank you for the question.

Um, what we're looking at right now is inside of the contract makes in something you're used to.

You're going to get a presentation from our contractors just like you do every year.

However, one's the things we're working on next year is actually really robust more quarterly reports that include the metrics across all economic development.

Started junkie consulting, the internal team with Chung and myself, and then the Chamber of Commerce's work here in one cohesive place.

As of right now, too, you can actually review that on our city website.

We have a progress report.

We update it every single month.

Number of new business licenses and jobs we're seeing, as well as our contract services.

So yes.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Minister Jones.

Oh, oh, okay.

Okay.

Um, thank you, Devin, and thank you for your and I know uh Blake isn't here, is Chung here.

I know thank you to all three of you for your work on this, and um I'm excited about it, and I know it's been in the works for a while, so I appreciate you.

Um, item A19 is a resolution to approve a services agreement in the amount of 175,000 dollars with the downtown Fayetteville Coalition for a three year term.

Um this is Joanna Bell, who is our city representative on the downtown Fayetteville Coalition Board.

I know has been working hard on this.

Are there any questions?

Miss Turk.

Um, hi Joanna.

Hi.

Um I'm just it's uh it's sounded like from the memo that um the amount had been the same every year, and so instead of it going through experience payable, it's just going directly to the downtown coalition.

Is that is that accurate?

Did I read that right?

Uh it's very close.

Um, so this represents a modest increase, and I think ultimately a real success story um because initially sort of the city was contributing to downtown Payville Coalition by incubating that organization in Experience Fayetteville until it was able to stand as an independent organization.

It has proved itself ready to be an independent organization, and so it is now standing as an independent 501c3.

Um, and so this represents sort of a combination of both that path pass through agreement and several sort of standing side agreements.

Um, for instance, we the my the arts and culture division always co-produced Phantasma with the downtown Fayetteville coalition and sort of uh you know provided some funds to make that event happen.

Um that now is part of this one agreement that will cover all of the different activities.

So this represents um a slight increase from 125,000 three years ago to 150,000 out of the parking fund, then that sort of phantasma funding um from the arts and culture division as well as a contribution from the long-range planning projects, particularly around the downtown um master plan engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joanna.

Okay.

Um item A20 is a resolution to award RFQ 25-15 and sign a contract with Rainier.

I hope I'm pronouncing this correct correctly, and I apologize in advance.

I will make sure I am before next week.

Um, Alomar Architect Inc.

for the design of the animal services facility in the amount of 100 180,235, and to approve a budget adjustment.

Wade, if you could go ahead and come up because I think you have the next several items and they're likely to be some questions along the way.

Does anybody have questions for Wade about the architects with for animal services?

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Hi, Wade.

Um, but this is pretty much all contention on uh the voters approving uh uh the bond in in March.

Yeah, this is the first phase for the programming and uh assistance with site selections.

So it seems a little bit premature um before the voters um have an opportunity to vote on this facility, and I'd I'd kind of like to pull it off uh consent.

Uh I know we have a long agenda on next Tuesday, but I I just think we're kind of getting the the cart before the horse on this one and a couple of the other ones.

Thank you.

Um Miss Paxson, can you call that?

Okay, all right.

Um Miss Butch.

Thank you.

I I would remind everyone on council that yes, this is coming forward before we have the vote with the the on the bond issue, but how will we know what we're going to have, what we're going to design, anything if we don't start to work on it now?

And this is just kind of a preliminary, you know, work of that.

Um, I want to remind everybody that.

And it's not just you don't wait until the bond issue is done to start your planning.

So thank you.

I also want to just remind everyone that this is also not that this good bad or whatever, but just it so we are all on the same page that this isn't a new procedure that I'm bringing along by bringing these before the bond.

This was also what has been done for the past two or three bond issues that the city has taken out.

So it's not a new practice.

Um recently on the aquatic center.

Yes, and with the aquatic center.

Um Mr.

Stafford and then yes, Mr.

Stafford.

Okay, thank you.

And I guess uh to the the point of the other council members though, is there a contingency in here that if it doesn't pass that at that point?

Like, are we locked into paying that amount whether this passes or not?

And um, what happens?

Are we going to design a animal services?

You know, in case it doesn't pass, are we going to design it anyways?

And if it doesn't pass, we'll have the programming and conceptual design for an animal service facilities that we can use in the future.

Okay.

I think I would add to that as well.

Um some of the comments that I had made during our our bond discussions.

That current animal services facility is uh 50 plus years old at this point, it's just at the end of life.

So we're kind of in a situation where we have to start making some plans for a replacement building.

There's just no way around it at this point.

Okay, thank you for adding that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Ms.

Moore.

And just for further clarification about what these monies will bring us.

I mean, will we get one design based on the total all in bond uh price, or do we have some level of flexibility?

I think there's been some discussion, and I don't send me daggers.

I mean, I know we've talked about we're trying to look at 10 year capacity.

I mean, we do understand there are some financials here too that you know this is quite a price tag for this facility, and so does this allow us during this design process too to look at multiple iterations that we might actually want to consider as a city what those operational costs would be to make the determination of what we actually do put forward to voters, or do we just do the one kind of big and that's what the spend does?

It's just the one at the very top end of the price range with everything in it for the 10 years capacity.

I just I'm not quite sure with with this.

So the process is we've got a feasibility study and needs assessment study that we will build off of, and the architect will develop conceptual designs based on that.

And the very next item up is uh with a construction manager that we've chosen that will help us with cost, and so we will see what this will cost prior to uh going to the bond vote.

So it is, you know, it'll be what it is.

And this might be a question that goes in with the next question, Wade.

And so I guess that is my question too, is at what point do we identify knowing that there'll be additional um expenditures that would happen with the facility that would kind of be of this magnitude with the kind of scope of additional things?

Um will that during this process between these two items?

Are we also gonna get a better fill for the ongoing operational, which I would assume is gonna be you know quite a bit more than probably what we're experiencing in our current facility?

Yeah, we we don't currently have operational cost uh in this, but we could probably amend the contract to include that.

That would likely increase the amount of the contract, would be my guess, is that right?

Yes.

Yeah, um Keith, are you um?

Yeah, Dr.

Jones online.

Uh Dr.

Jones.

Uh yeah, and I may maybe I shouldn't know this, but uh I'm going to ask what is the timeline?

Um I know that if we um uh discuss this and vote on this, what what what would be what's our timeline?

Uh go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, we're trying to have a deliverable uh that all these projects come out at the same time for the voters to review and uh hopefully approve, which would be the end of January or 1st of February.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Minister Jones.

I don't think I heard the answer to her initial question.

So um Miss Moore asked, are there is it just one conceptual design?

Are there several designs?

And I know the question has been asked before that I haven't seen an answer to.

We first talked about building lists, and I remember the last agenda session.

There was a comment that there was no decision in where it would be built.

Is that all in the design that is it still WISC?

Can we be clear?

Can I just want to know what are we doing?

Uh as soon as we get these folks engaged, we'll do a uh a study of the sites of several different sites.

