All right, good evening, everybody, and uh welcome to the first city council meeting of 2026.

I will uh am now calling the Tuesday, January 6th meeting of the Faithful City Council to order.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Present.

Mr.

Barna?

Here.

Ms.

Bunch.

Here.

Ms.

Tark?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Dr.

Jones?

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay.

Does we have an announcement related to firemen and excuse me?

First up is an announcement related to the firemen's and policemen's pension and relief fund.

I would like to note that while we say firefighters and police officers in the city of Fayetteville rather than policemen and firemen.

The state statute is clear on how this fund is named.

So that's it is the firemen and policemen pension and release and relief fund.

So this is the local pension report for 2025.

In keeping with statutory requirements, I am presenting this report for 2025 on the local police and fire retirement and relief funds for the city of Fayetteville.

Both of these plans were closed by law in 1983, and there are no longer any active working members remaining.

On August 15th of 2023, the City Council voted to consolidate the local fire pension and relief fund with LOTFE based on a request from the local fire pension board of trustees and a recommendation of the city's administration.

On July 15th of 2025, the City Council voted to consolidate the local police pension and relief fund with LOTFI based on a request from the local police pension board of trustees and also a recommendation from the city administration.

As both of these plans are now being administered by LOTFI, this will be the final city council report on these plans.

Moving on to the next presentation report is from our chief financial officer, Stephen Dotson with the sales tax and monthly financial report.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is the October sales tax report.

In October, the taxable sales in the city totaled approximately $301 million, which was an increase of nearly 6.8% or 19 million compared to October of 2024.

Retail trade was up 3% year over year, representing an increase of $3.7 million.

Building materials were up 1.3 million, and grocery stores were up 1.4 million.

Transportation and warehousing was up approximately 2.6 million, and we saw the accommodation and food services sectors up around 2.2 million dollars.

In total, we noted a 6.8% gain in taxable sales compared to 2024.

So this was another good month for us.

For a combined total for the month of October, up 5.7% compared to budget, or approximately 280,000.

And that's going to put the city on a year-to-date basis compared to budget through October, up a combined 2.9% or 1.6 million for sales tax.

And I just wanted to uh you know give you guys a reminder.

Uh all these sales tax collection reports, those are all posted out there on the city's website under the finance and administration department link.

And we also prepare a quarterly and monthly uh management reports, those are also located out there if anyone would like to take a look at them.

Uh any question on the sales tax report.

Okay, I'll move on to the monthly financial report.

And this report is for November of 2025.

Uh in November in the general fund, we saw sales tax up 3% or approximately 1.3 million.

Our franchise fees were down around 6% or 414,000.

We saw alcohol and beverage fees up 4%, and our building permit fees, those are still uh way up 47% through the month of November or approximately 1.2 million dollars.

Our turnback was up three percent.

Charges for services were down one percent.

Um, and our court fees, those were up around eight percent, or approximately eighty-four thousand dollars.

All in all, uh our fund total was up two point seven percent compared to budget through the month of November in the general fund.

Moving over to the street fund, our fund total was down around one percent uh compared to budget through the month of November, or approximately one hundred and forty-three thousand dollars, and we do expect that to be a leveling off in in the last month or so uh of the calendar year.

Over in the parking fund, our fund total was up two percent compared to budget.

Um, and that was led by increases in fines and fees, which were up around 123,000 dollars uh through the month of November in our parks development fund, our HMR taxes are up around 2% or $96,000, and our fund total is up around 4% or approximately 209,000 dollars through the month of November.

And the water and sewer fund, uh, those uh the revenues are primarily led by our charges for services, which are up around 4%.

Our fund total is up 3.4 percent overall, or approximately 1.9 million dollars in stormwater management.

Uh that's our new fund this year is a reminder, and we just started uh billing in August with September due dates.

We are on track, or we've billed approximately $901,000 in the stormwater management fund in 2025 in recycling and trash.

Uh, we're up 1.7% compared to budget through the month of November, approximately 273,000 dollars.

Uh, we noted that our franchise fees are up around 12%, and our charges for services were up one percent, or approximately 169,000 dollars.

And finally, over in our airport fund, our gasoline sales for the year are up 2.7 percent or approximately 80,000, and our number of flight operations are up five point nine percent.

Uh so that was a that's a a good month for the airport.

Um any questions I can answer or answer for you on the monthly financial report.

Okay, thank you.

I had a question, Mayor.

Yes, Minister Jones.

Yeah, just on the last one, you said um that gasoline was up 2.7 percent at 80,000, and then you said flights were up at 5.9 percent.

I don't think you gave a total on that one.

Oh, uh the the number of flight operations overall that's 1,478 more flight operations for the year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item of business is the annual election of a vice mayor.

At this point in time, I will entertain motions to nominate um yourself or a fellow councilperson.

And I believe that's all council person burnout first.

Uh mayor, uh, in recognition of her uh longevity on the council and her services as uh vice mayor previously.

I'd like to nominate Sarah Bunch.

Second, okay.

Is that councilman Turk is other member?

Okay, all right.

We have a nomination and a second for council person Sarah Bunch.

Hearing no other comments, I'm gonna ask for Clerk Paxton to please call the roll.

Mr.

Wheedinger, yes.

Mr.

Burner?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay, that passes, and congratulations.

Thank you.

Uh Councilperson Bunch on being the vice mayor.

Um, okay.

And now if we have any um looks like um, I see a couple lights on.

Berna.

I think I saw you again first, then Ms.

Butch, then Mr.

Stafford.

Oh, then Mr.

Stafford.

I don't have a uh agenda addition, but I wanted to make a motion to suspend the rules and uh approve the consent agenda as presented verbally the other night at uh agenda session as well as how it's presented in the minutes today or the agenda today.

Second.

Okay.

Um I saw I heard I heard your second and council members uh Stafford.

Yeah, um I I had thought we had pulled 83 A 34 from uh consent and it looks like we haven't, but uh I would like to okay.

Um last week was a little tricky.

I know several of us are on Zoom, so I'm sure that wasn't um in intentional.

Uh Clerk Paxton was that I I guess supposed to be pulled.

So can we um we have a motion?

Will you we make that into a motion to pull it now from consent?

Yeah, or Kit.

Does that need a motion or just does not need a motion?

Just a single council member can remove an item.

Okay, so that's to remove that A34.

Um given that, Councilmember, does your uh previous motion still stand and your second still stands?

Okay, uh Council uh member Butch.

If we pull one item, do we have to pull all the consent or no?

You can just pull the A34, which will then be heard first on new business, and then we have the motion to be able to approve the remaining consent items as presented in a second.

So um Clerk Paxson, we please call the roll for the motion to suspend the rules and uh and approve the consent items as presented uh with the exception of item a of the last item which will be pulled off consent.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Burnout, yes, Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk, yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

Okay, so that passes.

So the consent agenda has been passed, and that will take us, I believe, then we hear A34 as the very that first motion was a motion to suspend the rules.

Oh, votion.

So now let's have a vote on the consent agenda itself.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roles on the vote to uh to approve the consent agenda?

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Great.

That takes us to what is now our first item of new business previously noted as A34, a resolution to approve the per capita jail fee agreement with Washington County for jail services in 2026 and the amount of 76,715 dollars and 87 cents.

And I believe we have Chief Reynolds.

Yes, sir.

Maybe oh, okay, there you are.

Um if you could come and present this item.

Um and just for the those in the audience, we will be having public comment after the staff presentation.

I guess uh my question first would be for for council member stafford.

Um I put together a presentation at the agenda session.

Uh I don't want to belabor the topic.

I don't want to waste your time.

I don't want to waste the other council members' time.

I'll be happy to go through all that again, or I'll be happy to answer any specific questions you may have.

Thank you, Chief.

And the first thing I want you to know is I I'm gonna fully support this.

It wasn't I wasn't pulling it so I could vote no.

Um, but there were some things that happened in the last couple years that I think it's uh important that we take note of uh and there were a few investigations.

I believe your department conducted a vet an investigation, and the uh Arkansas State Police uh uh conducted it uh an investigation into uh misuse of county property uh with the jail budget and this uh specifically related to or the part that I'm concerned about related to uh the purchase of a bobcat skid stairror that ended up being used for personal use.

I mean that was we're being asked to spend 76,000.

That bobcat that ended up in somebody's house was most of that money that was 68 grand.

Um so I just think it's important that you know going forward again.

I I I support this, it's an important thing, but I I wonder if there's some sort of accountability we could put in place with the county that that they are legally using taxpayer funds and not misusing those funds, and if we have any sort of of checks we could put in place to that end, um, you know, going forward uh the years ahead of us and and or at least getting a report of what they did to rectify these situations.

I don't I don't know.

I don't know that I could even respond to that.

I want to I want to clarify uh one thing is that uh the Fayetteville Police Department did not uh play a role in any investigation with the misuse of county funds.

Uh that was done by the Arkansas State Police.

Um and so I certainly want to clarify that.

In response to your question, I I don't know what types of of checks and balances could be put into place to ensure that you know these particular funds or or even the tax uh money that uh the money that our taxpayers pay to support the jail are specifically being used for that purpose.

Uh all I could do is put my faith, and and I know that's that's that that's tough for some of us.

All I could do is put my faith in the leadership uh within our within our county government, um, with our county judge and and certainly our our county sheriff, uh, that the that is what these particular funds are being used for.

Um I can certainly speak to the legalities of the county, uh, you know, certainly taxing our citizens for the for the purpose of the jail, but also uh when it comes to uh asking for additional funds to support the shortfall as well, is that certainly as I mentioned last week at the agenda session, that it is within their purview uh and the Arkansas Supreme Court has clearly ruled on that in the past.

So I don't know if that's much of an answer for you, uh, Councilmember Stafford, but um maybe that's more of a question that would maybe be better served uh for uh your peers, your council members, uh, as to maybe how you could assure that that money is being spent for that.

Okay.

And and it and again, I mean that did come from just some other council members know that did come from that the jail fund.

Um and and again, again, I support this, but I I hate to see when we see things like this where uh a department is uh were found to be misusing those funds.

Uh it wasn't uh considered a felony level offense, but it was considered a a civil offense and and rose to that level.

And so again, I just wanted to bring up those concerns and and I do feel hopefully the the the county uh the sheriff's department and the jail uh will be more um responsible uh with our taxpayer dollars going forward.

Um thank you.

Um I know we have other questions.

I want to um make sure that if we have trust uh questions for Chief Reynolds that we can ask questions about the jail agreement, and I don't want to put you in the position of having to speak for the county.

Um I don't at all I understand what you're saying, but I also know that you know the county is a responsible and accountable for the county funds, and so I want to make sure that we're directing those questions and that responsibility in the in the right place.

Um I lost track of the order between Minister Jones and Ms.

Moore, so I'm gonna just start this way and and go and I I don't know who had their light on first.

So Miss Moore.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I know I brought this up a little bit at agenda session, but um, you know, with this contract, it's been the same contract that we're just continuing um, you know, to approve.

And I do want to, since this was pulled off of consent, discuss about going forward um what mechanisms we potentially have to either add addendum to this for accountability.

Um I think I should I told the numbers that I'm in front of me right now, but uh we're paying at a population per capita rate.

However, um we've made many efforts, and I will apply that we're doing uh more sight and release, et cetera, booking in less folks, and so um I think we're about 38% of the population, but I think we only booked in about 22% of the folks that went into the facility.

And so we're not really getting any kind of credit for our efforts.

Um additionally, when we talk about that there's state statute that says that um we can make this payment.

There's also state statute um code 1241506 that reads that counties shall give priority to in-county municipalities over contracts for out-of-county prisoners.

Um so we know that um that is not what the county has currently decided on their policy, and so we know that is caused currently there are 160 people in the facility um that are sleeping on the floor.

Um, oftentimes, you know, in conditions where you know toilets may be leaking sewage, um, and it can be very hard to navigate through there, which creates um safety issues both for those detained and those that are working.

And so I mean, my question is, you know, how do we at some point um you know put in uh you know an addendum or some kind of accountability because while there's a statue that says that we can be charged for it, we also are responsible as overlooking our faithful residents and visitors who might go to this facility about their overall safety.

Yeah, once again, I I I certainly don't know that um you know I um would have the answer to that question, uh Ellen, how we would do that.

Um, I I think that maybe I would default over to our our our city attorney is as much as I know he he probably might not have the answer, and there may not be a good answer for this.

Um obviously they're the ones uh the county uh are are the ones that uh that own uh the taxpayers in the county, the taxpayers in the city own that jail.

Um but when I think it comes down to the legalities of it, uh it's been very clear um that they could set the charges as whatever they say see fit.

And so I'm just trying as your chief, I'm just trying to do the best job I can to bring you the best deal possible for our taxpayers in Fayetteville.

And so that's why last week I had mentioned to you and in the years previous that today, since our city jail closed in 2004, we are paying the least additional fee than what we've paid for in that uh I guess it would be almost 20, 21 year period now at the 76,000 dollars and some change.

As I mentioned when the jail first closed, uh and for those uh you know, several years, 15 years, we paid uh approximately an additional 220,000 on the average.

And so when you compare that with other cities, uh, you know, I just stand before you to say that hey, I think we're getting getting a really good deal when it comes to what we're paying for those jail services.

Now, when it comes to answering your question on how do we resolve the issues of the overcrowding and you know, how do we assure that we're only incarcerating folks that are our responsibility of Washington County?

I don't I'm sorry, uh I you know I I guess that's uh that that's almost a like a million dollar question, or in this case it's a $76,000 question that I don't have an answer for.

How do we reach that agreement between the city of Fayetteville and Washington County?

And so uh I would once again I would probably defer to our city attorney Kit Williams to see if we have any standing at all.

You wish me to respond.

Yes, please, Mr.

Wiggs.

Um I have to agree with the chief on this, and I think one of the things that should not be overlooked by the city council is that the whole issues with the county jail, it is a litigation magnet.

They almost have to have an attorney on staff at all times for all the challenges that happen.

They do have an attorney on staff.

Okay, and we do not.

Before this, we closed our jail and had an agreement with the county.

We were very exposed.

We had cases in our city jail that led to settlements that we had to pay because I was on the city council that that hurt them and had to make the payment.

