I'm so sorry.

I'm 29 seconds late.

I know Mr.

Wheedaker.

But it's really Bob, Bob and Jonathan.

It's really there.

I'm gonna blame that one on y'all.

Um okay.

So we are gonna call to order and kick off this agenda session.

I hope to see you all um afterwards at the town center for the state of a city, state of the city.

Um I first will go through the consent agenda that we'll be hearing next week.

Um and for the reason um forgive me, never mind.

This is consent.

First, we'll approve the February 3rd meeting minutes.

Then we will hear a resolution to a vote on a resolution to approve a budget adjustment on the amount of 46,474 to transfer a tree escrow balance for the planting of mitigation trees in various locations throughout the city.

This is um not out of the ordinary.

We also have John's there.

We go.

We also have John Scott here uh from Urban Forestry.

John, if you'd like to go up, I think I believe Miss Turk has questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, John.

Hello.

I'm just wondering is is this the total balance of the escrow account or is there so a lot of other money in there uh in the tree escrow account?

It's the total balance of that account.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I was curious about.

John How's the statement?

Thank you.

Oh, I don't uh Minister Jones, Minister Jones, Ms.

Moore, Mr.

Stafford.

How often are these deposits happening?

Are they sporadic based on the agreement with land developers that are agreeing to purchase additional trees for the city?

How often would you say deposits are made?

Um we maybe get like a handful a year of there was for several years we didn't get any best row payments.

Once we do receive them, we have seven years to use that money in the part quadrant from which it came before for a tree planting plan.

Sarah.

Thank you.

Um so with this balance, um, are you able to tell us kind of uh where we're planning to plant trees?

And then I don't know if you had an update on the type of species that we're looking to plant right now in some of those areas.

We have until uh 2030 to use this money.

Okay.

Um and the the park quadrants that came out of were the there's a little bit that came out of the southeast part quadrant, but the bulk of it came out of the southwest uh park quadrant, which is mostly downtown area and 71 is kind of our dividing line, and then uh Weddington and North.

So is it possible to use some of the um triescrow that comes in if that is downtown to be a part of some of the things that come out of like downtown master plan and as we're doing some of the audits around like accessibility and things if we isolate and see like there's um kind of heat islands or areas like that?

Can we mitigate in some of those areas or do we have more restrictive um places that we typically are putting the trees?

Is it mostly kind of in our parks and other green space where we'd be placing those?

Um the money is just for planting trees or the maintenance of trees or any of that.

Um it generally does need to be in our right-of-ways or on our public properties.

Okay, so it can't it can be amongst all of those different areas.

It's not yeah, absolutely.

Okay, um, yeah.

And then at this time though, you sound said it through 2030.

So it sounds like the plan would be that this money in these trees would be between 2026 and 2030, that they'd be it's not that they're all gonna happen in 2026.

Correct.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And then uh John, um when we look at uh where we're planting trees, do you look at like where was this escrow money collected?

Like what area of town did we lose the trees and try to plant in the same area?

Yes, that's that we can.

That's why it's associated with the park quadrant.

Okay, it's tied directly to that park quadrant so that we spend it in the area similar to where it came from.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

That brings it, thank you, John.

That brings us to item A3, a resolution to approve the purchase and installation of a 10-ton HVAC system in the amount of 79,797 and 50 cents from elite building solutions for the Yvonne Richardson Community Center pursuant to resolution 265-2-1 and to approve the associated budget adjustment.

This is for the older part of the building, and Alison is here.

I believe uh Minister Jones has a question.

I think either Keith or Allison one whomever can best answer that.

I think I just get confused when we are in the first part of the year and we're making budget adjustments.

How do we not plan for this and how is it not budgeted?

Is YRC part of our budget?

And then how do we think long term of not having budget adjustments this early in the year?

I think well, I want to answer the first part about the budget adjustment.

Then you speak to the YRCC part.

I think that's part of where our language is confusing that it is a budget adjustment, not a budget amendment.