Okay.

And that'll help us determine uh which is gonna be the best for us.

Okay, study of several different sites for different plans.

That's my next question.

So is it one plan for different sites?

Uh the site will determine the plan, frankly.

Uh, because you can't just cookie cut or a design and put place it on a site.

So if it helps, I'd I'd this may not be what you're asking, Minister Jones Jones, but I think it is it we're not asking them to give us option A, B, C, D, E, F and us pick.

We're they're taking our feasibility study and what our staff has developed our needs are, and then presenting around that.

Is that correct?

Fair?

Okay.

That's great.

Okay.

Um Clerk Pax.

Council, where would you like any 20 to be placed at on new business?

Well, and that's what I also wanted to ask as a follow-up of of Ms.

Turk.

And no disrespect intended, but just to clarify, after hearing from your other council members, if you still wanted to pull it from consent.

Turk and no disrespect intended but just to clarify after hearing from your other council members if you still wanted to pull it from consent uh yes I would like to despite um previous councils or previous um procedures I still think um this is a lot of money and the voters haven't even had an opportunity to vote yet so um I would like to make the same motion for a twenty one too okay um and for a just a twenty two and a twenty three yes that's correct okay okay um is there something different about this like wanting to do that that we since that hadn't been done in the past or is there something is there more information we can give you or is it just on is it on principle of just because it hasn't gone to the voters yet you want the discussion it's on principle.

Okay.

Um clerk Paxton where do you want to put them or Ms.

Turk do you have a recommendation on where they go on the agenda I do not mayor.

Okay.

Clerk I'm gonna leave that to you if you could do what makes the most sense to you I'm supportive of that I'll we can yeah defer to you.

Okay it sounds like then I'm gonna go ahead and read and Wade can be here for questions but it sounds like they're asking to put on consent.

A21 is a resolution to award 25-16 and sign a contract with CR Crawford construction LLC for the pre-construction phase of the animal services facility in the amount of 12,500 dollars and to approve a budget adjustment um that is can I just ask can I ask a question um I hope I'm not putting my foot in my mouth Steven is the the mayor has the spending authority for that amount of money is there a particular reason why we then brought it I mean that doesn't have to go to council approval does it no it's below the threshold yes it's that correct Stephen you're correct I'd like to pull that from the agenda got a question before you pull that mayor yes because it's you're asking for a budget adjustment Stephen is that a budget adjustment in 2025 and we're we're not making any of these spending choices in 2026 well it would be an adjustment in 2025 we're gonna be approving that in 2025 so we'll start it out in 2025 and okay capital funds are used for this project 25 capital funds.

So Clerk Paxton can we pull A21 thank you a 22 a resolution to award RFQ 25 19 and sign a contract with Flint Co.

LLC for the pre-construction phase for the fire training facility in the amount of $15,000 and to approve a budget adjustment clerk Paxton can we please pull that from the agenda a 23 a resolution to award RFQ 25-1 and sign a contract with Miller Boscus lack for architectural design services for fire station 10 and the fire training facility and the amount of 2000 dollars plus five thousand dollars for reimbursable expenses and to approve a budget adjustment step can that also be pulled from the agenda looks like it mayor hey clerk Paxton will you please pull that from the agenda item a 24 yes ma'am sorry I'm so sorry I didn't since we were pulling them I didn't I but go ahead uh miss more okay um so I understand the state statute is that I believe yeah on the like that the yes the mayor has that ability I guess my question though is if there's a budget adjustment having happening for 25 I guess are you telling me that there is fluidity within these budgets and that there was additional monies that could be available to go ahead and spend these because I don't think we budgeted in 25 that we were gonna necessarily be doing these things for the bond project and so I guess I'm a little confused that we're not gonna try to approve spending changes through the council I I think generally speaking these would be considered uh capital projects capital improvement projects and we do have budgeted funds for capital capital projects you I'm sorry Steven I was trying to hear you said we do or do not we do we do have we do have funds for capital projects that's correct okay can we get an update on what what the budget looks like for that as like what the current uh amount is in that bucket and then what liabilities are against that please is that something that we can be provided sure okay thank you okay moving to let's see what did we just do we just cut A23 is that right okay a twenty four a resolution to approve the purchase of fuel station equipment for the police department headquarters in the amount of 20508 dollars and 23 cents from spatco energy solutions pursuant to a source well cooperating per excuse me cooperative purchasing contract okay and that's thank you Wade um item A25 is a resolution to approve a police department policies 26.1 point one 26.1 point one disciplinary matters and award procedures 41.2 point seven department response to subjects with mental health issues and 61.2 collision investigation

Okay.

And that's thank you, Wade.

Um item A twenty-five is a resolution to approve favorable police department policies 26.1 point one 26.1.1 disciplinary matters and award procedures.

41.2.7 department response to subjects with mental health issues and 61.2 collision investigation.

Chief Reynolds, can you please come up?

Or I'm sorry, Deputy Chief Scott.

Good afternoon.

Excuse me.

Good afternoon.

Council.

Do you want to go ahead?

Ms.

Moore, is it okay with you if he goes ahead and presents and then follow up with question?

Okay, great.

Okay, yes.

Please go ahead.

Yes, ma'am.

So the Federal Police Department's currently in a process of uh of reviewing, updating, and amending policies to meet new accreditation standards, standards, protocols, state law, and and some language changes to kind of streamline some language.

As outlined, we're requesting the approval of amending three current police department policies.

Excuse me.

The first being 2611 disciplinary matters and awards procedures, and specific to that.

There's some it contains some changes, including from officers to swarm personnel, and this is pretty consistent in some of the other ones from in that in that simple language, if you will.

And to match our accreditation CLIA standards and updates to conform to current practices and current city policy.

Within that is our um departmental interdepartmental, but our relationship as we grow, we've had more relationships developed within the police department.

So we've updated our policy accordingly and to match city policy.

The next policy would be 4127 department responses to subjects with mental health issues.

Some of this is again language changes from officer to swarm personnel.

There's also updated practices as our our uh our cert team has been more active.

We've been able to refine processes as well as uh police officers' individual duties to work with cert, and there's been some language in state law that that defines it's provided better definitions along the way.

So excuse me, that state law compliance and definition is also included in that.

And lastly, the 61.2 is our collision investigation, and again, existing policy contains changes to meet updated practices and state statutes, specifically with regard to the state statute, it moved from a thousand dollars worth of damage to three thousand dollars worth of damage.

You can imagine it doesn't take much to cause that much damage on a vehicle nowadays.

Aside from that, I am uh open for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Um before we read the unfinished business section, Clark Paxton, how would you feel about putting the excuse me?

Um Theresa, I think it was A20 and A21, just those two at the end of new business.

Does that work?

Okay, I was just thinking about that.

Might make sense.

Okay.

And yes, yes, sir.

Sorry.

Mayor, didn't it?

You pull A21 just to completely pull it.

You are correct.

I sure did.

A twenty.

I'm sorry, that would be A20.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Stafford.