It's uh very beneficial to the city of Fayetteville not to have a jail.

And here we're getting a jail at a very inexpensive price to at least just been in a very, very long time.

This is a very good deal for our taxpayers.

If there are problems with the jail, then there are legal solutions to do it, not by the city, but by the persons that might be getting harmed.

Uh another thing, if there's been money misused, uh not used for the tax reasons that they have it, there's this thing called an illegal exaction that some attorney can file the suit on behalf of a citizen taxpayer and try to prove that this money was not used appropriately, and that would be an illegal exaction.

We as a city really don't have that right, it's to citizens, not the city.

So I think that if we keep your eye on the ball, that what are we going to do with the arrestees that we uh have to arrest for some reason?

We need to be able to put them in the county jail, and this is by far the best deal I've ever seen.

And before we had uh that deal, we spent a lot more on our city uh jail than we did 76,000 dollars.

I can guarantee you that it cost us a lot more than that.

So uh I I think that uh as city attorney, I sure want to see us to continue being able to incarcerate our prisoners in the county jail.

I just have one follow-up question.

Um have we arrested in the city of Fayetteville?

Anyone that's been taken to the county jail that has possibly lost their life's life over the last two years.

You uh at the hands of a suicide, is that what you're talking about, Council Member Moore?

Lost their life being in the facility from a faithful arrest that they were detained and detention.

Because we're talking about overcrowding unsafe conditions and we talked about the financial side but there's a human uh side to this that you can't put a dollar on so I'm I'm I don't I don't know if I could sit here and tell you with it within the last two years but I could see in November of 2024 Brianna Danielle Evans um did die and no in the facility and she was a failable arrest.

So okay well thank you for for reminding me of that like I said I I couldn't remember if it was in the last two years but certainly I knew that we had another one uh that was within the last seven years.

Thank you.

Um Minister Jones thank you.

Um I had similar questions um thank you council member stafford for bringing up those issues and the issues that I have it are issues of accountability not necessarily misuse of county funds but just issues of accountability based on this jail fee um agreement.

Um I'm grateful that we have this addendum and I think my question specifically is around the um agreement if you have any type of audit for compliance with this agreement or accuracy of what's being reported do they report quarterly or do you reporting annually?

Be in uh Washington County is that what you're asking Reverend you know I I don't know if there's any accounting measures that that the city of Fayetteville has in place um I you know I'm sure that we do uh it's something that that Steve Dotson could speak to as far as the internal accounting mechanisms for the city of Fayetteville but I'm but I would be you know it'd be another assumption on my behalf that that certainly uh you know Washington County does have some accounting or some audit measures in effect just like the city would that they have to ensure that you know these funds are being spent in an appropriate manner.

Um once again that would be uh probably outside of my realm and I I I don't have a good I'm just asking because if we're going to approve the agreement I just want to make sure that we have some compliance measures within the agreement in addition um to working with the county so the county just gives us a number at the end of the year and we just pay a per capita there's no quarterly reports there's no semi annual and there's no just one annual report tells us that we don't know if that number is correct or not.

Yeah that that's correct there they give us a number and they say our jail shortfall is 2000 dollars and that's what they've done for the last several years and and certainly we take them at their word and and then they say hey it's based upon your population of what you're responsible for and then I bring forward the contract to you that's as that's as far as it goes.

And I did I did like the question that um council member more asked about there is um no privilege given to the city of Fayetteville for the way our um citizens are housed in the prison with keep being able to sleep on floors or having access to bids and that's not in this agreement at all is just no there's there's nothing in the agreement there's no incentive for us to uh limit the number of people that we arrest or increase the number of people that we arrest um certainly you know as as your chief I try to do the best job I can to direct the officers to only take individuals down to the county jail that need to be incarcerated because they're a danger to themselves or to others uh we certainly have tried to do our our due diligence in that particular area and it's not just about that certainly um as I mentioned at the agenda session uh it takes up the officers time and when it's unnecessary time that they need to be on the streets time that you know certainly they need to be responsive to to our citizens need uh but also uh it certainly takes up the time of the the county jail employees if they're just gonna book in a prisoner and book them out and it takes them more time to do that and then you know obviously that creates more issues with the individual uh whether they have you know let's say they have child care issues or or maybe they have a job that they need to be at maybe they lose their job because you know they've been down at the county jail for eight ten twelve hours waiting to be booked in so we we we try to be as uh as as compassionate as we possibly can be when it comes to those situations and certainly uh try to be good stewards and and and realizing that there's only so much jail bed space at the county and and try to work with the sheriff to determine okay you know sheriff cancel tell me what you do not incarcerate folks for and then there's no need for us to even bring those individuals down to the county jail we can just simply write them a ticket and be done with our encounter within 15 to 20 minutes on the average.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We're gonna have public comment when the speaker is done and the council is done.

We will have public comment on this item, but not until then.

Um Mr.

Burnett.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chief in the agenda session the other night, you mentioned specific numbers and you mentioned uh the amount we're paying now, but but refresh my memory it if we were not to approve this uh contract today, what would you did you estimate the cost to the city instead of seven was instead of presently 78,000 that right?

76 76,000, what would the city be paying potentially in jail fees to the county?

So the the county had an ordinance that that um had a daily rate fee, and currently, if if for whatever reason the city council chose not to uh agree to this contract, then they would charge uh a daily rate, and I think if I remember correctly, it was sixty-three dollars and twelve cents uh per day if if I'm remembering correctly.

And so um some of the reports that we do get is we do get a monthly report from the county jail that tells us how many billable booking days that we have per individual that we uh take down to the county jail.

And on average, we have about 12,000 billable booking days.

So you could do the math on that at $63.12 cents times about 12,000 billable booking days.

You're gonna come in somewhere around $800,000 a year.

So it would cost us, you know, subtract that it'd be $730,000 more than what they're asking for now if we did not approve uh this jail shortfall.

And and didn't a what do they call the uh quorum court a quorum court member?

Uh wasn't Justice of the Peace, thank you, Mayor.

Uh wasn't there some discussion here about a month, month and a half ago, and then weren't they calculating the fee potentially in $80 range?

80%.

As I mentioned at the agenda session to refresh your memory, it was in November, early November.

Um, there was uh discussion from one quorum court member that uh had mentioned increasing the fee uh to and doing away with the flat fee and going to $80 and I believe 52 cents uh a day.

Um and so once again, you could do the math on that 12,000 uh billable booking days, which would bring you somewhere around just call it a cool million dollars uh as to what they could charge.

So if we did not approve this contract and we went to the daily rate, where would that extra money come from to pay for that?

Once again, I'm not qualified to answer that.

That's not within my responsibility, that's within your responsibility of where that money would come from.

Just wanted to ask the question.

Okay, Dr.

Jones.

Good evening, Chief Reynolds.

I have a couple of questions.

Um the first one is that's I think you said sixty-three dollars per day.

Is that per inmate is or is that just per day?

Yeah, so it's for every misdemeanor arrest that we make, and for however long they they they would house that misdemeanor arrest.

Okay, so we'd be responsible a hundred percent for all misdemeanance for felonies.

We would be responsible for up until the time that um they had been formally charged, and so up until the time that they're brought before a judge.

Um I haven't tracked that lately.

I know that there was a lot of delays with getting individuals in front of judges.

I think they're moving the docket a little bit quicker now than what they were a couple of years ago.

I know council member more tracks that way more closely than what I do, and so I would say on the average, you're looking at somewhere between a minimum of 14 days and maybe maximum of around 28 days before they're formally charged.

But once again, I said that may have improved.

So that adds to the number that you gave council member burner correctly.

No, it doesn't add to the number.

I took that into account when I said that on the average we have 12,000 billable booking days, and so we look at that every year.

Um, and that does take into account uh both misdemeanors and and felonies as well, up until the time that they're formally charged, and then they don't become the responsibility of the city of failure.

Okay, and some of the concerns that were raised this evening, those concerns are not that you can I it sounds as if you can't do anything about those concerns.

I mean, because that's county, so and your city, so that's what I was yeah.

Uh, you know, it's not really um certainly within my expertise or within my purview uh to speak uh you know, certainly uh about political matters, and and and kind of that's what I see here is something that's that's more of the responsibility of not the the executive branch of government but the legislative branch of government, in my opinion.

So when it comes to you know, how do we ensure that the money's being spent for X, Y, and Z and all these measures in place and these contracts, you know.

I I think that that that really falls back upon y'all.

Uh I'm not trying to pass the bug, but it's just not really within my expertise or my responsibility as your chief of police.

Absolutely.

So are we supposed to vote?

Because I'm ready to vote.

Um is that a uh we need to do public comment?

Okay, and you know, but then we are you are welcome.

It is a resolution, I believe, so you will need to it will require a motion.

You are welcome to make that motion after public comment.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um council person staffer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, and I'll be glad to make that motion.

But uh Kid, so I guess this is more of a question for you because I think uh Chief Reynolds is pretty much answered this, but as far as he could, but basically we don't have a method, like the county, the sheriff's is a is it is a county, they're under the county, so we don't have a way to hold their like make sure that they're using their tax dollars or the money that we're paying them.

Uh um I don't know what the word I'm looking for.

Uh we we kind of don't have a uh a essay or or an ability to to hold any to any sort of accountability as far as their use or misuse of of taxpayer dollars.

Uh we don't, as a city, with the way everything is just like they don't have the ability to hold you accountable for the tax dollars that you're spending.

They're a separate government themselves, and the sheriff is also an elected official, uh, a common citizen, a taxpayer, if they believe tax dollars are not being spent for the reason that they were taxed, has a right to file a suit in in court, and it's called the illegal exaction suit, and see if they can prove that.

The city can't file an illegal exaction suit.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

That answers all my questions.

Um thank you, Chief.

I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

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

If so, you have three minutes.

Please come up to the mic and state your name.

Um, and you have three minutes.

Anyone who would like, yes.

It was like listening to uh ex-chief ex-Mair Dan Kudi.

Um, when I tried to talk to him, and um then I learned he had no kids.

Um maybe DeAndre or Monique will have money to provide for jail, but um I will ask you not to support the agreement.

Um I've been just last March over dispute at the dock park through Johnson City, and they spoke with Fiatville City about me, and I was held for 15 hours in the holding cell where my blood pressure went up to 235, which was uh um heart attack uh level, and they kept me for 15 hours, no consideration, nothing.

And then I was sent to Washington County um uh medical regional center, uh W R MC, because um one of the uh staffers realized that um it could um go really bad uh for me.

So um treatment was horrible.

Um it is why I came today asking for Reynolds to be removed for the department to be investigated, because my criminal record was started in this county in the city over false accusations through ex-estral Robins, with whom I disagreed, like uh with uh um that uh um female minister.

I know she had cancer recently.

I don't know if she's here.

It was Jorge Odarin, uh, their Mexican friend Artiga that said I put threat on the phone, which never took place.

Nobody investigated, not county, not city.

Nobody wanted to listen to me.

And I said, you are supposed to this time to solve uh real criminal issues for everybody to be safe in the county in the city.

What are you doing to me just because I disagree with your decisions?

Now you will hammer me with so many arrests and tickets, and I had to leave the area.

Then I came back, then juveniles from Willow Heights were joined in.

I was arrested again.

They kept me in jail for no reason in the booking area for five hours while bondsmen waited on me to release me.

So now I deal with the juvenile Horace, my daughter, and is back to by police.

He is a black bum.

Some Preston Crawford.

Like Tyrik Nance, I don't know if he runs for me, they stop me.

So I will ask you, please take time for your consideration of disapproving this spending of this money.

The money is badly needed.

Some children are waiting for the organ.

It depends, somebody gives them organ or not.

They may live today or not.

You can give it to homeless animals.

We're rescued seven dogs from street and from shelter.

They're waiting to be adopted.

You will save a life.

Do not give money to those not to share off county.

With neighborhoods in charge.

Thank you.

That's your time.

And the FPD.

Thank you.

Same with Judge Moore.

Thank you.

Do we have other comments from members of the public on this item?

Okay, I'm gonna bring back to the council and Mr.

Stafford.

I motion we pass the resolution.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Mr.

Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

That passes, and that will bring us now on to still under business, but um our numbers will just be off by one.

Um item in your packet C1.

Acquire additional easements and rights of way for the Highway 71B corridor, um, which is Appleby Plainview and Rolling Hills Connection Project.

It's a resolution to authorize the mayor and staff to acquire remaining easements and rights of way for the Appleby Plainview Rolling Hills Connection Project and to make payments to property owners that will be based on fair market value as determined by appraisals or existing value data.

And I believe we have Chris here, Chris Brown from Public Works to discuss this item.

And before we do that, do we need to amend the resolution?

Is that correct?

I I would recommend that.

Uh as I handed out to the city council last week and talked about the agenda session that's on your table tonight is uh slightly amended uh agenda item that would still accomplish the purchase of the right-of-way that is needed for Fiesta Square or for the uh extension of Plain View.

Uh Ms.

Moore, I'll make a motion to amend um to the resolution and the wording before us.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend the resolution to the language provided by Kit Williams.

Um Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So the amendment passes, and we will go forward with discussion on the amended, the item as amended.

Chris.

Okay, thank you.

Um the uh transportation committee has uh has been working with uh with staff on this project for several years.

So uh but for the benefit of other council members, I wanted to kind of back up and talk about um where we are with the project.

Uh we did have authorization from the council in 2020 to acquire rights of way, uh, but uh as recommended by our city attorney.

Uh the the resolution before you is just to provide more specificity and and uh discuss some of the uh the amounts that we're talking about.

Uh there's a pretty large uh piece of property north of of uh Fiesta Square that we've negotiated right away for.

And uh so we we do need to go ahead and make the payment for that right away.

But anyway, I wanted to talk about um how this project came about.

So starting with uh this slide, this is from the 71B corridor plan.

Uh it shows the parallel route from Appleby Road all the way up to uh Millsap.

Uh the red lines that you see are the uh proposed um connections, the yellow lines are existing connections.

So plain view to the north uh goes up to uh Millsap.

Uh comes down to Longview.

Uh so the extension of Plain View South into the Fiesta Square Shopping Center and then across to Appleby.