So it doesn't necessarily mean we didn't have it budgeted.

We're just allocating it to something specific.

Um but I I agree that that can be a confusing distinction to remember, Steve.

Yeah, I mean, this is a budgeted item.

We're just moving those funds to the correct project.

That's what we do with uh budget adjustments as well.

Um did I step in the air?

No, I don't think Minister Jones.

Do you have did that answer your question?

No, I had a third we ask you to ask about the YRC.

Yeah.

And then are they our city?

They're a city funded entity that we budget to make these maintenance changes on it on an annual basis.

Yes.

So we have funds in the YRCC.

It was a YRCC Buddy Hayes project, and it was budgeted, it's just not in the account that needs to be spent from, so it's being moved into a buildings and grounds account rather than contract services.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Ms.

Moore.

The mayor might have answered my question, but um, so uh just thinking about that.

We need the bond monies and uh the upgrade to the building, and so it sounds like potentially that this was outside though, really of that project.

It was it looks like it's budgeted separately, I guess, and it wasn't a part of that package.

So we had multiple funding sources for that project.

Um there was the bond project, and we also had funding in our neighborhood YRCC Buddy Hayes project.

Yep.

Okay, so it's coming from that other money.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, Allison.

Oh, Keith, do you have a oh I was just gonna mention the HVAC unit is for the gymnasium, which is part of the existing facility.

Cool.

Sorry, it's just a clarification because we redid like the gem floor in the existing building, and that was part of that project, wasn't it?

I'm just trying to understand how that was scoped out.

That's correct.

We just did have the HVAC in the initial project.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay, item A4 is a resolution to amend the 2026 adopted budget by reappropriating 187,900.

No, I'm sorry, 187 million nine hundred and ninety-three thousand three hundred and thirty dollars.

Quite different in bonded or ongoing capital projects and outstanding obligations and grant budget items because this is quite large.

Steven, if you could go ahead and speak to it, please.

Sure, mayor.

Good evening, council.

Um, so every year we come forward uh to council with a request to roll forward funding for projects that the city has already committed to but remain uncompleted or outstanding at the end of the year.

By statute, as a reminder, the state of Arkansas doesn't allow for multi-year budgets.

We can't be running multi-year budgets at the same time.

And for that reason, we're required to bring forward all these items to council to add into the new year's budget.

In late 2025, council had approved a 2026 budget in the amount of 273,863,000.

What we're bringing forward here is a request to add a total of 187 million 993,330 for these uncompleted projects.

Um, and as a reminder, these obligations um are already ones that the council has committed to of that total 187.9 million dollars.

21% is for bond projects uh funds that are still being spent from the 2022 and 2024 bonds.

18% is for grants, those are uncompleted grants that the city has accepted.

One percent is for operational obligations, such as purchase orders, contracts, things like that, and 60% of it is for capital improvement projects.

Uh, as I mentioned, these have already previously been approved by council, and now we're bringing them forward with a request to add them into the 2026 budget so that we can continue to use those funds for the projects that they have been committed to.

And as we close out fiscal year 2025, uh we're gonna come back to council for a second time uh on this item in April to basically true up the appropriation for any payments that have been made uh between the time we calculated this and between the time we close out the fiscal year.

So this is something that we do do every year.

Yes, and and you said the 60 percent is capital improvement projects only from 2021 and 2022.

Those can be ongoing capital improvement projects that the city council has funded in previous budgets.

If you recall, there are there are a number of items that we're required to grow to a certain balance before we can make that purchase.

And uh that's generally speaking, um, for instance, uh take the police radios that we recently did.

I mean, that's a significant cash outway, so we tend to save up for a number of years in the CIP until we need those radios, and then we make the purchase.

And I believe I believe you have a new staff member on your team.

We do.

Uh thank you very much.

Our new deputy Jennifer Walker has uh joined the team uh effective Monday.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike, and welcome, Jennifer.

And thank you, Stephen.