A20, then at the end of the business.

Thank you.

Um, okay, unfinished business.

Item B1.

Um, it's a rezone for North Marks Mill Lane.

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

Jonathan is here, and go ahead, Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh staff has spent the last week or so uh coordinating internally and with the applicant on the questions that council posed at the end of last week's meeting.

Uh, we are on track to have answers for all those uh for council and the public uh next Tuesday with the traffic analysis specifically intended to be complete in advance of the meeting.

I understand that's a more complicated document that the council may benefit from having in advance and and having the opportunity to to look up.

Uh since staff is not developing that, we don't have control of that timeline, but it was shared today that the intent is to have that uh Monday at the latest, but the goal is to have it later this week and hopefully have it included in the final agenda before that goes out.

Um that said, and and given the level of detail in some of the the council's requests, I do want to touch on the rationale again for for considering uh development level details with rezonings or or not considering development level details with rezonings.

Uh this includes two primary reasons that I want to highlight for the council.

The first is the one that you most primarily hear me speak about.

I have no way of guaranteeing that a development will occur uh as it's proposed at the time of rezoning.

Uh, I think it would be uh rude to council's intelligence to suggest that if the school district doesn't, if the school district gets this resonant, they probably won't develop it with a school.

So that that's less of an issue with this one.

I think with a large institutional user, they will tend to uh act the way they're indicating that they're going to act.

Uh what I want to highlight is more importantly, again, given the high-level detail we got into at the last council meeting.

The second of those reasons that uh I, as staff and staff more generally like to decur discourage council from considering development level details with rezonings, and that's because the development review process is very iterative.

There are layers and layers of regulations that uh design teams are working with, whether it's a traffic engineer, a civil engineer, a landscape architect, an architect.

Uh, and as those regulations are worked through and as development review occurs, it's very common for changes to be made to projects.

So my concern and caution to council is that we will answer these questions for y'all.

We'll provide it for you.

I think that the council has asked for that, and I want to honor your request, but it does need to be some acknowledgement that some of the answers to those questions could change as the development review process occurs, as happens very, very commonly.

It is very unusual for a project to look identical the day it was received by our planning division as the day our planning commission approves it.

So I want to put that before council and perhaps manage expectations for both the council and the public that uh there may be changes, they may be tiny, they may be medium-sized.

I mean, I don't want to try to characterize them necessarily, uh, but uh I I know that there's been uh some assertions that things are changing, and this is a sign of impropriety going on.

But when it comes to development, that is the fact and nature of it.

It changes uh with with quite a bit of regularity up until the day that project is approved, and we see some sort of design document.

So with that, I'm happy to take any questions, and again, we are working to get all those questions answered for uh council with uh emphasis on getting the traffic analysis to you all in advance of the meeting.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Jonathan.

So, you know, we had a long list of questions, and so uh those that you can answer internally, you'll be able to send those to us well in advance, I hope, and not wait till next Tuesday.

Uh we certainly can if we're able to get those answered.

I mean, the ones that, as I evaluate, I think there were eight large topics that I I identified in the questions I heard from the council members.

The ones that I feel like our staffs to answer or able to answer uh relate mostly to questions about FEMA permitting, uh, given that portion of floodway and floodplain uh adjacent to the property along uh College Avenue, Sublit Creek.

Uh, a question about what liability the city may or may not hold for damages associated with stormwater that is designed to our criteria.

Um sorry, I had my list in front of me.

No, I don't oh, questions about uh if there's uh a known cost share, which frankly I can answer that one right now.

There are no known cost shares on the table right now.

The district has not requested any at this point.

Um I believe those were the three primary ones that I heard that are directed at staff.

I think there are a few other questions that we can answer in conjunction with the applicant, including questions about uh uh land disturbance on the property, cutting and fill work of dirt uh and impacts that may have on retaining walls.

That there's a question to attempt to identify retaining walls around town that may be similar to what's going to be on this property.

Would it be helpful if I sent you uh a list of all the uh all the items like sidewalks, all of those kinds of things, traffic signals, all of that, because um that's a big cost, potentially big cost to the city, and I think that will help maybe inform our decision a little bit.

So I I I can send you at least the 10 that I've come up with and and would hope that you could give us kind of a good idea before next Tuesday.

A good idea of if of what the potential cost to the city would be for some of these additional improvements that would make these streets safe.

Uh, because I do think there was a recommendation in the previous traffic study.

I don't know about the new one that will be coming out about the signalization at old wire and and ash.

So um any of that kind of speculation on your part or thought would be incredibly helpful.

Certainly, yeah, and I don't mean to sound uh uh reluctant or cage.

Please send me any questions you all have.

Please send me any questions you'll have, but that included, I do want to reiterate on the the cost share part.

There is no request for cost share at this point.

As of this moment, all the feedback that we have given on this project is very common to any development.

There is a proposal to partner with the city on the traffic signal at uh college in Poplar, which the city is doing anyways.

Uh, the school district is interested in having a fourth leg to that three leg intersection.

Uh otherwise everything at this point is intended to be developed by the school district.

So just to clarify, if the traffic study comes back and recommends a light, uh a signal light at Old Wire and Ash, that will be that cost will be borne by the school district.

It could be if the traffic study indicates that the school is the sole responsibility, like the sole cause of that traffic addition.

Yes.

I mean, more likely, and a staff recommended this point with the last large scale development review is that the school district would pay an assessment for that traffic signal.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mary.

Um, and I'm I'm gonna ask Kit first because I don't want to ask Jonathan a question that might be outside of our purview of things to consider, but I know that uh compatibility is something we can consider.

And uh this came up this weekend on my drive back from uh uh prairie grove as on highway 62, and and even from Farmington when we're coming into Favon, I look up on the hill at Duncan and Hill Street, and I see uh the top of that hill being drastically changed.

So I'm wondering about the height of this project and and if it if it's going to exceed so it's on the hillside, and so I'm wondering if it's gonna breach if if the height of this is gonna breach the hilltop, and is that a question I can ask when it comes to uh under compatibility or or or of the you know, under compatibility and certainly compatibility is is I think the most important thing when you're talking about rezoning.

However, uh many of the things that have been talked about are really development issues and really should not be asked in a rezoning.

Uh as Jonathan was saying, we don't really know what's going to be there until it gets approved by the planning commission.

It has to go through the planning departments first for their evaluation, then it goes to the planning commission to see if what kind of rules and orders they might place on it and what kind of limitations they might place on it.

And so to try to look at that during rezoning when nobody else has really looked at the real project, is so speculative that I would discourage you all from from grasping at that kind of stuff.

Well, I'm not I'm not trying to grasp at things.

I just want to be able to consider what we should consider under due diligence when it comes to these issues of compatibility and stuff.

And and I think when we're given, you know, when we're being shown, we didn't ask them for architectural drawings, they're showing those to us.

And so then I think it does bring up a question of uh for me again, like is this gonna reach the hilltop?

Is this below the hilltop?

Because I I think there are questions about uh compatibility in the neighborhood uh regarding that.