Uh and then also the extension of Rolling Hills into the Fiesta Square Shopping Center was part of the concept from the 71B plan.

So zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the the concept through Fiesta Square.

Since that time we've been working on detailed designs, Garber Engineers is our is our engineer for the project.

So this was the concept that was developed.

And the property owner, the concern from the property owner was the amount of land and the damage to the property that would uh would occur due to that southern leg uh south from the roundabout uh down to Appleby Road.

Um there were some a couple of appraisals done, one by the city and one by the property owner.

So there were some some pretty significant discrepancies between those appraisals and uh I think some concern from staff of uh uh you know what the what that risk might be with going forward with the design as shown here.

So since that time we've been negotiating with the the owner of Fiesta Square, and I want to show you this as the as the current design.

So the the picture on the left is the kind of the bigger picture.

Uh it's pretty similar as you go north off of Fiesta Square shopping center, but coming south.

Uh we move the roundabout a little bit further to the east and uh turn that into a mini roundabout as opposed to a full roundabout.

Um and so right of way acquisition for this um design would be really for the the section of rolling hills uh that it comes to the roundabout and then the section north as it goes up towards um Belt.

Uh south of the roundabout, we have uh on the on the right side of the page uh just a striping plan, so we would have a striped aisle uh or some similar type of of aisle.

We could use pavement markers or um other elements there to uh to help uh channelize that traffic.

Um that would allow us in the future to continue that route to the south and connect to Appleby uh if the redevelopment occurred or uh some other things changed with the with the circumstances of that property.

Uh so that's what's before you uh we presented this to the transportation committee, and um I I think it's reasonable to say they they were concerned with uh kind of not finishing the job here, and I uh I agree with that.

Um, but I believe this is an interim step that gets us uh at least partway uh toward making these connections and is a project that we that we feel like we can successfully negotiate and construct.

Um so anyway, the the uh resolution before you is to uh approve the acquisition of additional rights of way, and that includes the properties to the north as well as this property uh here at Fiesta Square.

I can answer any questions.

Thank you so much, Chris.

Um we'll start with Councilmember Cherk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Chris, I'm wondering in that area to the south that you mentioned striping.

Are you able to put like some any other barriers in there like uh I don't know, channeling with uh cement barriers or other kinds of um structures?

Yes, we could do the you know the plastic channeling devices, um we could uh use uh pavement markers of various sizes.

Um we could install curbs or other things like that as well.

Um we really just south of the roundabout are just showing this as um you know what what the what the striping could look like that's really to be determined with the property owner um you know what exactly what we installed there, but yes, we we do have some options because it's really temporary, we don't want to um you know put in anything too permanent like curbs or anything like that, but uh we do have some options, yes.

So just to follow up, those options would need to be negotiated with the property owner.

Uh they they would they would be part of the negotiation um, but also I think as we develop the design and really think about uh the safety, you know, that we do show the bike lane there, so the ships the safety of bicyclists along that route is important as well.

So we've got to make sure and factor that in.

Okay, thank you.

Miss Bench.

Thank you.

Uh Chris, uh, clarify again, you know, if if what we have proposed here in the future, if we are able to add on to that, we can always the the roundabout itself is large enough to add on to and will be sufficient for future use if we do add on to it.

If we do add on to it, it it we can grow with this roundabout is what I'm getting at.

That's correct.

We could add that southern leg as a as a city street, and um it would it would fit with the design we have.

Okay, okay, good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Burnett.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh just want to clarify as someone that drives this street almost every day.

East Rolling Hills, are you shifting that?

I mean, because you're showing East Rolling Hills to the north of your drawing.

Am I missing it's it's it's essentially on the same alignment.

We are widening and adding adding a lane there, um, adding sidewalks on both sides.

Um, but it's it's essentially the same location at the at the signal light.

Okay, so where it says East Rolling Hills Drive, that and then there's lines there, that's not actually the existing road.

Um that is that's essentially the existing.

Let me see if I can go.

Because that's what's drawn.

Yeah, so so this this from this drawing here.

That's better.

Um, yeah, you can see how rolling hills ties in.

Um there's a there's a little bit of a shift there, but um the idea is just to have an extended leg from College Avenue over to the roundabout.

Okay, I'm not seeing any more questions from council, so we will open it up to public comment.

Do any members of the public uh wish to comment on this item?

Chris, that probably means you have to move out of the way in case they want to come up there.

Thank you.

We may have you back up in a minute though.

Okay, I'm not seeing any comments.

I don't think Keith, I don't think we have anybody logged in to talk about this.

Okay, so I'll bring it back to the council with a reminder that it is a resolution.

And Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Steve, I guess I I want to ask you um, where does this come from in the budget?

Is this a capital project?

And if so, I noticed that he said the authorization happened in 2020.

Has there been an accumulation of funds that have been put to the side for this project?

Are we carried funds over from another year because this project was proposed back in 2020, or is this something that's coming out of just overall capital projects?

Yes, this is a transportation bond fund authorized by the voters in 2019.

Uh, we've essentially been holding these funds for this project, it's been it's allocated to the project.

So costs have gone up.

Um we we probably have accumulated some um uh funds that's just just from interest or whatever, but uh really the cost have gone up, so it's gonna be probably more expensive than what it would have been five years ago.

I guess my other question I know Councilmember Bunch asked about the plastic channeling devices.

If there's additional changes made, do you see additional cost um for changes in this area, or is do you see that um bond fund covering the full one point one and any future cost?

Yeah, so the the 1.1 is the right-of-way acquisition for the the property to the north.

Uh-huh.

Uh the the acquisition in Fiesta Square will be an additional probably probably more than that million dollars.

Our current estimate for construction um is about six million dollars.

Um I don't have an an estimate um that's it's it's probably a couple of years old at this point, so um that number may have changed a little bit, but we're looking at probably somewhere in the neighborhood of eight to nine million dollars to complete the project.

Thank you.

Um Dr.

Jones and then uh Miss Moore.

So my question is, and you probably said it, I may have missed it, but how long will this project take to be completed?

Well, if um if we can move forward with the right-of-way acquisition, and um we need to finish the design as well.

We're still working with the with the property owner in Fiesta Square.

Uh we think we can have the design complete and everything acquired uh by mid-year, uh, then through all of the contracting phase and all that, um, start probably third quarter.

It's probably a year-long project.

So we're talking about 18 months to two years for completion.

Okay, so probably starting this year and ending roughly.

End of 2027.

Okay, yeah.

All right, thank you, Chris.

Got it.

Ms.

Moore, I I just uh there has it has been a lengthy process, and so there's probably been other council members that have been on this project and staff, etc.

So I just it wanted to express.

I mean, uh, you can't really underestimate the pressure that this is going to be able to take off of the 71 corridor.

Um, even you know, if that's like eight to ten percent that I think is kind of estimated with this additional corridor, knowing um the gridlock and you know the accidents, etc.

Um, that occur in that area.

So I just I appreciate the efforts.

I'm looking forward to us doing the full completion through, but I do really want to express my appreciation because I know those have been a lot of conversations on a lot of back and forth.

So thanks for all the efforts on that.

Um Ms.

Bunch.

Uh yes, thank you so much, Chris.

This is this was not the outcome transportation had hoped for, but I figure this is you know, it's part of something is better than all of nothing.

And that's kind of where we're at with this issue.

So I make a motion that we pass the resolution.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedekra?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay, great.

That brings us to C2, an ordinance to readopt the city's non-residential parking ratios in section 172.05.

Uh Mr.

Williams, I believe this is your item.

Uh uh ordinance.

Oh, okay.

And uh, whereas on May 6th, 2025, the city council passed ordinance 6864, which addressed the city's residential parking regulations, including the adoptions of a new parking ratios for residential uses.

And whereas when the ordinance was codified, the non-residential parking ratios were inadvertently removed from table three and need to be formally readopted.

Now, therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Favor, Arkansas, Section 1.

The City Council, the City of Favor, Arkansas here by amend section 17205 standards for the number of spaces by use of the unified development code by readopting the non-residential parking ratios in table three as shown in exhibit A attached her to and made a part hereof.

And let me uh also remind you that in response.

Well, actually, prior to uh the question from uh council member Stafford, but he noticed that there was a problem with exhibit A.

So I had also noticed that and sent the new exhibit A out to you, which added uh a title basically for everything coming after the residential parking standards, it says use and allowed maximum spaces non-residential.

So this means of course that uh we don't have minimum standards for commercial non-residential, but we do have maximum standards, and that's what these tables do.

And so uh I did send that exhibit A out to you all, and I'd like you to amend to the latest exhibit A that has that language.

I motion to amend second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on the amendment to amend as her suggested by Mr.

Williams.

Uh Clerk Pax, would you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheataker, yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk, yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, Ms.

Moore, yes.

And I guess I'm if you anybody has any questions about this, I'll be happy to answer that, or that's my full presentation.

Okay, I'm not seeing any um questions.

Do we have any um comments from the public about the ordinance to readopt um the parking ratios?

Okay, I do not see any.

So oh, I'm so sorry, Clerk Paxton.

No, I don't want to take a moment to just go over a couple things.

I know we've been moving pretty quickly.

So I want to take a moment to one say thank you to senior deputy city clerk Courtney Spawn.

She is the individual who's worked with City Attorney Kit Williams to see the amended exhibit that you all are seeing this evening.

Um, this was something that you know when when we take a look at ordinances and you're repealing and replacing, that's exactly what your codification company is going to do.

So that is something that we want to make sure that whenever we're putting information into the agenda, this is exactly why we come back and we ask what item are you wanting that to be attached to?

What version number of is this?

And that's why it's extremely important to have that information.

Also, I wanted to say um regarding the previous item, just so we're caught up, is um that item was actually A35 on the original agenda that we presented as the tentative agenda, which was the only item at the agenda session that was remit from consent agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kirk Paxton.

Um bringing it back to the council.

How would you wish to proceed?

Uh, Councilperson Stafford.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh to suspend the rules, Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

In order to readopt the city's non-residential parking ratios in section 17205 standards for the number of spaces by use.

Okay.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

That passes.

Thank you all.

For that, that brings us to item C3, an ordinance to approve an amendment to the streamside protection zone mapping for property located at West Center Street and Greg Avenue kit.

All right.

This passed over on Captain.

No, okay.

Whereas on December 8th, 2025, the planning commission approved the net for off-site parking.

Um, Mr.

Williams, will you turn on your microphone, please?

No, and I was doing pretty good too after that.

I'm going to do that again.

Okay.

Whereas on December 8th, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for off-site parking at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Center Street and South Great Avenue to serve the park hotel.

And whereas the subject property contains a portion of the Tanglewood branch stream running across the western and southwestern extents of the property, and the conditional use permit was approved subject to the condition that quote a determination of streamside encroachment or streamsite protection zone removal shall be made prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits on the property, unquote.

And whereas the apple has requested that the city council remove a portion of the Tanglewood branch from the streamside protection zone mapping to allow for the construction of the parking structure and the building on top of that portion of the stream.

And whereas the planning commission ultimately found that the applicant's requested project aligns with the city's broader land use goals and recommends approval of the request.

Now, therefore it be ordained by the city council, the city of Faible, Arkansas, Section One, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves and adopts an amendment to the Streamside Protection Zone mapping for property located at West Center Street and Greg Avenue as shown on the map attached as exhibit A.

Section two, that this amendment to the Streamside Protection Zone map is subject to and shall not take effect until the following conditions have been satisfied.

Number one, issuance of a building permit for the mixed use structure that is substantially similar to that submitted with the applicant's request.

Number two, the proposed development will implement low impact development strategies and water quality improvements that go beyond the minimum compliance, including stilling basins, velocity dissipatation, dissipation, and navy planting zone planting zones designed to reduce pollutant loads before outflow enters the restored natural segment downstream that are to be reviewed and approved by the city's blood plain administrator.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurth, Development Services Director, and I will be co-presenting this item tonight with Justin Bland, our city engineer, uh, with myself starting with some background before he segues into the request itself and staff's evaluation of that.

Uh with that in mind, uh, this particular piece of property is located in downtown Fayetteville at the southwest corner of Gregg Avenue and Center Street.

It is uh we'll go into a little bit of history on the property.

Uh while development on the site does go back uh further than the 1960s and 70s.

Uh that is when the the most recent structure uh existed there, uh, which was an apartment building uh that did eventually have a uh fire occur within the structure seeing its demolition in the early 2020 or in the twenty in 2021 uh as of today, uh and since then it's remained undeveloped and is currently used as a construction yard for the building uh construction that's going on to the north of this site.

A component of that request or that proposal was off site parking to accommodate uh the hotel's guests uh primarily in the um uh with the use of valet parking.

Uh that was considered more recently uh by the planning commission in 2025 in the form of a conditional use permit, uh, which contemplates uh not only using the property for valet parking but also uh developing it with a mixed use building, including uh residential and non-residential components as a part of that.

Um this background is all relevant uh to this agenda item because a portion of the Tangowood branch stream uh runs along the western and southern extents uh where the mixed use building is proposed, uh and which takes us to our request uh that is before council tonight and our city engineer Justin Bland.

Good evening, thank you.

Um so yes, um the request before you is to amend the map and remove this 290 feet of uh the streamside protection zone.

Um just kind of just as a general background, I've shown on here the um the area, and you can kind of see that um that long shape in the middle there.

I've I've the red box at the uh the bottom of that is the uh the site there, and that um kind of linear uh shape that has a blue in the middle and pink on the outside.

That that's the streamside protection zone in this area.

And just kind of as a general reminder, that that was established by ordinance in 2011, and it applies to every stream that has a hundred acres of area draining to it.

So in this case, the very the top of the page, the very upstream end of that, which is um in the upper Ramble area, just just south of Dixon Street.

That's that's the point where there's a hundred acres of drainage to that that stream.

Um and then just is furthermore that the regulation in general is just that there's within 50 foot of the top of the bank of the stream, there are certain things that you can and can't do alongside the stream.

So that's basically the the point of the regulation.

Um so in this case, um where the red square is the site there, everything upstream of that is currently culverted, and that was actually culverted in 2011 when the ordinance was adopted.

So that's always been in place as such.