I believe Minister Jones has another go ahead.

And I guess my my last question is there a clear delineation in identifying and itemizing what the whole 187 is being allocated to.

You have that is that available for us to see.

Yeah, it's it's uh attached with the item, the the council agenda item.

Uh the last pages detail out what that the full the full amount is.

Thank you, Steve.

Thank you.

Um5 is also um in Stephen's department.

It's a resolution to approve the fourth one-year contract with Forvis LLP for auditing services for the 2025 audit in an amount not to exceed 169,756 dollars for an option to renew for up to one additional one-year term.

Minister Jones.

Which department are you using?

Uh finance.

That would be Steve.

Uh, Minister Jones, so that's budgeted citywide.

We allocate that across all funds.

I I apologize.

I probably misspoke when I said it was your department.

I meant you were overseeing it.

Overseeing it, not necessarily your budget.

Sorry.

Thank you.

The next few items are from Fleet.

A and Ross is here and present if we have questions.

A6 is a resolution to approve the purchase of an international utility body truck from Rush Truck Centers in the amount of $99,084 and 40 cents pursuant pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract.

A7, and I'll read all these, and then if we have questions for Ross, we can ask all at once if that's okay.

A seven is a resolution to authorize the purchase of a jetter truck, perhaps it's Jeter from River City Hydraulics in the amount of 224,609 dollars and one cents one cent pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract.

And then A8 is a resolution to authorize the purchase of one caterpillar skid steer and four caterpillar excavators from JA Riggs Tractor Company for the total amount of $682,000, 12.81 cents plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract.

I'm having trouble with my addiction tonight.

I apologize.

Does anybody have any questions about these purchases for Ross?

Okay.

That will move us on to A9, a resolution to approve an agreement with Waste Cooperation Corporation of Arkansas, LLC, doing business as GLF environmental for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville for a period of two years with automatic renewals for two additional two-year terms.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a question, I guess, to Mr.

Neargard.

How many solid waste haulers does the city um permit?

Currently we have 21 or 22 uh private franchise haulers who are permitted in the city.

So as long as they um agree to our permit requirements, um, we pretty much just go ahead and add another one.

We don't have a ceiling or anything like that, a cap.

That has been our practice, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

Item 10, a resolution to waive formal competitive bidding and approve a cost share agreement with Kalara Land LLC for upgrades to the Owl Creek sewer lift station with a refund to be paid by the city in an amount not to exceed 898,746 and 95 cents to approve a project contingency in the amount of 44,937.

44,937 and 35 cents, and to approve the related budget adjustments.

Um is here to answer questions about this cost share agreement if anyone has them.

And I am not seeing any, so we will move on.

The next two items are also Tim's.

A11, a resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with RJN Group Incorporated, pursuant to RFQ 25-1, selection number 13 in an amount not to exceed $843,610 for phase one of the 2026 wastewater collection system master plan to approve a project contingency in the amount of 160,380 and to approve the related budget adjustment.

And a 12, a resolution pursuant to section 39.10 C4 of the Fayetteville City Code to authorize a payment of 100,000 to Chris Skowraki for sewer damage for a sewer damage claim arising at 516 North Fallon Avenue in Fayetteville.

And uh Mr.

Stafford.

Yes, uh this consistent constituent uh contacted me uh a few times.

Um it it but by their telling uh it seems like the damages exceed a hundred thousand uh exceed a hundred thousand, and they're asking for the full you know uh compensation for for all the damages.

Is that correct?

Or uh that's correct.

It's not uncommon for claimants to ask for more than what the ordinance allows, but he is asking uh he has turned in claims for more than 100,000.

And and what happens in that case?

I mean, and and let's say he has receipts for 120,000.

So the way the ordinance is uh for 35,000, the utilities department can't authorize that payment.

Uh up to 30,000 or to 50,000, the city council can authorize it.

Up to 100,000, it has to be the mayor's recommendation to the city council with the two-thirds majority pass, and in no case will the city pay more than 100,000.