But if it if you think that's out of bounds, I'm willing.

Like again, I don't want to ask a question that this not really under our purview that we have we have so much to consider already.

I don't want to necessarily add things that we shouldn't consider.

Well, I appreciate that, but and I can say that the school board did come out and and try to show you a big project, and I didn't even like it at that point in time because they're asking for a rezoning, they're not asking for approval of this project.

Yeah, and so the zoning has uh you're supposed to consider whatever's gonna be able to be possibly built there.

Is it a better zoning than what it is now?

And we've gotten way into this project, which makes me concerned because neither they nor you all really should be considering all this.

Uh and I think at this point it's probably pretty hard not to because they've been presenting all this stuff, but it but it's not something that we normally uh uh I would normally be saying stop, don't talk about that.

Uh since they went out and did all this, I didn't stop anything, let it all go.

But I want you to remember the main reasons for uh the to decide a rezoning, and that's not the project itself, it's the use of the land for this.

Uh you can consider that, but uh some of these other questions I've heard about uh uh give me a little pause about what what you're gonna do.

I think you need to look at the overall use of this property.

Now, obviously the school district is not gonna buy property that's not gonna build some sort of educational facility on it.

I think that's goes without saying, and so obviously you can consider that, but uh everything else, whether it's a three-story building or two-story building and and other things like that, uh, are really gonna be handled at the development process rather than that rezoning.

Understood, but um the difference in height um regulations as far as RSF4 compared to P1.

P1 is allowed to build higher than R S F four.

And is that is that a correct statement?

That is correct.

So I guess maybe I I I could just query in a a general way of what are we looking at what could be built under P1 height-wise, and what does that look like on a maybe three, four, five, you know.

I I forget, I don't know what P1 allows height-wise, uh, off the top of my head, but it it was calibrated to not have a height restriction because the uses in it are so varied.

I mean, you could have the the steeple of a church or the minaret of a mosque that are very tall, or you have a very low slung building or a cemetery with no buildings.

Um I would like to ask what would you know the difference of what a three, four storage structure versus a a maybe five-story structure would look like or four story structure, like just a simple compared to the top, you know, if you look at the elevation and compare it to the top of the hillside.

Uh what are we looking at?

Would that be okay?

I mean, is that or am I pushing it?

And if I'm pushing it, I'll just back off and I I'll I'll do my own drawings at home.

Well, I you know, uh they're they're saying a three-story building, and of course, uh Jonathan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if you have a single family house, it can be three stories too.

Oh, okay.

That's correct.

Okay, then I I'll just withdraw that consideration.

So you don't have any question answer there.

Okay.

Do we have other questions?

And uh Miss Bunch, I think your light was on earlier.

Do you want to you okay?

Okay.

Um item B2, just making sure I didn't miss anybody.

Item B2, um, and on unfinished business is an ordinance 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.

Um this will be on unfinished business.

Unless we have questions for Kit or Jonathan.

Okay.

Item three of new business.

Have do we have a request to table, Jonathan?

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, in speaking with the applicant this afternoon, they recognize that the agenda is very full and that they may want to uh modify the request in some way, shape, or form.

And so they'll be asking to table this request to January uh to be able to coordinate with council members and and and neighbors to potentially address any concerns.

Um that's uh I wanted to communicate out to the council in case you're interested in one accommodating that request, and if so, if you wanted to move it to the top of old business, you could do that right out of the gate and be down one item.

Um Mr.

Stafford.

I I think we should maybe move that since they do want to table.

Um I I think maybe we should move that to B1, um, so that we don't have people here waiting through these other longer issues.

I I would almost uh recommend that we also move uh the short-term rental ordinance to maybe B2 because I I do feel that that's also gonna be a little quicker uh than the uh the rezone.

Well, that's really an internal argument as you remember there was not very many comments if anything from the public on that.

And I I just think that uh it would be better to go ahead and leave it where it is now.

I can see the other one being moved to the first because that's just gonna be taped.

I noted, thank you.

So what uh Ms.

Turk.

Um I just I've had a lot of public people reach out about item B3 with some concerns, and so uh the applicant can't change their mind at the last minute and and not table it.

I I guess I just want to make sure that the citizens know that for sure it will be tabled or or should they show up.

Yeah, so the table is all I have is the applicant's word, and I asked them to to give that to me in writing as well.

Yeah, so the tabling I have is the applicant's word, and I asked them to to give that to me in writing as well, uh, which one I can convey that to you all.

Um, but uh short of that, I no, I cannot guarantee.

But you U8 have the authority to table something ultimately.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

And I will also to address those concerns, Bob, as I've done in the past, I will say at the beginning of the meeting, if you are here to talk about you know whatever item that ends up being, we there's it's likely that that will be tabled.

I mean, I will also do that so people don't sit through B1 and B.

Yeah.

Or did we move it up to B one?

Is that what happened, Clerk Paxson?

Okay, great.

So B3 is now B1.

Uh Ms.

Bunch.

Well, I would say, since I was the person that brought this forward for reconsideration, um, I would not, you know, I I'm fine moving it up, but uh, if there's discussion about tabling, it either needs to be tabled or not tabled.

And I'm not going to support talking about it since we're, you know, at the next meeting if we're now talking about tabling it.

And I agree with Teresa on that.

You don't get to just, oh, I might table, I might not.

You either table it or you don't.

So I'm kind of like, you know.

So it's my understanding is the council's ability as the applicant doesn't actually have the ability to table you all to table.

The applicant is just requesting that you all table.

So that's in y'all's hands.

But the applicant's saying he might need to table it, right?

He verbally told me he would like to table it.

Like to table it.

I told him I would convey that information, but I would also like that in writing.

And did you get it in writing?

Not yet.

This conversation was about an hour and a half ago.

Okay, okay, thank you.

But either way, you are okay with it being moved to B1.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

That gets us to new bit.

Yes, sir.

In regards to Teresa's comments about the neighbors and people, uh, I I would feel comfortable in communicating with them that we're going to table it and so that they don't show up.

I mean, I yeah.

I I certainly think that we shouldn't.

I mean, because even if he showed up and was like, Oh, I don't want to table it, you have the ability still to table it even against his right.

Yes.

My inclination would be to table Mr.

Wheedaker.

And and I'm going to be a the contrarian tonight, and just say, you know, this is a reconsideration of our previous vote.

How much can they change what we're reconsidering?

Because I'm prepared to just vote on the reconsideration period.

If he wants to submit a new application and it's that different, it seems to me it should be a different application.

But I was under the assumption we're just reconsidering our vote on what was submitted to us that night.

My understanding is that that's what his expectation is, and that it's not about changing it.

It's about if I can just be candid, it's about he knows the meeting is going to be long.

He knows he's coming up after Ramey and short-term rentals, and probably would like to just not deal with it, quite frankly.

You are after you reconsider something, then it comes back right before the final vote.

Now that doesn't mean the city council can uh amend it if they want to at that point in time.

You can have no conversation, just vote immediately if you want to, or you can if you want to be uh allow the applicant to address you, you can do that.