But then as you cross center street, it opens up and then it uh it's an open ditch across the project site, and then it goes underneath Gregg Street, and then it drains down into the lower ramble area.

Um next slide.

So just um some kind of general background here.

Um, going back to the original ordinance, um, just going to kind of review some of the things that were um uh reasons for this ordinance in the first place, and just a few of them are just um you know, the value of these these streamside areas are that they remove pollutants from from urban stormwater, they reduce erosion and sediment um entering the stream, uh stabilized stream banks, and uh they a key one is that they provide infiltration of stormwater runoff into the ground because it's it's a natural ground there.

Um next slide.

And then just keep on going with some of those benefits, just um providing storage for flood waters and uh riparian habitat habitat for wildlife.

Um next slide.

And um I just have some pictures here just for for you, all of you that weren't able to make the uh tour.

These are some pictures of this section of uh stream.

And um while there is some uh some some areas that have been degraded.

Um, I think uh uh Alan Pugh, our our stormwater engineer has confirmed basically that the banks are they're they're they're stable, there's some signs of erosion, but they're not moving.

So while it's not the best uh area of stream in town, it is definitely stable and um I think is um it's still functioning that matters to another one.

So, yeah, if you go to the next slide.

And then just for comparison, this is actually uh Tanglewood uh branch in the lower ramble.

So it looks very similar.

These are pictures from before the restoration, so this is very similar just downstream of there.

And if you go to the next slide, you can kind of see the uh the restoration restoration after the fact there.

So there's definitely some potential there.

Um next slide.

So um as staff, I think the some of the issues that we see with this proposal.

Um I think the big one is just that the streamside protection zone was put in place to protect these streams.

So just trying to do the removal of that is something uh it's just not compliant with that.

Um another thing is that we do have a significant investment downstream of this area in the lower Ramble, so we want to make sure that that area is protected and preserved.

And then and then lastly, this this to my understanding would be the first time a streamside zone has been removed from the map since the uh the 2011.

Well uh since the 2011 ordinance was put in place.

The only exception was earlier this year on the old um 112 drive in property, there was an amendment where it removed the top end, but that was specifically because the 100-acre area was found to have been in error.

There was an amendment where it removed the top end, but that was specifically because the 100-acre area was found to have been in error, so that that that line was moved.

But um, aside from that, this would be actually the the setting the precedent for the first removal of the streamside zone.

Yeah, and with with that uh and uh with that's evaluation, we are recommending denial of the request.

Uh, when the planning commission considered this uh at their meeting, uh they did ultimately forward the proposal uh recommending in favor of it by a vote of six to one uh with one additional commissioner recusing on on the item.

Uh there were two conditions that were forwarded uh that the side was forwarded with.

You heard Mr.

Williams uh read the verbatim, but generally uh one is that if the council decides to approve this item, the final execution of this amendment removing this portion of streamside is contingent on a project substantially similar to this one being uh receiving a building permit.

So if this development did not occur, this would effectively negate the the approval of the streamside protection uh uh amendment.

And the second condition is that the development is subject to providing low-income low impact development strategies beyond what we require in our minimum compliance uh standards today, and that would be at the uh ultimate discretion or review level of our floodplain administrator, Alan Pugh.

Again, that was by vote of six to one.

Um happy to take questions uh along with Mr.

Blam.

Otherwise, mayor, I know uh Rob Sharp is here as the applicant, and he has a presentation he would like to make as well.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Sharp.

Yes, uh, thank you very much.

Um, if we could bring the slides up, Jonathan.

That um I'll be very brief.

I know you have most of this information in your packet, but I wanted the public to be able to see the um proposal, and so everyone would have full information as we discuss it.

Um we we start this project thinking about it as this is this is a continuation of the work of the cultural arts corridor.

You know, the city made a choice to invest the 31 million dollars along this corridor.

The the project that uh Jonathan showed of the hotel, this is the off-site parking for that hotel.

This is also a substantial project in its own right, and so this is the private sector responding to the city's investment in this area.

Um the uh amending that streamside map will allow us to build the structured parking for the hotel, it'll build housing, retail the downtown, all located on the Razorback Greenway on the cultural arts corridor.

So we think this is an ideal spot for this type of development.

We've hired Olsen engineers to be our civil engineer for the project.

They were the engineer for the Ramble, so they understand the upper and lower ramble, they understand the hydrology, and so they're they're best equipped to help us with this issue.

Um a lot of discussion we've had at Planning Commission and with the individuals in the city have been about water quality measures.

Um we're going to have on-site stilling basin for the sediment, we'll have a weir.

We also have uh we're working on ways to that this structure could be could filter trash out of the stream.

If you went down there, you notice there's probably some Walmart bags and cups and cigarette butts and things like that.

Um, so this not only will you have those passive ways to filter the trash out of the stream, but we'll also will have on-site management so that they they can monitor it.

And you know, people since people will be living there, they're gonna make sure that it's always picked up and nice, so that we feel like this would be a net gain for the the quality of the water.

And you know, and the alternative is if we put just a surface parking lot there, the water quality is not so great there either because you know the oil and things from the cars leaks out into the pavement.

So having the cars all under roof is uh is an environmental benefit as well.

If you'll go through the next slide.

Um the next slide.

So this is this is the the proposed structure.

Uh, we've done our best to make it a substantial handsome building that'll be an asset, it'll be a great uh uh sort of uh part of the cultural arts corridor.

Next slide.

Um and particularly like we we want to make sure the building's a tractor from all sides.

And then next slide.

Uh next slide.

This is a scale comparison, so you can see the size of our building compared to the Trinitas building that's under construction right now.

So you can see that our building sort of steps down the scale to the neighborhood.

And we also used pitched roofs and sash windows and balconies to kind of break down the scale of our building so that it's uh a little more friendly than the current building being built.

Next slide shows this a similar view.

Next slide.

The the building will be high quality as as the condition from the planning department was it has to be substantially similar to what we've shown you here, and we've gone into great detail about what materials we use and how they'll be expressed.

And so there you'll be you'll be getting the permit the building permit will be issued for this building or one substantially similar to it before the the streamside protections go away on this site.

Next slide, please.

Um my client Brian Rindle, we've been working together for 25 years.

He has an excellent track record.

He does nothing but quality work.

He's restored old buildings, he's nurtured local tenants.

He's done two housing projects that are similar to this.

One is uh Metro District Offs, which is in that near the area, and then recently completed Hill Avenue townhouses.

Both both examples you can see of his work.

He's involved in the design process, he's involved with the construction process, he's involved in the leasing process.

He's very hands-on, he's local, so he's somebody that we know will deliver on this promise.

Next slide, please.

And um we we've we put quite a bit of attention.

We want we want people to experience the water, even though we're losing some of the stream.

Right now, it's very well hidden, and so there's just sort of a culvert under center street, and so you don't really get to interact with the water, and we're trying to work with Olson to come up with design so people actually get to see the water and hear the water.

So it it it is uh participates in part of that lower ramble.

Next slide.

Uh next slide.

And we think it might be like the fountain at the square or the the castle at Wilson Park, that type, it's a small water feature, but one that should be impactful.

Next slide.

This is this is a map just showing between Old Bain and Central United Methodists, between Maple Street and our site.

There's just a whole network of underground urban hydrology.

You know, all of that is is underground in pipes.

We're talking about extending this for 300 feet.

So we we think that the the benefits that we we reap for this is is worth the the 300 feet of of uh of culvert.

Next slide.

This is the map.

Our we're we're one one planning commissioner said, Well, you're just asking to like move the dot on the map, and that's what we're doing.

Right right now, we're showing on our maps that we want to daylight the stream all the way to Dixon Street.

We obviously didn't do that when we had the opportunity when the city spent the money on the upper ramble.

They just decided they decided to keep it underground and have a uh sort of ceremonial art canal feature.

So we think it's the map's a bit unrealistic, and we think that that the amending the map makes it more consistent with what's actually the reality on the ground.

Next slide.

And uh we also think if you're thinking terms of water quality and runoff, getting 42 houses on this 0.6 acre site is so much better than building building it in other formats.

So if you know if the housing's not built here, it'll be built somewhere else, and we'll have a lot of we'll have a lot more impervious area.

Next slide.

And this is the this is the design we came up with under the meeting the streamside protection ordinance, and it's just a basically a parking lot down in a hole.

Uh, we call this the parking lot of last resort.

Like we this is not what we want to do.

We feel that the project we're bringing you is is a better solution.

And um, we have to give credit to the city council because when we came through with this uh land for our offside parking, they said, well, we accept it, but wouldn't it be better to have housing here?

So we've we've come back, we've delivered the housing that was asked for, and um, I'm happy to answer any questions.

And Connor from Olsen Engineers is will answer anything that's involving engineering and hydrology issues.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rob.

Um question first, Ms.

Turk, and then Mr.

Martin.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Rob, I have some questions for you.

Um, and I I assume it's to you or maybe it's to Jonathan.

So currently, how many square footage, how many square feet are buildable without vacating or removing the streamsite protection, and then how much more would you gain?

I guess.

So it seeing that that layout there, if you'll go back to that slide, the answer is there, but it's basically it's about 60% of the site can be um developed currently, and so we're asking for 40 more percent of the site to be developed.

Um I think that's the answer in the site's 0.6 acres, so it's 40% of 66.6 acres.

Okay, all right.

That's helpful.

Um, you know, you were kind of talked about how you would filter trash or that would be that's not currently that requirement's not currently in our ordinance.

Um, and so can you kind of give us an idea of how that would how that would work?

Um, you know, I might want to add that to the ordinance if that's uh something that you all would commit to.

Yeah, so what what the the standard for the storm water is that the water has to pass through the site with no in adverse impact and no restriction of flow.

So we we can't build like a net across it because it might catch a tree limb at two in the morning and cause a flood or something.

So it has to be something the the answer that Olson came up with is it will have the stilling basin so that sediments can drop out, and then we have a weir where it can catch the like plastic bags and things like that.

And um, so it's it's they don't have the design completely worked out, but it's it's the intent to this be act as a filter from all for all that underground uh stormwater from the area.

So it'd be helpful to see where the weir would be located because you've also got the um the observation area in the beginning, and I and I'm sure you really want to highlight that as a beautiful area uh for people to look at, and then also downstream at the very exit of the site too.

So we had a meeting this morning and talked about it, and what what Olson has determined is that we need to do the stilling basin and the weir on the northern part of the site.

So that will happen on the north west corner of the site.

The southern part where I wanted to have the weir, they said that's not gonna work.

You have you can't restrict the flow there.

So what we'll see is a cascade of water there, but uh we won't we won't have the weir on the south side like I had hoped.

And so the presumption would be that you'd capture all that all of that trash uh right there as it entered the site, and then it would be pristine or beautiful as it comes through the channelized areas and then pops out, and you're four or five uh you had a slide up there with the different pipes that were popping out.

It wasn't all one big one at it as it exited um Camden Court.

It will most likely be one large discharge because of the we can't we it the the design I showed I had the same uh cross-sectional area as the culvert, but they said it's you you can't you can't restrict the the flow that much.

That doesn't meet the city standards.

So the picture that you showed us today, it that drawing is is unfortunately yeah, could not not possible.

Okay.

I did that before I I got some answers from Olson originally just to get the cross-sectional area of the culvert correct, but we we thought we could do the weir there, but we're gonna have to do the weir on the north side.

So it will have a weir feature, but it'll be on the north rather than the southeast.

And is there a commitment uh to maintaining that we're uh by the developer?

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, any anything that's it'll be on private property, it'll be the responsibility of the building owner to maintain that.

And it'll also be you know, if you think about it, you've got 42 people living there that can complain to the management if it gets fits full of, you know, right.

I don't know if you saw the couch in the stream, you know, like things like that can't happen when when you've got people that are uh that are worried about their home and their property values.

I guess I'm concerned about you know what the city's maintenance would be because as I understood from the conversation yesterday with staff, is that the city's maintenance uh or our responsibility is right there at the at the bridge.

Yeah, I would I would say the city's responsibility ends at the bridge.

There's a there's a a corner out of the site, the northwest corner of the property on the GIS map, it shows is belonging to my client in the survey, and the deed it shows it belongs to somebody else.

It's sort of a mysterious piece of land that belongs to nobody.

I think we should quit claim need it and put it on to Brian Rindall's property so that he has responsibility, with a clear responsibility to maintain it.

Okay.

Um so I have uh maybe one other question about water quality.

Uh maybe the also maybe you could answer.

I don't know where our Connor up here.

Okay, thank you for that for your for the tour yesterday's staff and also for uh your responses, uh Mr.

Sharp.

Hi, so I noticed in there and also in this um this ordinance is it talks about you improving water quality.

So are you actually testing what the water quality is right now, and then how can you be certain if you don't test what the water quality is now and what uh will be the final product?

So what we do is we compare um the existing impervious area that's currently out there today with what we are actually providing.

We are um providing more impervious area to the site, so in order for that, in order for us to develop the site, we have to capture all of that water or all of the additional impervious areas.

So based on drainage standards, we do have to to make sure we we treat all of the additional, I guess, added impervious area for the site.

Hopefully that answers your question there.

So I guess you're kind of making the assumption through the modeling and the amount of water and impervious surface that you're gonna create, and you're not really physically testing what's there right now.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, I am not sure.

I was not keeping in close eye on who was next.

I think Scott was before me, and I don't know who else has their determinant at all.

So are you thinking?

No.

Okay, Monique.

Sorry.

Jonathan, I just had a couple of simple questions.

Was one of the reasons staff was not approving this, was possible flooding and erosion.

Not explicitly, no, uh, because ultimately the this development will be required to meet our drainage standards, uh, which uh at their most baseline concept are that post-development flows through a property have to be the same as those happen pre-development.

Uh I think there are some concerns about uh the potential for extreme rain events may have impacts downstream to the lower ramble where you've made improvements.

Uh those are hard to demonstrate and and some of the more uh standardized uh drainage criteria though.

And has the developer um stated that he would absorb all the costs for improvement of the stormwater?

I I'm not heard that explicitly, but that that's assumed uh in any project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I think uh a question for staff it because in and hopefully it's not a repetitive one, but it it seems like basically to me it's just like we're we're gonna be changing this project is just gonna change where the stream is daylighted by a couple hundred feet.

And so, and and then they also mentioned you know, filtering the water and having weirs and stuff.

So I guess it if you could just other than we haven't done this before as far as repealing or part of the uh streamside protection.

What what how would you you know quantify your main objection?

Certainly, and I I may uh encourage Mr.

Bland to join as well.

I think some of the the baseline standards why we have a stream side protection zone or what factor into that.

Uh Mr.

Bland hit on some of those, some of them were on screen.

We didn't explicitly mention them by putting the entirety of the stream in a culvert, you are immediately removing the opportunity for infiltration.

So there is some like for lack of a better word, passive infiltration stormwater absorption absorption that happens with natural stream beds.

Uh it limits the opportunity for uh uh wildlife associated with streams to occur there.

Uh there are some urban heat island effects that uh are sometimes mitigated by having streams, not just because of the water, but because of the vegetation associated with those streams.

Is there anything additional that bears noting?

Yeah, I think those are the main things.

Um I can't think of anything really else.

Uh does it the big points for sure?

Yeah.

But so I guess my my pushback on that is everything upstream from this is not daylight, it is under culvert.

So we're really just talking about uh extending the culvert, just in my view, you know, you're just you're just kind of extending it a little further, but you're adding in maybe some benefit.

If that was just an open parking lot, I would imagine you're gonna have lots of uh oil runoff, tar tire grip runoff that that this will maybe keep out of uh the stream, it would just be my my guess because that's not gonna be an open uh parking lot.

So again, I could understand that if if there was other parts of the stream, even you know, we were supposed to get part of the stream daylighted through uh the upper ramble, we didn't get that.

Um but but we don't yeah, we don't have that.

Everything up until this point is generally uh underground in a in a culvert.

So I I guess again, I I I just feel that it seems like the what we're doing is we're just extending where it's daylighted by a couple hundred feet, and but maybe adding some benefit with with the filtration.

And am I getting that wrong, or is it just uh yeah, I mean, can you respond to that?

Or I can comment on that briefly.

I think that's a good point.

Is when you look at the overall length of what's been underground, and you look at what our what we have on the books with our streamside protection ordinance, you really have to weigh the benefit.

You know, it's like yes, we're trying to protect the stream with this ordinance, but then look at the benefit of this total project.

I think this project makes sense in its location, and you're kind of extending it, like you said, the area that's uh that's gonna be concreted, but it's also um you know a good use of that land, and it's also providing not only parking, which what they originally were required to provide, but it's also providing some housing into that area.

Yeah, but you're you're taking an I guess I I agree with that.

I mean, you seem to be taking a positive view of this, where I think staff is recommending against, and I guess we have a stream sign ordinance that we have to enforce.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, that makes okay, that makes sense.

Yeah okay okay that makes okay that makes sense to that in FME comma if it is the council's inclination to support this request I think it's important to distinguish why this is a unique request and why this may not set a precedent because there is the potential that rationale exists for the council moving forward to channelize any stream in the city if any portion of that stream is already channelized.

Got you so it that that may summarize the staff's concern that this may set a precedent is that is among our concerns yes.

Okay.

And would would there be anything that we need to amend to make sure that we're not saying we're setting a new precedent here.

I mean I I do think as Keith pointed out this is a more special situation.

This isn't we're not covering up a an area midstream or something that you know I think Mr Williams will tell you on requests like this that they stand on their own merits but any any uh any language that the council can add to the conversation or to the final decision can help inform staff's direction moving forward as well as a potential policy direction.

Yeah and and for so for me personally I do see this as kind of a special not your normal situation.

So uh thank you for answering my questions.

And I was had to step out for a moment so I don't know who was next.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Moore thank thank you Mayor and council member uh he was next but I appreciate it.

Um I wanted to ask staff um I I believe in that area if that stays a parking lot um can you tell me um what changes would happen to the streamside versus like what it is today would they be required to do anything additional to it to be a parking lot yes so uh I think the way that the ordinance is written is that um it the existing impervious area they they those areas are somewhat grant grandfathered in but any further encroachments um they can request a variance for that and and oftentimes um as part of that the city would ask for some sort of mitigation on site there or possibly some stream bait stay stabilized downstream or upstream if that made sense if they stayed in the current um footprint of impervious surface they wouldn't have to do any improvements to the way it channels today is that correct I I believe that is correct yes okay and then can you tell me um since we've made the improvements to the lower ramble um have we seen harm or damage when we've had large rain events uh to the lower rainbow project I'm not sure that I know the answer to that I don't know if Chris might have some input on that Keith do you have any insight into that?

Yeah I'm also looking at Chris so it's yeah I think this the stream restoration and the work that has occurred down there as it's grown in and kind of settled in um it's the it's very stable in that area.

Okay so the uh water that flows through here that ultimately goes into the lower ramble there's not been any challenges the way that it's been flowing through there today and dumping into the lower ramble correct okay all right I'd heard differently so thank you for clearing that up okay there there is a there are sections um probably upstream and downstream that are you know less stable than but but uh through the upper ramble we we did I think um very soon after the completion of that there was some damage again because it had not uh grown in and uh really kind of settled in so uh it's it's been more stable since okay and then um from your professional um experience I don't know who on staff this maybe needs to be from is does that section that is around that property does that potentially need some level of improvements um to perform better as part of that section versus how it sits today I mean we saw a lot of debris there there you know while there's stability there is some erosion and things I mean would that be something that would want to be tackled at some point or handled in the future.

Are you talking about downstream?

No like on this particular property where we're looking at um vacating.

Yeah Justin you you look at that a little closer than I have yeah I I have discussed that with Alan Q and um I I I think his interpretation he's he looked at it more in depth than I have was that it was um that it was stable so it could certainly use some additional stabilization of course but it it he did not seem to think that the the the banks were moving so I think it is stable um so I don't leave anything uh dramatic that needs to be done immediately but I mean long term of course it could be stabilized a little bit further but um but yeah not nothing significant at this point in time I think and then in the event we did vacate on this this portion to um contain it you know to then feed into is it possible that that might um help to create that extra stabilization then and then to filter out maybe pollutants that um that would be dumping into lower rainbow that we've invested in yes so the with with the with the proposed project um all the water would be routed through this new uh concrete box culvert so there would be no question about stabilizing it would it would it would the water wouldn't be affecting the the existing stream at that point through the area so yes I think that would definitely stabilize things permanently on this property um as far as the the the water quality I think the um the stilling measures or the stilling basin that they're discussing

think that the the the banks were moving so I think it is stable um so I don't think it's anything uh dramatic that needs to be done immediately but I mean long term of course it could be stabilized a little bit further but um but yeah not nothing significant at this point in time I think okay and then in the event we did vacate on this this portioned uh um contain it you know to then feed into is it possible that that might um help to create that extra stabilization then and then to filter out maybe pollutants that um that would be dumping into lower rainbow that we've invested in yes so the with with the with the proposed project um all the water would be routed through this new uh concrete box culvert so there would be no question about stabilizing it would it would it would the water wouldn't be affecting the the existing stream at that point through the area so so yes I think that would definitely stabilize things permanently on this property um as far as the the the water quality I think the um the stilling measures or the stilling basin that they're discussing is key to that and I don't know the details of that just yet but but anything that can just drop any of the sediment or pollutants out of the water would be very helpful there.

So I think that there's an approach to that I just don't know the details at this point in time.

Okay thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brennan thank you mayor um Jonathan in regards to the um planning commission approval and then that there's the two conditions for approval I was interested in the first one which was talking about uh issuance of the building permit or the or the removal of the section strength side protection zone basically would would go away if they the project brought forward had substantial changes that didn't so what's the definition of substantial changes because in his presentation tonight uh Rob mentioned that he had to make changes to the what what what they call it the uh weir structure we're and the the five um treatment treatment channels down to one so what what's considered substantial changes that that that's a good question uh when staff evaluates things like that when they come up one of our first stops is to go back to meeting minutes especially if a condition came from a certain body to actually listen to the conversation and what intent went into that because ultimately it is up to staff interpretation when we see a building permit we don't take the building permit back to the planning commission or the city council to evaluate it substantial compliance in this sense would mean that the stream is likely routed the way it was ascribed and the documents are received the building is substantially similar it's a mixed use building uh has a uh a valley parking component to serve the hotel a hotel or a parking component residential non-residential components architecturally it's it's very similar um I don't know that I can go down into I don't think we'd have expectations that windows are placed exactly as they are uh but the the overall goal is to ensure that any decision of this magnitude for lack of a less dramatic word uh are being are are only occurring within the confines of this project as it's proposed so would it be safe to say that uh uh the standards by which they presented their project would need to be met or exceeded uh or they need to have a really good explanation for why they are reduced correct and especially as it relates to the drainage criteria that that segues into the second condition in there which is very explicit that they must not only meet but exceed our our standards in that regard okay thank you great thank you um I'm ready to open it up to public comment do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this item or anybody that has zoomed in Keith okay I'll bring it back to the council uh council member Turk uh mayor I would like to make uh in addition um to the ordinance before us right now another condition and the condition would would read item number three would developer is responsible for filter and removal of all trash and maintenance at the stream trialite appreciation zone and further downstream as the water exits the property so that's you're offering that as an amendment I I am I'm uh making it a motion uh to amend uh okay um we have a motion and a second can you for the benefit of council person stafford do you mind to summarize that again just briefly no not at all um uh the uh proposed amendment and we could clean the language up just a little bit but um item number three would is developers responsible for filter and removal of all trash and maintenance at the streamside appreciation zone and further downstream when um the pipe at the water exits the property so basically the idea is that in these two areas that the developer would be responsible for maintenance and also filtration like we talked about with the weir wherever you place the weir as long as it's functional um and removes that um debris and and um so that's the um that's the proposed amendment or addition would the council be willing to um enter to to allow Mr.

Sharp to ask questions about that amendment if you have them, Mr.

Sharp?

Yes.

So I I certainly think that that amendment is meets the spirit of what we've committed to.

I I might change it and say that the building owner is responsible rather than the developer, because it the developer will develop it 20 years from now, he'll retire and sell it.

And it's like we just we let's not put the responsibility on the developer, let's put it on the the building owner.

That that comes that's part of the responsibility that whoever owns that building will inherit.

I heard that as owner rather than owner helper for that reason.

Correct, yes.

But but that's your amendment is complete within the spirit of what we've talked about.

Okay, I'm I'm happy with that change if that's um okay with everybody else.

Do we officially have a second Clark Paxton?

Okay, okay.

Um Claire Price, maybe please call the role on the amendment to add the responsibilities of the owner as presented by council member Turk.

Mr.

Wheatker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Yes.

And that would simply be the third condition.

Got it.

Okay.

So now bringing it back, we are still on the first reading.

Though we do have an amendment.

Um Dr.

Jones.

Uh nope, but Ms.

Moore.

Nope.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so I I appreciate the concerns that staff brought forward.

I think we always should take very serious consideration because that's something I think we value very highly in the city of Faithville, um, our streamside protections, and that is something I think that we shouldn't take lightly.

Um, and so I appreciate the diligence that they've had on this.

Um for me, I also would be hesitant.

I wanted to go look at it and really interact, and even though it's an area that I frequent a lot and for years have gone past, I really wanted to understand it.

Um, but I feel really compelled that unfortunately we do have it culverted um, you know, further upstream.

And so um, you know, given the um thoughtfulness of the design and the respect that's really being done um to continue to protect and to um honor you know what's been done in the lower ramble.

Um, I think that um I don't know that it sets a precedent.

I think it is a unique situation.

I would um agree with council member Stafford on that.

Um this is kind of an interesting unique property.

Um I was a no-vote um on making this um lot a parking lot.

Um I really struggled and was very concerned that we had made those investments and that I was concerned about um the stream um being harmed um from that runoff over time, um knowing all the things that can happen in parking lots, and so um to me this is um a more thoughtful and maybe a better outcome um to come to this.

And so um unfortunately I didn't know at the time we were gonna potentially vacate all that streamside, but I see the challenges with the site.

So tonight for those reasons um I can be supportive of moving forward.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I do want to be the person to say I'm I am concerned about precedent.

I am concerned that council members come and go.

We're short timers, and that 15 years from now a staff person will look back at this and and say, well, you know what?

We've got and council member bunch will still be serving.

Um look back at this and say, well, you know, it was okay then, and so I I really uh appreciate the amendment um from council member Turk.

I appreciate staff's cautions.

I really do not want to support this for the precedent that it sets.

All that said, I have to admit the development team has earned their spurs, they've done right by this community in this town, and um and I want to fully acknowledge that and to honor the good work that they've done in this community.

It is a a trade-off for us, and I just hope that I've said enough that when someone googles this in the news that non precedent shows up somehow in the text and we'll rely upon our reporters to handle that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you.

Um I I I understand Mr.

Wiedaker's concerns, but I I do I don't believe this sets a precedent.

Um for a lot of the reasons that we are the way we're discussing this and and bringing out about what why this is a little bit different.

Um I I like what I see as this project that we are not just gonna have a parking lot, but we're gonna have 42 units of housing.

I think that's extremely important and and leads uh me to support this project uh with a little commercial in there.

Fantastic.

um for a lot of the reasons that we are the way we're discussing this and and bringing out about what why this is a little bit different um uh i i like what i see as this project that we are not just gonna have a parking lot but we're gonna have 42 units of housing i think that's extremely important and and leads uh me to support this project uh with a little commercial in there fantastic uh they the actual hopefully improvement of the water quality uh with the filtration and the weirs and and i i appreciate that the uh uh developers gracious and in in supporting the amendment that we added and i i thank council member uh turk for bringing that amendment um so i will be uh in support of this i think it's a a worthy project i think it in a way solves more problems than it causes uh and and uh again i think when you look at this situation where everything we we are basically just moving the daylighting point i mean in my view uh everything upstream is underneath and so this isn't something where we're covering a stream that's open upstream in other words so um again i'll I will be in support thank you council member turk thank you mayor and thank you all for um passing the proposed amount the amendment um so i'm I am concerned about precedent i i really am um and i was trying to figure out language where somehow um it would be more restrictive than just saying that we remove that from the seam streamside protection uh ordinance so um you know I don't have that language yet I was thinking about you know where it's continuous with something that's already culverized or something like that so some other way uh to uh make this um not be so open-ended or so because I agree with council member weedaker we're gonna you know in 15 years I don't think I'm gonna be sitting up here and this may um come before us again or come before this body again and some of that conversation might be lost uh to history so um I don't know if Mr.