I think that would take a vote.

So there's lots of things you can do.

Uh but uh usually it's gonna take a vote of the council before any public comment, including the applicant would be able to say anything to ask for a change.

Okay, that brings us to new business.

Um actually, first, forgive me.

Uh we have a brief presentation from um the public facilities board um is going to come and talk to us a little bit about that.

And I think it's is Aaron Bragg, is that correct?

Aaron Burge.

Berg.

I apologize.

I knew I was gonna do that.

Aaron Berg.

Um thank you for being here.

And um, if you could just kind of give us a a brief overview about the public facilities board and and what you all do.

Absolutely.

So my name is Aaron Berg.

I'm the new chair of the public facilities board.

The public facilities board uh or the concept of public facilities boards have been part of Arkansas State Law since the 1970s.

Um I believe we've had our public facilities board as predecessors since the late 70s.

I'll start with what I think the two sort of major points are that I'd like you to take away from this presentation, and then I can go into some of the history and the details because it gets a little knotty.

Um the two main takeaways are the public facilities board is a very interesting vehicle that can be a tool for the the city council and for the mayor's office as we pursue various goals related to property and development and things in Fayetteville.

The the range of things that are allowed by law are quite broad.

And in the case of the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board, every project that we might undertake comes for a view to the council before it's undertaken specifically.

And so I think we're both a very useful tool, and we are not an independent tool.

We will never be able to do anything that might run against your wishes.

And so I think there's an opportunity for us to partner and work to use some of the capabilities we have that are either unique or at least fairly uncommon while also avoiding any risk or independence that might not be positive.

So with that very, very broad structure, let me talk about what we typically do.

Um so I'm gonna read this because I I want to make sure I get the wording exactly right.

Our public facilities board right now uh is authorized to work in four different areas.

Um so we're able to um participate in residential housing for low and moderate income families, health care facilities, residential housing, health care and related facilities to the elderly, and then we had uh something added in 2000 that allowed us to issue revenue bonds for recreational and tourist facilities and residential units for persons of low and moderate income, as defined by section 142D of the Internal Revenue Code.

So those are the areas that we work in.

Um the types of things we're able to do include owning property, operating property, issuing financing, um entering into contracts again, a very broad set of goals.

Um, the only type of business that I'm aware of that the public facilities board has done in the last 10 years is similar to the proposal that you'll hear just after this, um, which is we're able to issue revenue bonds uh in this case for uh housing related to the elderly.

Um, and those revenue bonds are financed by the project, and so we operate as a pass-through.

There's no risk to the city when we do that.

Um, we're responsible for issuing the debt that turns it into um uh tax advantage debt, but then the obligator for the uh for the debt is the the party that's borrowing in this case Butterfield Trail and any payments they might go directly to bondholders.

If they're not able to pay, the city's not on the hook.

Um, that that's sort of the the bread and butter.

Um, I think one of the the main points to do this presentation and maybe answer some questions is that's all we've done.

I don't know that that's all that we could do.

I mean, obviously there's a broad scope, and I know that there's some very ambitious goals and needs uh across the city, and so I'd be excited to figure out how we might use some of the capabilities we have to help forward that.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

And um before I open it up to questions, um, I just wanted to just sort of share.

I know that it gets confusing because we have this presentation and then we have an item on new business.

Um, we will hear from the representatives from Butterfield Trail.

And so if you all could hold your questions about that project until um their attorney and their representatives are up.

But um, I wanted you to have the opportunity to talk about public facilities boards more generally and keeping it.

Yeah, just a comment.

I think this is something that we talked about during our bond discussions on this as a method that we could utilize to uh support affordable housing going forward.

And this is something that's also been recently in the new Springdale a couple months ago, utilize their public facilities board uh to purchase some land.

So this is definitely not a one-and-done type project.

This is something that it's a method, a funding mechanism that doesn't, it's not debt that the city has, it's the public facility boards kind of works uh on projects and helps with the kind of a unique funding mechanism.

Great, thank you.

Do we have questions?

Uh, Mr.

Stafford.

Um, as far as uh you know, you're talking about collaborating working together, as far as uh kind of like an instigation, say for for uh housing for low-income residents.

Is that something that should come to us and we should come to you and say, hey, can you work on this?

Or is it something that the public uh facilities board would say, hey, here's an idea, let's bring it to council, like or or either.

I mean, should it so my opinion is it's an either-or.

I think in the past decade, the way that the public facilities board has worked is largely people who are interested in partnering with the public facilities board for that pass-through debt structure have come to the public facilities board, and then the public facilities board has worked with the city.

Uh, depending on y'all's wishes, we're happy to be creative and start to identify what projects might look like in partnership with the mayor's office.

We're also happy to have you bring ideas to us to say this is something that we're interested in, how might the public facilities board work?

Um, I think my main goal would be I'd love to understand what your intent would be in terms of what projects we may or may not do, so that we don't spend a bunch of time working up something that's of no interest.

Yeah, well, I I think there's a great appetite for creating housing for the I guess you couldn't really do the missing middle housing, but the the lower uh the much needed like lower income housing.

And so that would be an area where if we ran into an element that may not fit within our current structure, uh you would be able to change it so that it would have that broad arremit again without changing, or I mean you could change this, but I wouldn't recommend that you do without changing the project by project approval that you have at the end of the process to make sure that the risk is managed.

Okay, awesome.

Thank you.

I'm excited.

I know we have more council questions, but Marley, I think I skipped over you when he was presenting it.

I'm sorry.

Would you like to go ahead?

Yeah, I just wanted to underscore that my team and housing and community services.

We've I've had some initial conversations with Mr.

Burgen.

We're eager to continue working with them moving forward and also looking at any potential uh sort of ordinance level language changes that we might need to sort of make uh you know different types of housing projects possible moving forward.

So excited to work with you.

Um Ms.

Moore and then Minister Jobs.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I'm very excited about the public facilities board um and the uh available options that it gives our city.

Um and I like that we're having a chat now, but I do think we probably should think about uh legislation that does give them some level of direction to ask them to kind of look into certain things and for us to be able to do those diligences along with the mayor's office staff and with our chief housing officer.

Um the areas, and and I know we had some discussions during the self-tax bond uh conversation is that this really is very project specific too, though.

So you know, it's a lot of energy and labor that has to go, you know, it's a parcel of land, it's a apartment complex, you know, it is project by project, and so you know, it's very whack-a-mole, it's a lot of energy.

I will tell you in my diligence that I've done speaking with um the folks that do this work in Arkansas to finance the fastest these projects can go too is uh six months would be quick, but we're probably talking about you know, nine to twelve month timelines.

So the quicker we on the uh directional side that we are to you know the things that we really want to narrow a focus on, probably the better, just because once the project is identified, it does take time to do those additional diligences.

Um, and I'd like to elevate a few areas for us to really think about.

Um, we have gotten the assessments uh of our housing inventory from our staff that I'm so thankful for that have really shown at some of our lowest AMI levels that we're seeing those gaps widen.