Williams has some ideas of a way to make this more restrictive so that it's not so that we don't set precedent.

I think you've already successfully done that the minutes will still be there 15 years from now and you've been speaking about what you're thinking about I would not try to do something like that because then the next time you get somebody say well it's coming out of the pipe up there so let's just extend that pipe because that's what they did last time instead I think you ought to look at this as unique situation from many different what reasons it's unique and that's why you would be uh going to allow this removal is because of a very you unique situation you find yourself in here okay Ms.

Bunch uh yes thank you very much um so kit since it since we're looking at this as a unique situation I would assume any proposals that came through in the future asking for something similar we would also look at them in way whether they were unique enough to deviate from our storm side ordinance as well correct that is correct but I will also of course tell you you can't tie the hands up your city council and hopefully I won't be here in 15 years but I I was on planning commission when we when we approved the storm side ordinance so I'm kind of like well you know I I um I think with the addition of of a little more clarity from you know that uh council member Turk has asked for I as that is exclusive to this side I and keeping the stream clean and ensuring that it's maintained the weir and all of that I I think I can support this now but I do uh I do also share council member weedaker's uh perspective that this might be setting a precedent but um I think we can based on what kit just said I think we can work with whatever or someone can work with whatever happens in the future thank you Mr.

Burnett thank you mayor um this is one of those that uh I looked at initially when I heard about it and was very excited about uh then I heard about the precedent potential precedent setting and that always gives me great pause uh but I think uh Kit Williams um and his last comments really nailed it on the head is is I think this project is so much better than a parking lot so are we willing to uh take that risk of channeling that and with the improvements that the developer is has has agreed to does it uh does it warrant me saying yes I can approve this project and go against staff because I don't like doing that and I understand why they had recommended it against it because it is by ordinance um but I I think this they have shown with their design it meets what the community has said they they want in the way of mixed use certainly better than a parking lot uh so I I'm gonna support this and with that I'd make a motion to suspend the rules go third by reading second we have the motion and a second clerk packsen will you please call the role in the motion to suspend Mr.

Um I think this they have shown with their design it meets what the community has said they they want in the way of mixed use.

Uh certainly better than a parking lot.

Uh so I I'm gonna support this, and with that I'd make a motion to suspend the rules and go third by reading.

Second, we have the motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll on the motion to suspend?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones.

Yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

In order to approve an amendment to the streamside protection zone mapping for property located at West Center Street and Greg Avenue.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings us to item C4, an ordinance to approve vacation 2020.

Sorry, vacation 25-28 for property located southwest of West Cato Springs Road and South Emma Avenue and Ward 1 to vacate 0.01 acres of right-of-way.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the city council has authority under ACA 1454104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined the following described portion of right-of-way is not required for corporate purposes.

Now therefore be ordained by the city council, the city of Fable, Arkansas, Section 1.

At the City Council, the City of Fable, Arkansas, hereby vacates the portion of right away as subscribed to exhibit B attached to Planning Department's memo.

Section two, a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk along with the map attached to exhibit A to the Planning Department's memo.

Somebody filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

In section three, this vacation approval is subject to the following conditions.

Number one, any damage due or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Number two, a general utility easement shall be dedicated to cover the existing facilities along West Cato Springs Road as requested by ATT.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request oops takes us to South Fayville.

It includes right away along the frontage of two lots alongs the south side of Cato Springs Road between Emma Avenue to the east and Coleman Avenue to the west.

Specifically, the request is a vacate uh just shy of 310 square feet of right-of-way uh along those two properties frontages.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request.

Uh if you have did look in the packet, you may have noticed that there was an initial conflict between uh concerns the transportation department had and our engineering and planning groups.

Uh ultimately we work through uh how our current master street plan standards work and our development code uh street requirements work and the transportation uh department withdrew their concerns uh and we're all in line and recommending in favor of the request with the two conditions that Mr.

Williams noted.

Uh one of which is our standard that damage and relocation is at the developer's expense, and the second is that ATT facilities will be covered by easements uh as needed uh by that franchise.

Uh the planning commission forwarded this to city council by a vote of six to one.

Um available for questions and mayor uh Christina Juweaver is online uh and has a presentation for council.

Great.

Okay, thank you, Miss Weaver.

Okay, well, we give her a moment if we could go ahead and move to questions from the council.

Council, if you have questions for Mr.

Kurth about this item.

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

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

Okay, I'm not seeing any, and I can see that we don't have any on Zoom, so I will bring it back to the council.

Are we still waiting for the applicant or I think that she decided to not do the presentation is my understanding?

Great.

She has just lowered her hand there.

Okay, okay, great.

All right, um uh I'd like to move then that we move to the third and final reading.

Second, okay.

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

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Weedaker Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Ms.

Moore, yes.

In order to approve VAC 25-28 for property located southwest of West Keatle Springs Road and South M Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate a 100th of an acre of lander.

Great.

Thank you.

And Kara, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Mr.

Wheataker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you.

I have to act it.

Thank you.

Thank you, the applicant, and thank you, Mr.

Kurt.

Yes.

Excuse me, Mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry.

I just saw Keith the Christina Buzzing.

Was that not the applicant that was online that was trying to get in?

Yes, you raised her hand and then she lowered hand.

Okay, great.

Yeah, thank you.

So sorry, my um sorry, my computer was not working well, but uh, I guess there's no need for presentation.

I just prepared it looks like everybody uh okay with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Weaver, and the item did pass.

Okay, thank you.

So thank you.

Thank you for being here, and sorry about that.

Thanks.

Okay, uh moving to item C5, an ordinance to approve vacation 25-31 for property located at 907 South Hollywood Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.10 acres of general utility easement.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

City Council has to flourish on the minor four.

Vacation ground supported third, not required for public purposes.

The phone is by portion of general utility is not required for public permit.

Council city are positive.

Overhead service may easily relocated by the question by Mr.

Garth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request keeps us in South Fable, but moving a little bit to the north and west.

This is located on the west side of South Hollywood Avenue, uh just west of fire station number six, south of MLK, by about 500 feet.

Uh the property was previously developed with a single family home that you can see on the aerial image here, uh, but which has since been demolished, leaving the property currently undeveloped.

The request before council is to vacate a utility easement that covers a significant amount of the property, uh roughly the northern third totaling over 4300 square feet uh to make the property uh or to prepare the property for redevelopment.

Uh staff has identified no issues with the request.

Uh all the franchise utilities have consented to the proposal uh with only the two conditions again that Mr.

Williams outlined, uh one being our standard one and that uh swept coat, the electric utility uh may require uh overhead service relocation depending on the over or the the ultimate uh development plans from the developer, and I'm available for council to take questions and mayor last I saw Zach Hickson is online as the applicant, but I don't believe he has a prepared presentation to answer questions though.

Okay, great, thank you.

Do we have questions for Mr.

Kurtz or the applicant?

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so Jonathan, this is a huge area, like you pointed out.

Why is there such a large easement?

I I I can't recall seeing anything this large ever coming before us.

It varies.

This one does have an overhead uh electric line in it, um, but that does not prevent it from being relocated as that swep co condition implies.

Uh there are many different reasons that we see easements this size.

Sometimes they're developed as a part of a plating process, and the developer may simply be consenting to a large easement for land that they don't think that they will need in an effort to uh advance their project.

So I don't know the exact origins of this one, uh, other uh than to say that it as far as we can determine the only user of it franchise utility user of it now is SWEPCO and all the other uh franchises are are I've I've consented to it being vacated okay.

Um not seeing any more questions.

I'm gonna open it up for public comment.

Does anybody um in the public wish to speak on this item?

Okay, I will bring it back to the council.

I'll make a motion spend rules group third final reading.

Second okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll to suspend the rules?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Burnett?

Yes.

Ms.

Turner?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

And Yarn to approve DIC 25-31 for properties located at 907 South Hollywood Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.1 acres of general utility easement.

Dr.

Jones.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

And the next item is C6, rezone 2025-50 on West Michael Cole Drive.

Kit.

Okay.

Is this an ownership approve VIC 25-31?

Yes.

No, this is an ordinance to rezone the property described in 25-50 for approximately 7.67 acres.

I've got this.

All right.

Your arms rezoned the property described and rezoning partition RZN 2025-50 for approximately 7.67 acres located at 5901 West Michael Cole Drive in Ward 4.

From RA residential agricultural to RI-12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre, and CCR, conservation cultural and recreation, subject to a conservation easement.

We had ordained by the city council, the city of Fayel Archlaw Section 1.

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

Most attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RA residential agricultural to RI-12 residential intermediate 12 units per acre and CCR, conservation, cultural, and recreation, subject to the attached conservation easement.

Section 2 that the City Council of the City of Fayel Archwall here by men's official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to West Fayetteville.

It's about a third of a mile east of Double Springs Road on the south side of Weddington as Michael Cole goes southward from that street and then seguing into an east-west street, which you can see towards the upper uh portion of the aerial image in front of you.

This request includes an area of about eight and a half overall acres, uh, of which, as you heard Mr.

Williams read in the uh ordinance, uh 7.67 acres are in consideration.

Uh if the aerial image was not enough clue there, you you can see that there uh is a substantial amount of floodplain on the property and uh is a portion of why uh the request uh is what it is, uh, which getting to that as a breakdown of how this is being proposed.

It is an odd-shaped property to begin with, but the rezoning request itself is uh also confusing unless you're uh more familiar with it.

Uh it includes three parts.

Uh the first is to keep a portion of the property zoned RA.

That's the zoning designation today, residential agriculture, and that is surrounding the existing house on the property, in addition to some additional buildings adjacent to it.

Uh, beyond that, the proposal is to rezone the portion near Michael Cole, uh generally outside the floodplain and totaling about 54% of the area to be rezoned uh to be uh to RI-12 residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

This leaves the balance of the property about three and a half acres uh proposed to be rezoned to conservation cultural and recreational.

Uh and as a brief uh reminder or primer for council, uh it's been a minute since uh you all uh adopted that zoning district.

Uh CCR came into existence in June of 2025 when the council supported the the creation of the conservation cultural recreation designation.

Uh one of the main intents of that was to supplant RA residential agricultural as our de facto uh uh conservation tool.

Uh up until that point, we had no zoning district in the city of Fayel that could truly conserve or protect property.

Uh we typically use RA as that designation because of its low density entitlements, but it still allows a number of agricultural activities that could have negative impacts uh given the the wrong context.

Uh as a result, CCR was developed.

It has a very limited number of buyright uses and conditional uses, and uh fundamental to it is that it requires uh as a part of a CCR request to have a a legal instrument, a conservation easement be dedicated over that portion of the land uh to ensure it's uh uh ongoing conservation.

With that in mind, uh and moving into the evaluation of the request, uh staff does find it to be compatible, uh compatible from a land use standpoint.

Uh RI-12 allows uh fairly low to mid-density uh residential development uh of single two, three, and four family dwellings.

Uh to the north and east are single family dwellings.

Bricks drive to the west is made up of two family dwellings, and it's staff's assertion that the RA-12 zoning district can complement this uh with its allowances.

Uh similarly, we find the CCR zoning designation to be an appropriate designation for an area that is uh as noted previously uh encumbered by both floodplain and floodway.

Uh we similarly find the request to uh align with our future land use goals.

Uh, this property has a split designation on our future land use map of residential neighborhood area, which contemplates a variety of residential uses depending on the context and natural area, which is intended to not be developed.

Uh while the zoning request is not identically follow those boundaries.

Uh we feel that it is consistent enough uh that it uh reflects proper acknowledgement of those long range plans.

Uh as far as issues go, um this is the first uh request for CCR that the council has seen.

It's also the first request that the staff and the legal department have seen.

And as we've worked through finalizing the conservation easement, uh additional questions have arisen over the last week or so.

So ultimately, what I will be recommending the council do tonight is to leave this on the first reading so that we may finalize some of the documents with the applicant in advance of the January 20th uh city council meeting.

Uh, we have been in contact with the applicant and their attorney.

Um but in advance of that to touch on a few items that came up at the tour so the council can go into that January 20th conversation and formed.

Uh a question came up about access to this property.

If you have an opportunity to visit it, you will notice Michael Cole is a dead end street.

Uh the uh the developer of this property also uh is associated with Brooks Drive to the west, which is another dead-end street, and there's an intent to connect those two, which would provide not just connectivity, but also would address fire code issues uh when when streets of that length uh are proposed to be dead end.

Uh additionally, there are questions about street improvements more generally, since Michael Cole is effectively a two-lane country road, there are no sidewalks, no curb and gutter that will be evaluated at the time of development.

Uh, it may be that uh some of those connection requirements or fire code requirements take precedence over uh things like curb and gutter, uh but at space line uh our major priorities are uh safety and then beyond that moving into sidewalks for pedestrian access.

And then finally, there's a question about the potential for detention to be located in the floodplain.

Uh that is something we need to confirm still with the uh conservation easement.

Um the the council member had the opportunity to visit and note saw that that much of that floodplain area is effectually effectively fielded today.

Um, and so there is a potential that it could actually serve uh several ecosystem services to develop it as a detention, since many of our detention pond requirements in favor require native plantings in them that can serve uh perhaps a more beneficial role uh than the field is developed as today.

But uh again, we'll be evaluating that conservation easement to ensure that that is included.

Uh finally, staff is ultimately recommending approval.

The planning commission forwarded this to you all unanimously.

Uh, but staff is uh requesting that the council leave this on the first reading uh this week.

Uh and mayor, uh uh Phil Swope is here as the engineer for the applicant, and but he does not have a prepared presentation that I'm aware of, but he can answer questions.

Available for questions.

Thanks.

Okay, great.

Um, can you pull the picture up again that shows the CCR and the RA?

I'm just trying to see if the floodplain or floodway overlaps the CCR or the RA.

Because I think you showed it one way, like that's you can see it there.

And then if you overlap the building, okay.

So that at the very top, that is floodplain.

The floodplain is not shown on this image, and I realize that's confusing.

This is intended to solely be a reason of the rezoning exhibit.

So the boundaries you see here are what's proposed as where the RIU RI-12 is proposed, which is that double hatch where the lines are close to get.

Well, I can the northern portion is the RI-12, the southern dark portion is CCR, and the uh portion where there are buildings today for the most part is what's proposed as RA.

So the short answer, I think, is that the zoning districts do not perfectly align with the floodplain, but they're intended to generally follow it to the extent possible.

And I know I've asked this before we talked about um either it's the floodway that you have to talk to FEMA about building in that area.

Is that correct?

Yes, if you are not able to, if you're not able to demonstrate that you're not having impacts, yes, you have to go through FEMA permitting and to juxtapose these again.

Okay, thank you.

Certainly thank you for the questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you, Jonathan, for the tour yesterday and and Justin for being there.

I really appreciate um that those efforts, especially since I was the only one that was there.

Um so I went back and I looked at the um I kind of did a little homework this afternoon and um and was looking through the conservation easement.

So I'm I I'm glad we're gonna hold it.

Um so in that first um that the summary document about the easement, it talks about 4.64 acres.

I think that is in Section A.

Uh, and then when you go through the document at the very end in exhibit B and exhibit two, it talks about 3.53 acres uh in the conservation easement.

So if those could get reconciled, and maybe you have the answer right here.

Yes, sorry, Phil swap.

Yeah, it is 3.5, so there's just a mistaken number early on on the 4.6.

That's wrong.

It is what where the 4.6 came from was before we carved out the RA zone for the existing structures that are there.

So it is only 3.5 for the CCR.

Okay, so that will be corrected.

Okay, or made clearer, I guess non-legalize.

We'll make those consistent for sure.

Okay.

While you're there, I have some more questions.

Um I also um just to be clear, the I was trying to figure out who was the holder of the conservation easement.

It's not the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust, right?

It's Michael Cole LLC.

Is that is that accurate?

Correct.

Yes.

So my understanding, and again, I think we're all working through this the first time, but yeah, it's still the same ownership, but we're just dedicating an easement.

So it'll still be ownership of the current property owner, but it'll be dedicated as as an easement in perpetuity to the city.

Is that right, Kid?

Well, uh Blake has been working on this rather than me, but generally uh the same person, if the same person owns uh the underlying property and the easement, then it's uh merged.

It's hard to separate it if it's the same person.

You have to have usually a different entity holding the easement as as opposed to the property owner.

Uh but I haven't been working on this.

Blake has, so I'll have to talk with him about it tomorrow.

Sure.

Okay.

That would be nice to get that clarification.

Um the other thing I noticed is that um within some of the conditions or some of the the uh agreement with the CCR is that uh there's no public access.

Uh and and so you might want to take a look at that because when I read it, I thought, gosh, this is a beautiful stream.

What if we ended up, you know, later on in 10 years where there's actually a boardwalk down there or it's connected up to a bike trail.

And so um, I thought that might be something you might consider.

Are you are you saying it doesn't specify that in the document in the easement document itself?

I think the easement document says no public access access.

Yeah, let me clarify that with our client for sure.

That that would be great.

Um I think those are my only other questions.

Thank you.

And and thank you for um attempting to do CCR so far.

So I appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I think what I'd like to uh see, I'm glad we're taking time with this, is you know, we've got all the maps here, but it's hard to tell, you know.

I think having more overlay maps might help to see, you know, where that floodway cuts across the different uh zoning or development, like it and and we're happy to do that.

I'll I'll for sure bring that next time, but just I mean, I think we can have that discussion now.

It the floodplain and floodway, or the floodplain clearly cuts through both the RA and the C CR proposed zones.

Yeah.

Um, and and that really was the intent because we thought, hey, if it's not usable anyway, why don't we just dedicate this into the easement that can be?

I guess I'd like to see like does it does the floodplain uh come up into the development and by how much yeah, I'll I'll take a look at that.

Um if it does, I mean we're we have full intention, we're working with Olsen actually as well.

Um, so that we'll comply with all floodplain requirements on on the development.

And then I guess I just we'll have questions about the density uh like uh how many homes and and and so forth.

Yeah, so yeah, so it we do show a 12 units per acre, which is what will be up in that area that we go to RI 12.

Yeah, and and so overall we would be under six units an acre if you included all the property at once, but instead we're concentrating that at the north end with the 12 RI 12.

Okay.

Um I guess I'd just like to see a diagram of what that looks like.

And I it looked like it looked like it may have been on there, kind of underlaid uh on one of the diagrams.

So I'll take a closer look at that as well.

I I need to caution the city council.

I know that when you looked at the school board uh rezoning, you looked at a development basically.

That is not really what you should be considering in a rezoning only, what was presented here, not a diagram of how they plan to develop their property.

I guess I'm more concerned, kid, about the floodplain and where the floodplain interacts with the development, which I think is something I can consider well, you can consider it as it cuts across.

If it gets across cuts across to RI 12 land, yeah, then uh you know you can look at that.

Just because a property is zoned RI 12 doesn't mean they built on every part of the parcel.

Uh especially if there's a floodplain coming into it, they probably would move the houses and stuff away from that.

And but that's a development issue uh and not really a rezoning issue unless unless you feel like the land just should not be zoned uh to a 12 unit density.

I generally don't think that land should be floodplain should be rezoned for high density residential.

So mayor Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you.

At a minimum, uh Councilmember Stafford will work with the applicant to have an overlay of the zoning districts and the floodplain, so those are clearly matched up.

Okay, um we are gonna take public comment.

We will be leaving this item on the first reading, but I am gonna open it up if we have any members of the public that would like to speak.

And it seems we do not, so I will bring it back to the council.

That sounds like we're in agreement that that will be left on the first reading.

Um go ahead.

Well, we arrange a tour.

Is that there was a tour yesterday that was scheduled, yes.

Oh, okay.

I'm a said one.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh so moving on to item C7, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-60 for approximately 2.9 acres, located at 3816 West Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from RSF 1, residential single family one unit per acre, to P1, institutional kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification property shown on the map, exhibit A, and a legal description exhibit B, most attached to planning departments agenda memo from RSF 4 1, residential single family one unit per acre to P1 institutional.

And section two that the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh this request is in West Northwest Fayeville.

Uh it's at the northwest corner of RuPaul Road and Mount Comfort Road.

It is most prominently the location of the Mount Comfort Presbyterian Church, uh, which uh you all may be familiar with.

Uh the church has been operating on or near that property for well over 100 years, and uh request is to rezone it from its existing RSF one residential single family one unit per acre zoning designation to P1 institutional an acknowledgement of the intent to continue using the property as a church.

Uh staff does find this to be a compatible land use, uh, P1 uh and the church's existing functions uh in with lack of uh uh any nuisance or complaints or traffic issues that we uh identified and indicate that this is uh appropriate to continue as as continue as its existing use, uh, but to address the non-conformance uh that has been there ever since it was annexed into the city of Fayetteville.

Uh similarly, uh, from a future land use map designation, we find it to be consistent.

Uh institutional uses often need to exist alongside residential and non-residential uses in order to accommodate all the needs of our residents.

Uh, we feel it is appropriate to continue uh allowing the church that serve this purpose at its location today.

Oh sorry to leave the slides in there.

Again, the main issue with this one is uh the question of non-conformance.

Uh this church again has been in operation for well over a hundred years, uh, and this will address that nonconformity accordingly.

We're recommending in favor of the proposal, and the council forwarded it to or the commission forwarded to city council by unanimous six to zero vote with no public comment received.

And mayor, I believe I have Dorothy Ashworth down as the applicant for the item, but I was not able to uh contact them before the meeting, so I'm not sure if they're available or not.

Okay, great.

Um is Miss Ashworth here or on the call?

Okay.

Do we have questions for Jonathan about this?

Okay, then I'm gonna open it up.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Then I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

And I'm not seeing any here or on Zoom.

So I will bring it back to the council, Councilmember Burney.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and several seconds.

Uh Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Weaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Burnch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described and read-only petition RCN 2025-60 for approximately 2.9 acres, located at 3816 West Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from RSF 1 residential single family one unit per acre to P1 institutional.

Okay.

Clerk or I'm sorry, Mr.

Stafford, do you have a comment?

Oh, okay.

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

Mr.

Wheat and Kerr?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay, that brings us to item C8, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-5-8 for approximately 9.02 acres located at South Future Drive and South Route Avenue in Ward 1.

From RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre, to NSG, Neighborhood Services General.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Being ordained by the City Council of the City of Faithville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council, the City of Faithville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classification property shown the map, exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4, Resident Eventually single family four units per acre to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

Section 2 that the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section One.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And before diving into this specific item, I do want to make sure that we are well oriented because both these next requests have similar names.

They're geographically in a very similar location.

And I want to make sure we're all considering the same the same item at the same time.

This is located in towards western Fayville, but on the south and southwestern slopes of Markham Hill.

What we're discussing with this item specifically.

Oops.

On the wrong presentation, it was bound to happen.

Excuse me, give me one moment.

Pardon me.

For this item, C8, we'll be discussing the southern of the two uh properties, uh, which has access to uh both future drive to the west and route avenue, which is another public street on the southeast corner of the property.

Uh this specific site uh includes uh just over nine acres of of land and it's currently undeveloped.

Uh it does have a little bit of a recent zoning history uh being considered by the city council and planning commission in mid-2021.

There was a request to rezone this property from its existing uh designation of RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Uh this was denied by the planning commission and uh appealed to council where it was also denied uh in early 2022, not long thereafter.

Uh request to CS community services came forward, uh which was uh denied uh by the city council after being forwarded by the planning commission recommending in favor of the request.

What is before council tonight is a request to rezone the property from RSF4 to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request.

Uh, we do find it to be compatible from a land use standpoint.

The NSG zoning district allows uh low to mid uh intensity uh residential and non-residential uses uh that we feel can be compatible with not only the uh multifamily uh residential that you can find at the south and east, uh, but also the highway frontage uh that this property has uh that may be appropriate to be developed for commercial activities.

Uh we similarly find the property to uh or the request to be consistent with our long-range planning goals.

This property has a split future land use map designation which mirrors the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District on the property.

Uh if you can see the inset map there, the portion of yellow that bows southward from the property line, that's the portion within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District.

Uh we feel that NSG uh again with its mid to to low intensity allowances uh can appropriately address uh the the potentially difficult terrain on the property, uh, but also take advantage of of its having two different street frontages uh not just the access to the single or the one-way uh future drive to the west.

Um as a little bit of background, this request did originally come to our planning commission uh proposed as commercial services CS, similar to what uh was proposed in 2022 with the applicant's uh consent.

It was amended to NSG Neighborhood Services General before it being forwarded to City Council.

Uh we did receive one piece of public comment on this item.

Uh the count the commission chose to hear both these requests together, uh, given there they're somewhat similar traits and public comment was shared, uh, what appeared to be directed at this specific property uh with concerns about drainage and runoff uh onto the associated apartments to the south of this property.

Uh all told uh staff is recommending in favor.

And on this uh item, uh the planning commission forwarded it to city council by unanimous vote of seven to zero again, recommending NSG neighborhood services general on the item.

And I can take any questions the council has, and mayor, I believe uh Robert Wells is here as the applicant for the item in person, and I think uh Molly Pace is online as well.

Uh okay, Mr.

Wells or Miss Pace, do you all have a presentation or are you just here for questions?

Okay, okay, great.

Um we'll start with Ms.

Turk.

I think Bob was ahead of me.

But then he turns okay.

Um thank you.

Um so Jonathan, uh I've been here long enough to remember when we toured that um site three or four years ago or so, and if I recall correctly, it's pretty steep, but I didn't see a topo map in the in the packet.

Um do you have any idea what the slope is?

Um, because you know there are houses that are right there uh right next to that property, and uh if I recall the slope was pretty significant.

I don't have that immediately available.

I'm sorry.

Uh I can try to track that down and then turn them.

Okay.

Um so um could you explain a little bit maybe more the justification of changing it from the applicant's request for community services to NSG?

I I didn't quite understand the logic behind that because I think route dead ends right right there.

And and again, that road is pretty steep back there.

The I believe the the road itself is fairly level, uh, but it does indeed dead end of the property route avenue does.

Uh and uh if I can characterize accurately the planning commission's concerns is CS does allow taller buildings, it allows buildings up to five stories, uh, which it also allows multifamily structures by right, which can inherently have larger footprints and and and may not be as conducive to some of the terrain that you're describing.

Uh ultimately some of that is that is my understanding and my perception of what informed their decision to amend the request to NSG, uh, which allows smaller buildings, smaller footprints.

Uh, things like multifamily structures are only allowed as a conditional use in that zoning district.

Thank you.

That was very helpful.

Certainly.

Okay, not seeing any more questions, so I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

Okay, Keith, I'm not seeing anybody on Zoom where you no, no, Mayor.

Okay.

I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clark Paxson, can you call the roles?

Uh call the rolls.

Can you call the roll uh for the suspension, please?

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk, no.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford?

No.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Five.

Okay.

Mayor, uh, five uh council members have voted yes.

Do you care to vote?

And this is simply I would not be voting for the item.

I would simply be voting for suspending the rules and go into the third and final reading.

Third and final reading.

Um okay.

I'm and why am I can you just explain against five three?

The mayor is allowed to vote positively for any motion where the vote is needed to pass the motion.

In this case, six votes are required to pass the suspension of the rules.

Um I think if we have council members that that wish that this be held to have more time to be able to think about it, then I will I will opt to not vote in this instance.

All right, well, then that motion failed.

So we are still we have not just to be clear, we have not the motion it's or the uh ordinance itself has not failed, simply the moving forward.

So we will come back up next week.

So or next next meeting.

Um Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I would think uh because I was on that tour a couple of years ago.

I think uh, and I know we set tours at the agenda session, but uh, and thank you for holding this or not advancing it, but I think a tour would be very helpful just to kind of see the topography and that and some of the issues that uh are over there that may not be um immediately uh understood uh from the packet of information, and then I and then it would be helpful, Jonathan, if we had that top map.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for understanding my declining to vote.