Um, and then part of our strategic goals are to preserve historically affordable housing, but we even know in decisions we've unfortunately had to make here on this dias that uh some of the housing that's come in, you know, in particular for multi-family has sometimes been displacing that historically affordable.

And so I really um want to uh put out there that I think the marching orders, I think that would be really helpful would be to have a focus around preserving historically affordable housing, which is usually doing like our voucher programs, um, does our partnerships within any of the HUD avenues.

Um, but I also too um want us to be able to think about and consider.

Um I'm gone off my top of my head, so I might be a little off, but I was surprised that you can do projects that are somewhere around I think 150% AMI.

It's it's higher than I thought it was.

Um and so when we too think about planning communities and how neighborhoods can thrive and have quality of life, um, you know, the mixed income um in the mixed use areas too that we can consider when we think about um additionally in our um uh city plan that really looks at those tier centers and those neighborhood hubs to really think about how we strategically incubate uh that future planning and housing and mixed use that we want to see as well.

Um, and so they're a volunteer board, and I'm really appreciative that they volunteered and stepped in.

They're all new to that board, and so they're learning.

But I I've seen the eagerness, I think the expertise is there too.

Um so I'm really excited um to look at the additional projects that we can do.

Yeah, thank you.

Minister Jims.

Thank you.

I I just had a couple questions.

What was your number two?

You said four areas, first was residential, low income, no risk to the city, and then your second was so so the four areas that we're currently authorized to work across are number one residential housing for low and moderate income families, number two, health care facilities, number three, residential housing, health care and related facilities for the elderly, and then number four uh revenue bonds for recreational and tourist facilities and for residential units for persons of low and moderate income, as defined by section 142D of the internal revenue code.

That last subcomponent of section four sounds overlapping with a third, and I'm too new to know if if that's intentional or not.

Um, those are the areas that we can work in.

The types of projects we can do run a broad gamut.

The the no risk to the city type of financing that I described is that a revenue bond that we can issue that acts as a pass-through.

That's not the only sort of thing we can do, and there are types of projects that could create risk for the city.

We're able to own property, we're able to buy property if that's something that we decide to pursue.

Um, right now, the only business that the public facilities board has active uh is an outstanding pass-through bond to uh Butterfield Trail Villages.

I did um also hear that there's opportunities for operating those properties.

It's possible based on how the public facilities board mandate is written very generally.

I don't know if it would be permitted based on what we have right now within the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board, but that's certainly I think that would be a great example of the sort of thing where we said there's a directional appetite to explore this, then we could go look at that, and we could also work with Marley's office to understand what other options might be.

I think one of my perspectives is I don't think that there are a lot of things that the public facilities board can do uniquely, but I think that there are a lot of things where it's one of the it may be the best vehicle for for doing something.

So I'm gonna throw out a couple of terms and you tell me.

So is there something that you can do in collaboration with FHA?

I'm not sure.

Okay, that's okay.

And have you heard of the CSU, the crisis stabilization unit?

We lost our crisis stabilization unit, which was a mental health unit here to stabilize individuals that were dealing with crisis issues around drugs and mental health issues, but that's something that we need.

So I'm just going to have you heard of that one before.

That sounds like a healthcare facility, so that sounds like it may be permitted in our current structure.

But again, if if we were determined that it was not, that would be something that as part of the project you could you could amend.

I know that there was this, I don't think ever came to council, but there was a project several years ago where um a school was interested in potentially using the public facilities board to finance uh a renovation of their facility, and it was clear in that because educational facilities are not something the board's authorized to talk about.

That project was possible, but first we would need to talk to the council about amending the ordinance.

And are all of your projects on city property, city owned property?

So today, the only project we have is the Butterfield Trail Project, which is not on city property, I don't believe.

Um so it can be either or.

It can be either or.

One of the interesting nuances that our our um council has been telling us about is that there are some situations where public facilities boards in other parts of the state have even been involved in acquiring property that's outside the city limits and like an annexation.

Uh I'm sure that there's a lot more nuance there.

And I think given how broad the the sort of range of possibilities is and how specific the projects that we'll want to undertake are, I'd say bring all ideas and we can try and come back to you quickly with the yes, no, or conditional.

And I the last one that I had on my list was um managing property for our unhoused community, even though um the city does not want to be in a position to manage that if there's a possibility to operate and manage something for unhoused, because most of them are below AMI, way below.

They're below AMI, and so they are low income.

I I think participating and financing for those sorts of facilities seems like it would fit pretty pretty squarely into the existing mandate, either health care or housing.

Um, operating is something that public facilities boards, I believe, are authorized to do.

Um, we're a five-person volunteer board um with uh a part-time attorney that that does does work for us on a project basis.

So if we were to start considering doing operations, I think that would be a much bigger discussion.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you so much, and thank you for doing this work and for volunteering.

I was I think the council should be proud of um of your appointment because you all we we appoint him to this board, and I think we have done a great job, sir.

So thank you.

My colleague Leslie is here also.

Um we've got some really great other board members for next time.

Yes, agreed.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, thank you.

Item C one is um this is also serves as a public hearing.

This is a resolution ratifying the resolution, a resolution ratifying the resolution of the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board, which approved issuance of public facilities bond revenue bonds for the Butterfield Trail Village project and prescribing other uh matters pertaining there too.

Kit, does that meet the criteria for me acknowledging it's a public hearing?

Yes, you after you, and this will be the one you actually have the hearing on, the resolution that the city council is going to determine whether or not they want to approve.

Okay.

And what you would do is after you read the title of that, you would open it up for a public hearing.

Okay.

Uh so that basically would be a public hearing probably before the council speaks, but that's the only difference.

Okay.

We just, but you do need to acknowledge it is a public hearing just for the prior to council commentary and questions.

Doesn't really have to be, you can open it up for a public hearing after them.

Whatever you prefer, you just have to make an official announcement that this is a public hearing when you open it up to the public.

Got it.

Okay.

Very clear.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm going to go ahead and now it is a public hearing now and I'm going to open it up if we have members of the public that would like to you don't have to it not this meeting you have to do it on the regular.

So we don't have the public hearing tonight.

We're just acknowledging just like any other item.

Okay great.

Thank you.

Okay.

So given that it will be the public hearing at next week's council meeting would you like to go ahead and hear from the group from Butterfield Trail Village or would you prefer to wait and have them do that presentation just at the council.

It's we're yes it's up to it's up to you you can do it just tomorrow or or just next week or you can do it now as well.

Come on up for the group well my name is Kevin Spears.

I'm CEO at Butterfield Trail Village.

Butterfield Trail Village I wrote a just a quick brief overview.

It's a very large facility 44 acre facility it's off Joyce Boulevard as you know it's been here 40 years now.

We are a type A continuous care retirement community.

We house about 418 residents and we have many levels of service and so being a type A you come in as an independent resident so it's almost like you have a like a buy-in so they pay a fee to come to the facility and for that fee we take care of them for the rest of their lives regardless of what that level of care may be.