It's not about not being for supportive of the project I am, it's simply wanting to be um allow a little bit more time for uh council members.

Um shall we move on to C9?

Or Bob, do you have to do that?

I I was just going to uh just bring in my concerns that I would like to understand, have a better understanding of this before I voted on it.

Um, and I I appreciate uh council member Turk's uh request.

Great.

Um item C9 is also um is the adjacent property, it's also South Futural Drive.

It's an ordinance to rezone 2025-59 for approximately 1.37 acres located at South Futural Drive in Ward 1 from RSF 4 to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas, Section One that the City Council, the City of Faithville, Arkansas here by changes the zone classification property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description exhibit B.

Both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family for units per acre to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

Section two, that's the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas here by amends official zoning map for the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Jonathan.

Mayor, I do have a prepared presentation, but uh I don't want to inaccurately infer, but if the council's intending to hold this one as well and to or this one as well, I can defer that presentation to the following meeting.

Otherwise, I can I'm happy to present.

I I would like to hear the presentation so I know what you know questions or concerns I may have.

I'll proceed then.

Thank you for feedback.

Great.

Maybe an abbreviated presentation so that Bob has a general understanding of it, and then we can go on the tour and get more understanding.

Certainly the full presentation next time.

Go ahead.

In an effort to orient uh the council again, uh item C eight is what we considered with that previous item.

Uh C9 is moving up to the northwest of this one, uh northward along Futural Drive, the uh access point for this property, which is a one-way frontage road associated with Interstate 49.

Uh similar to the last item.

Uh the request is to rezone the property uh from NSG Neighborhood Services General to uh excuse me from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to NSG Neighborhood Services General.

Uh south's findings were very similar to this item compared to the last one.

We we find it to be consistent uh from a land use compatibility and long-range plan standpoint, uh that this the NSG zoning district can complement uh surrounding areas and the the nearby transportation corridor.

Uh this is uh because again the planning commission heard these items together, uh they considered them uh similarly and they heard public comment together.

Um C in hearing the public comment and seeing the public comment documents that were submitted after the planning commission, it is clear that that person's concerns were more directly uh directed to the previous item that you heard about and uh run off from uh that item to uh the the multifamily housing to the south of the property.

Uh when the uh ultimately came to a final decision, uh staff is recommending in favor and the planning commission forwarded it to you all by a vote of six to one.

Uh I can take questions and mayor the applicants are the same on this item as they were on the last um Ronald Wells is here in person and Molly Paces online.

Thanks.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Stafford.

Um, I guess one question that pops up for me on this one is will the so futural's one way uh is that northbound?

Northbound, that's correct.

And um will this property be able to connect to the the previous property so that people have a route back south or would they have to go all the way up to Weddington uh before not explicitly there is an intervening piece of property that is not owned by the two properties you're all are considering tonight.

Uh that would require some level of coordination between those uh but that those these two properties do not touch.

So this property that is on this item only has access to futural directly.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you.

I think the advocate is has made it something.

The applicant would like to, if you'd like to go ahead and come.

Is that okay to Miss Turk and then okay?

Yes, please go ahead.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Robert Wells, and I'm uh apologize.

I did not have a full presentation.

I wasn't sure what sort of questions that the council would like to hear.

Um topography is certainly this is a challenging site.

Um there's no question about that.

I've spent a lot of time out there.

Um this second piece of property is a smaller piece.

Uh, to be honest, I I don't think there's a chance to really develop it.

I think it's gonna be better served as a trail type access that is going to be um the a trailhead, so to speak.

I can't say with certainty, but there is concerns with water.

Um I do not like uh you mentioned futural drive.

Um this might go against some of what the city thinks and once, but I really don't want to have access off future.

Um I say that because that access road right there, you have cars going 60 miles an hour, and it's not conducive to safety, and it's not conducive to what that area is supposed to look like.

Uh, it's supposed to look like Markham Hill, supposed to look like trees.

So now there will be uh some discussions, and I've had discussions with the the fire department.

Um anything over 30 dwellings will require two access points on the nine acres site.

Um it probably will have to have more than 30 to make sense to do.

I'd love to do it with 30 or less, um, just so as to not provide access on future.

Uh, but there's a chance that we're the the current uh sewer that runs from Markham Hill down and the gravel road that goes up that we could have a fire access only with some type of you know, only the I haven't gotten this confirmed.

I have discussed it with the fire department with with a couple folks.

Um so there's still some question marks out there, but that's the vision I have for both of these properties.

Uh another question you had was what is the background?

Why go from community service to neighborhood services general?

Uh the concern with the planning commission was community services was a more intense, it allowed more intense development, and that gives everybody a little bit of pause right there.

Um to neighborhood services is less intense, and that's okay.

I think that's was certainly acceptable.

Um that it's a special site, it's a hard site, but really you know, trying to trying to take in and leave as many trees as possible, you know, disturb as little as possible and keep the first thing when you see, you know, after MLK coming into Fayetteville is trees all the way down that whole area.

And so it's kind of hopefully that gives you a little bit more background of um and information of what we're looking to do there.

Thank you.

Got it.

Ms.

Turk, do you have uh I do I have some more questions?

Um Jonathan, could you have a topo map for this one as well?

Although I I do think it's a lot flatter, like you mentioned.

Um that road in between there, I think that's the um that's the sewer line road up to Markham Hill with that large development.

So it would be really interesting to find out what the um restrictions or or possibilities are with that with that road before two weeks or if we table it for a month or or don't move it forward for a month to give some time for that.

I I I can tell you that that is technically not a road.

Um it is a road, but it it's not a road.

It is neighbors would argue with you.

Yes.

Agreed, it is a uh dedicated sewer easement to the city of Faithville, and the Markham Hill has a conservation easement that attaches to that that is due east of the small triangle piece.

Okay, so um it might be really helpful too to maybe have a more precise map um for a couple of weeks so we can really see how these where the small little conservation easement is and how they intersect or don't intersect.

I think that would be really helpful for us to understand a little bit better.

Um, but thank you for your explanation and your vision tonight.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Um it sounds uh we need to take public comment on that one.

Um so do we have any, and thank you, Mr.

Wells.

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

Okay, um bringing it back to the council, and it sounds like we are going to leave that one on the first reading as well, which brings us to our final um item of new business, C10, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-57 for approximately 0.26 acres located at 4550 West Ozark Trail in Ward 1 from RA, residential agricultural, to RI-12, residential intermediate, 12 units per acre.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That's the city council, the city of Fayev, Arkansas, who might change the zone classification of property shown on the map, Exhibit A and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to planning departments attend a memo from RA residential agricultural to RI-12, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

In section two, that the city council, the city of Fayeville, Arkansas here by man's official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Southwestern Fayetteville.

The map looks this way because we are precisely on the western border with the city of Farmington.

Everything in white beyond the map uh is not within the city limits.

Uh and it is something we notice as part of our mapping uh for these uh these type of presentation tools that it just does not pick that up.

Um so uh it is something that staff considered as a part of the request.

Uh and I'll go into that uh as we discuss this further.

Uh if you're not familiar with where uh this speci particular piece of property it is, it's about 1,000 feet south of Highway 62, uh which I call it that because that's the point at which it transitions from Martin Luther King Boulevard in Fayetteville to Main Street and Farmington.

Uh so if you go a thousand feet due north, it is main street in Farmington technically as the Fayetteville city limits uh angle off to the north and east.

Uh this property includes about a quarter acre of land on the east side of Ozark Trail.

Uh and the request is to rezone it from its existing RA residential agricultural designation to RI-12 interresidential intermediate excuse me, residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

Uh staff is in favor of this request.

Uh there are a variety of property sizes along Ozark Trail.

Uh, while and while it is uh predominantly single family in nature, uh we do find that uh the the allowances and medium sizes of lots uh within the RI-12 zoning district can be complementary to this.

Uh similarly, we find it to be consistent with the future land use map designation of city neighborhood in this area.

When City Plan 2040 was adopted, the future land use map took into consideration uh not only what the city intended to do with our uh our plans, but also what the city of Farmington uh wanted to do or wants to do with with uh uh their portion of the city.

Uh so as we considered uh these additional issues, uh one that came to the forefront is uh the reality of RA-12 and this property and the size of the properties that can only be developed as either one single family home or a duplex.

Uh the lot width requirements of R12 would prevent it from being developed as a triplex or quadplex, which is allowed by right in R-12 with a larger lot size.

Uh coming back to the Farmington future land use map, uh, it may surprise uh the council members to know uh that farming does Farmington does envision ultimately uh much more intense development along the six highway 62 corridor.

Uh this is a SNP from that map.

You can see the the yellow uh rectangle in the upper right hand side is the property in question and all the area in red uh that you see going through the the belt of Farmington is intended to be developed uh in much more intense, uh particularly commercial ways.

Um we feel that allowing an increment of higher residential potential in this area uh complements not just our long-range planning goals but also Farmington's as well.

Uh and you can see the two plans juxtaposed with each other here, uh, where the city's uh Fayetteville City Neighborhood Area future land use map designation is uh something of a corollary to uh what we find in Farmington's future land use map uh because ultimately uh state statute does require for the the city of Farmington to consider any zoning uh along our city limits along the edge of our city limits uh and approve it prior to it going into effect.

Um, and the city of Farmington would have to do advice versus as well.

If the property on the other side of the street was being proposed to be rezoned, they would consider it before it would ultimately come to council.

It's been a while since you all have seen something like that, however, it does not happen terribly frequently.

Uh finally, uh, as another item uh that was considered is we did receive some public comments uh on this request.

Uh it was specific to concern about uh potential redevelopment or development of this property uh that it could have uh negative impacts on runoff in this area.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this request, and the planning commission I'm sorry, it shouldn't read amended.

Uh they forwarded the request recommending approval for RI-12.

And Mayor, uh believe I have Isaiah Freeman here in person as the applicant for this item, but I don't believe he has a formal presentation.

Okay, got it.

Just here for questions.

Okay, that's good to know.

Thank you.

Um do we have members of the council with questions for the applicant?

And Isaiah, uh tell me your last name again.

It's Freeman.

Freeman.

Thank you.

Okay, Gary, thank you.

Uh, for Mr.

Freeman or for Jonathan.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, R.I.

12 seems to be uh a pretty intense um zoning designation considering RA is around there, and I know uh Farmington has some future plans of higher density, but considering they can only put one house or duplex on there, why such an intense um zoning change?

Why not an um you know an RSF4, RSF 8 or something else that ought to allow that, but but the designation, the zoning type is less intense.

Does that make sense?

It I think it does.

Thank you for the question, and please uh correct me if I'm answering it in the way you didn't imagine it would go.

The R12 zone district is the lowest intensity zone district that allows duplexes by right.

Um and so with this lot having I'm sorry, I believe it's about 50 60 feet of frontage, maybe up to 70, they could only develop it with one single family home or one duplex.

Uh and so the applicant could speak to whether they their intent is to develop it with a duplex, otherwise, there are single family districts that you could develop this lot with if you're with with that with that with and only wanting to develop a single family home.

Thank you.

That was extremely helpful.

I appreciate that.

Thanks.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, I think I'm gonna ask ask you to answer the same question you've already answered us twice, but just to clarify that this property won't fit a triplex, it will only get a duplex.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

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

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

Do we have anybody that nobody that called in?

Okay.

Um, Miss Moore.

Miss Moore and then Minister Jones.

Like to suspend the roles and go to the third reading.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Do you want to okay?

Okay.

Um Clerk Maxon, will you please call the roll uh to suspend the rooms?

Mr.

Weaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bennett?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

In order to reason the property and described and reasoning petition RZN 2025-57 for approximately quarter acre, located at 4550 West Ozark Trail in Ward 1 from RA Residential Agricultural to RI-12 residential intermediate 12 units per acre.

And I think it's notable that Jonathan pointed out that this is the lowest density that we have that still allows for a duplex.

And I think it would be great at some point in the future for us to consider what it would look like to be able to put duplexes in more zoning designations.

But that's neither here nor there right now.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

We have Keith.

I'm going to go to you first, and then we have a um actually no, I'm going to go first to Mr.

Williams.

We have a uh announcement for Mr.

Will uh for Mr.

Williams and he would like to address us.

Please go ahead, Kit.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

On March 1st of this year, I will begin my 26th year of service as faithful city attorney.

I am so grateful to have been entrusted by our citizens for this wonderful and fulfilling job.

I cannot imagine a more honorable, important and satisfying legal position than being empowered to serve, advise, and defend my hometown, its elected officials, staff, and citizens.

It has been very enlightening and satisfying to be part of the elected government of Fayetteville as a city has more than doubled in population since I was first elected as a city council member in 1992.

I believe that the careful and wise leadership of the four elected mayors and 17 city councils since then have been instrumental to help keep Fayville in the top 10 places to work, live, and raise your family.

This year, 2026 will be my last year to serve as Fayville City Attorney.

I can confidently retire because senior assistant city attorney Blake Pennington has the integrity, knowledge, and expertise to provide the same quality legal service to the city of Fayetteville.

With a dozen years of experience advising the planning commission as well as the city council, reviewing contracts, advising city staff, writing ordinances and resolutions.

Blake Pennington is well prepared and very competent to become the next favorable city attorney.

Assisting Blake with all litigation matters is Assistant City Attorney Hannah Hungate, who has prevailed in circuit court at the Arkansas Supreme Court and in the federal court defending the decisions of this city council and mayor.

After I retire at the end of 2026, the highly qualified and capable and experienced Fable City Prosecutor Brian Thomas and his outstanding staff, along with my excellent city attorney offices staff, will continue to provide our citizens the competent and fair legal services they deserve.

I look forward to many years of happy retirement in the city that I love.

I want to again extend my heartfelt thanks to our citizens for entrusting me with the honorable position of Fayetteville City Attorney.

And I spent an honor to serve with all of you.

And I will certainly have more to say later, but for now, thank you.

Thank you for your service and thank you for those wonderful comments.

Yeah.

Yes.

I mean, not yet, Keith.

You have big shoes to fill.

Do you have any announcements that you would like to?

I'm quite sure I can follow that.

So you're not having great.

Thank you all so very much.

Happy New Year.

And we're adjourned.