So we have houses and we have cottages and we have apartments that people live in independently but we also have an 87 bed nursing home and we have a 15 bed memory care and we have a 15 bed assisted living unit.

And so as they age we we're contractually obligated to have them in the correct level of care according to their contract as they come in as independent and so right now for this project we're unable we don't have the bed space for our assisted living or 15 bed assisted living is not large enough.

So our project is a 38 room 40 bed assisted living project about a 4000 square foot building on the north or the kind of the southeast corner of our property and with that we're able to meet the contractual obligation of our residents.

Right now we have a waiting list to get into our assisted living but it's all organic so you have to be you come in independent and you kind of transition through the process so that's kind of where we are with ours.

Correct thank you Minister Jones thank you.

Do you um accept any low income in Butterfield?

No Butterfield is a private it's it's so you pay an entry fee to come in as an independent so it's almost like you purchase a unit an apartment a house or whatever.

And for that purchase price we take care of you throughout your your life.

Okay.

But this is going to be supported through a revenue bond through let me make sure the public facilities board is that what I'm just trying to understand schematic.

Sarah will be able to speak to the bond.

Yes go ahead.

Hi my name is Sarah Giamo I'm an attorney at Friday Eldritch and Clark we serve as bond counsel on this issue and so the facilities board actually acts as a conduit issuer so the facilities board issues the bonds but the obligor is Butterfield Trail so they do it on behalf of Butterfield Trail and Butterfield Trail Village Incorporated is a 501c3 entity that's how they're able to do this is a qualified 501c3 bond under the tax code.

Does that make sense?

When you use the word obligator can you explain in plain terms for those of us that might not be familiar because I'm not that's a new word for me as well.

Yes absolutely sorry legal jargon uh so the the entity that's actually responsible for paying repaying the debt is Butterfield Trail Village.

Does that make sense?

Okay will you stay there for just a moment in case you have other questions yeah thank you they're the ones receiving the money and then they're going to pay it back and there's tax advantage bonds and that's why people use this.

Yes.

Okay.

Do we have other questions for either the Friday okay great thank you all so much thank you.

Item C2 is an ordinance to approve the vacation of a 4,850 square foot portion of a tree preservation easement located north of 3600 North Greg Avenue contingent on the dedication of a replacement tree preservation easement totaling 5,534 square feet and other conditions.

If we have questions on this item I believe Willa is here and could and can speak to those or take questions if you have them okay.

I was just hoping to hear about the item a little bit tonight so I can digest before Tuesday please.

Okay.

So understandably.

Yes, so thank you.

Um this is a request to partially vacate a tree preservation easement that was dedicated in 2008.

And I should mention this is the first tree preservation easement vacation that has been brought forward since uh new ordinance was passed in July that modified the tree preservation easement modification standards.

Um just something to be aware of.

But um, so this property was acquired by the city in 2008, and the tree preservation easement was dedicated at that time.

Um at the same time, several utility easements were dedicated on this plat associated with a development uh that did not end up uh being completed.

And so as a consequence of that, um we do have a plat showing an exception for a sewer easement.

Um there is a sewer line running um across this tree preservation easement that never ended up being encompassed by a utility easement.

So the sewer line is there running through the tree preservation easement, and currently we have um a development in the review process that uh needs to tie into this sewer line.

And so, in order to tie in, that requires them to vacate the portion of the tree preservation easement overlaying that sewer line.

And um we have discussed this quite a bit with um engineering and the city utility engineers, and you know, we've looked into the options as I understand it.

Their options are to directionally bore a new sewer line underneath the tree preservation easement parallel to this existing line, and that wouldn't require a vacation because the um the maintenance could occur without um I think any sort of surface level disturbance.

Um, but the applicant's request their preference is to test and repair and utilize this existing line following this partial vacation of the tree preservation easement.

Um so if you if you have any more questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Um I should say, you know, they have agreed to dedicate an easement of greater size as well as um conditions including removal of invasive species from within the new tree preservation easement to be dedicated, um planting of 22 mitigation trees, and then this has also been vetted by the urban forestry advisory board, and we haven't received any other uh public comment.

And uh so Willa, this is pulling it up on my map.

This is right where Mud Creek Tail, Mud Creek Trail and Skull Creek Trail kind of intersect.

I don't know why that's a time twister, but yes, that's correct.

And and uh so that is a very, you know, or a fairly wooded area of the trail.

How much will this be a strip of trees that we're losing or yes?

It um it would be essentially a rectangular strip directly over this existing sewer line that would need to be cleared.

Okay, and that is that running east-west or north-south along.

It would be east-west.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Willa.

Thank you.

That puts us at C3.

It's an ordinance to approve vacation 25-17 for property located west of South Duncan Avenue and West Treadwell Street in Ward 2 to vacate 0.2 acres of sewer easement.

Does anyone have questions for Jonathan about this one?

Okay.

Item C four is an ordinance to approve vacation 25 25 for property located at 1370 and 1378 South Van Buren Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.25 acres of ride away.

C five is an ordinance.

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Stefford.

Yeah, I did have a question about this one.

Is this just a it looks like there's an alleyway in between?

Is that giving up this was a just orange you for those who have not to the map here?

This is in South Fayetteville.

Uh it's uh north of 15th Street, midway between Pinnacle Canagra Foods and South School.

It is a paper street that was platted, uh mid-block there, crossing the college branch uh creek.

So it's it's never been built to in its history since it was platted.

Okay.

And then what do we know the purpose of the vacation?

Uh my understanding based on the conversation that occurred at the planning commission is the property would like or the property owner, one of the adjacent property owners interested in possibly developing that area.

Uh as you have the opportunity to consider the discussion at the planning commission, you may see that staff originally requested a 30-foot drainage easement and public access easement through the right-of-way.

The drainage easement intended to convey stormwater to the college branch and the public access easement for some ideal future uh pedestrian connection through there since it is a rather long block without any sort of connection between uh after hearing from the applicant, the planning commission struck the public access easement component, not seeing it feasible to ever have some sort of sidewalk or bridge across the college branch and also reduce the uh drainage easement proposed from 30 feet to 20 feet, which is why you see the condition uh as written as the planning commission forwarded it, which is with that 20-foot drainage easement instead of 30.

Okay, thank you.

See Miss Moore or Mr.

Wiedaker.

Thank you.

Uh and this would be for Jonathan for all of the vacations.

Are there any of them that staff does not recommend approval?

Great question.

So I'm just gonna say the full sentence because I'm not sure if a no or yes is the correct answer.

Staff staff is in favor of all of the vacations that you're considering.

Ms.

Moore, I'm trying to eyeball it on this um exhibit A that we have, Jonathan.

I'm sorry.

C4, yes, thank you.

No, thanks for asking.

So C4 on exhibit A.

I just was trying to understand.

I know you call this like a paper road.

Um, and I know we talk about like different connectivities.

I was just trying to understand too, and haven't had time to pull it up on the map.

I apologize, but um hitting on Ellis Avenue, is there a continuation that that goes all the way through there?

Or is that vacated as well, or maybe doesn't exist?

The yeah, that's a good question.

What's proposed is to vacate this unbuilt street right-of-way, roughly to the college branch stream, which is mid-block.

So the remainder of it between the stream and Ellis would remain in place.

So this is effectively vacating half the extent of that public right-away.

Okay, I'm gonna go look at that then.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and if it if it helps orient you all to when you get there, this is the location of the an urban neighborhood rezoning request we received earlier this year on the corner lot where I think four or five streets come join that's right adjacent to that.

Thank you.

Okay, C5 is an ordinance to approve vacation 25-29 for property located at 618 North Rupel Road in Ward 4 to vacate 0.07 acres of utility easement.

It is a hotly contested pronunciation in our city, and so I always worried that I am alienating my voter base, depending upon which way I pronounce that.

So as we draw closer to election, we're just going to spell that street.

Um just to make utility easement.

Does anyone have any questions for Jonathan?

Okay.

Moving on to C6, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-30 for property located at 3383 North Gully Road in Washington County to vacate 0.10 acres of water easement.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead, Jonathan.

If I may, just I feel compelled to discuss this one because it's unusual.

This is not in the city of Fayev.

So statutorily, the city council does not need to consider this.

It is the city's water and sewer easement, however, so we have an interest in it and evaluating it with the legal department.

Ultimately, it is the council's uh authority to determine whether we need to maintain that interest in the easement.

So it's in the county.

So you're your the decision is not effectively like a normal easement vacation in that regard.

We are supporting it.

The water and sewer department is supporting it.

Uh, but I did want to point that out in case you get to it this weekend and you're wondering why you're looking at a utility easement in the county because you may never have seen that before.

Yeah.

Thank you for that's a good point.

Do you just have one clarifying question that it looks like from the memo, this is just potentially because of things that we in the city are doing to clean that up, or is that being requested by a particular property or project that's asking us to do that?

This is just potentially because of things that we in the city are doing to clean that up, or is that being requested by a particular property or project that's asking us to do that?

I was just trying to understand kind of the motivation or the reasoning behind why we would.

Yeah, yes, I think if I'm understanding your question correctly, that the goal is to rededicate this easement further to the east of it, I believe.

I think there's a lateral of a septic system nearby that this needs to be.

Correct.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Item C7 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-49 for approximately 0.2 acres located at 258 West Miller Street in Ward 2, from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre, to UN urban neighborhood.

Item C eight, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2025-53 for approximately 0.17 acres located at 1539 West Sligo Street in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

And on to if we don't have questions about that one, on to C9 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-54 for approximately 0.2 acres located at 187 East 12th Street in Ward 1.

From NC neighborhood conservation to UN Urban Neighborhood.

Um have a just a question about this one.

So this is uh East 12th, so at the corner of Washington Avenue, South Washington.

Yes, the southwest corner of 12th and Washington.

Um what would be what would urban neighborhood allow that that do we know the reason for the the rezone?

I don't believe we have specific development plans.

Um sorry need to skim their their request letter again.

I know that they would like the opportunity to develop it with a wider variety of of residential uses.

Currently, NC only allows single family, whereas UN would allow single through multifamily.

Uh they're also interested in the potential of developing the property with a uh an office, a small office or or small business.

Okay, and we do have other similar zoning around that doing that.

I think just to the east of South Washington, I believe we have multifamily duplexes and from a residential perspective, yes.

And and I'm actually glad you highlighted this.

I I thought we had caught this as planning staff, and I apologize.

It says that city planning staff and the planning commission support this staff that does not recommend in favor of this request.

Oh, I think what you're highlighting is a piece of that.

Uh this is uh a fairly uh singularly uh residential area, it's not on any sort of connecting street.

Uh and uh we feel that there's some conflict as well with the Walker Park plan.

Uh the commission did forward it to City Council 8 to 0, though, and uh I'll work with the clerk's office to make sure that memo is corrected.

I'm again I apologize.

So for those of you that may have missed that, the memo related to C9.

Um the city, the planning commission recommends the city staff does not recommend.

That's correct, ma'am.

That was our mess up, not the clerks, by the way.

So that's that staff planning staff, me.

Well, I was I was trying to say our I was trying to help not through your best, Jonathan Dang.

Ultimately me.

Okay.

Um C, are we at C10?

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-55 for approximately 0.3 acres located at 2040 North Easy Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre, to NSG, neighborhood services general.

I think this should be an easy one.

Oh, come on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for Jonathan on this one?

Because it's on easy avenue.

So I said I think this should be an easy one.

Get it like that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You looked so confused.

Anyway, yes.

Does anybody have any questions for Jonathan about the easy avenue rezoning?

What would neighborhood services would it uh allow some commercial use there is the the basic difference?

Correct, small to medium scale commercial and uh one through four family dwellings.

And and have we heard any feedback from the neighbors?

No, this request is actually being made from one of the neighbors in the neighborhood.

And then uh planning and staff recommends yes, yes, this report does read correctly.

We support it, and planning commission unanimously did.

Awesome, thank you.

Okay, all right.

Item C11, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-56 for approximately 0.83 acres, located at 1723 North Chestnut Avenue in Ward 2, from C2, Thoroughfare Commercial to CS Community Services.

Do we have questions for Jonathan about this one?

No jokes.

I'm not familiar with thoroughfare commercial.

What is it's not one we see often?

Not much used.

That's C2.

Oh, it's just C2.

Okay.

Oh, I didn't realize that either.

Okay.

It is uh if you had a chance to get caught up on the previous item.

This is just southwest of that.

It is at the northwest corner of Sycamore and Chestnut, about uh it's probably closer to the Razorbat Greenway than it is to Greg, but it's in between those two streets.

If you know where Nomad's Trail site is, it's just south of that on the northwest corner of Sycamore.

Does community services allow residential?

It does.

Okay, cool.

Okay.

Um, I believe, unless there are any proposed agenda additions.

Is it was this?

Oh, this is just additional information, not an additional item.

Okay.

Um Keith, do you have anything to add?

I do not, Mayor.

Okay, I think water and sewer meeting is meeting right now.

That's correct.

We do have water and sewer meeting directly after this.

Thank you.

Uh I have I have one question.

We received this uh additional info.

What is this?

Jonathan, can you speak to this please?

Mayor, I can't speak to that.

This this was uh finalization of a final document associated with that tree preservation easement request since it is on city property.

Ultimately, the mayor is asked to sign that.

We we held that off until we understood how staff and the the parks board or I'm sorry, the forestry board were gonna recommend.

So this is just confirmation that the mayor has signed it as as to complete the application.

So that was item uh believe it was C2.

C2, okay.

Thank you.

And which item did staff not recommend approval of?

I I'm reading them and and it's not listed on any of them.

No, it's not that that is that is the error that that I made.

It is on C9.

C9 rezoning on 12th Street staff is not recommending.

It was a ta it was a typo of that.

I think John Jonathan, did you say that was your your fault?

You're the one that missed that or something like that.

Absolutely.

C9.