Well it can you say that last part again?

Um in no case will the city pay over 100,000 according to the ordinance.

Kit would you like can can Bob do you mind if Kit weighs in on that?

Yeah, right.

Okay.

For uh many many years, most of the time that we've been a uh mayor council form of government, there was no payment.

It was later on we decided that because we have sovereign immunity, so even if we're at fault, we don't legally owe that money.

However, the statutes have allowed us to have a program like this, and so the city council decided to go ahead and do that, but with definite limits on it because we're not an insurance company.

This money's not free money, this money is paid by ratepayers, and so that's why there's a definite limit on it.

It's probably easier to collect from us than it is if they are had their own insurance and try to collect it, but we definitely need a limit on this.

Uh, or else our ratepayers are gonna see their rates go up to pay for larger and larger claims.

But I guess my concern is if uh if the the city something happens in this case, I think it was this uh a sewer line got punctured or something, uh flooded uh this property uh did I don't know what they're saying it did, but over a hundred thousand dollars worth of damage that that constituent just has to just pay out of pocket for for the city destroying their property.

Before we had this, they would receive nothing.

Well, I understand now the city council has put a limit on it of one hundred thousand dollars.

It used to be significantly lower, it's been raised and raised.

Uh, and that's of course up to the city council what you want to do, but it's not just this one person you're looking at, you're looking at every ratepayer.

And so that's what you've got to keep in mind.

You got to balance that.

It's much more difficult to ignore or or to say, well, we can't pay the whole thing to you because I see you.

You don't see all the thousands of ratepayers are going to be paying for this if we don't have limits.

But that is a city council decision.

You could pay more by changing this ordinance.

Gotcha.

Uh, and then this so the city doesn't have insurance is gonna pay this.

This is okay.

This is gonna be paid out of a fund.

If we had insurance, we'd be paying tremendous insurance pop premiums and everybody.

Gotcha.

Um I'm gonna reach out to that constituent, just let them know what I heard tonight.

Um, if I if next week uh I want to pull this, I can pull this off next week.

Your rule the city council rules allow uh for an any council member to pull an item off consent at them at the meeting itself.

Okay, thank you.

Um Mr.

Berna, and then Keith, is your mic still on too?

Okay.

Um if my memory's correct at the water insurer, wasn't there some uh discussion about they had turned in receipts and claims uh that were not allowable or that would that push their amount over the hundred thousand dollars?

Well I was kind of remembering I believe some of the receipts were estimates of of the work that hadn't been performed yet.

They also uh turned in a res turn in a claim for about 80 days of hotel stay when the ordinance allows for three days.

Um but we did use a third party adjuster on this, and so we've uh we're in agreement uh with the resident on the on the actual damage of the of the structure and uh the damage of his personal lines.

Okay, Keith.

Uh that's exactly what I wanted to clarify is these are not actuals on some of these, these are estimates, and then also a good portion of this additional over the 100,000 dollars was uh hotel stays.

Just wanted to make sure uh you're aware of that.

Okay, uh Ms.

Turk.

Um just to clarify.

So of all the um estimated damages um that you've agreed upon that uh the that the adjuster that represents the city has agreed upon.

Is it a hundred thousand dollars or less if you ignore um the extra hotel stays?

No, I think uh the total is about a hundred and twenty thousand when you count everything.

129,000 988 is what's been required.

And that includes the extra hotel stays or not.

Not okay.

Thank you.

Got it.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Moore.

So I was here when we changed the ceiling, and we had some robust conversation.

I appreciate the city attorney that we do have that immunity and that we have to figure out a ceiling.

I just don't know if I recall with the other incidents that the resident has had to totally vacate the premises.

I feel like those folks that we worked with in the past still were at the home, and so I hear the three days, but it does say in his documentation, I think they knew they were gonna be displaced for six months.

And so I guess that becomes my question too about for the future.

Um, if we need some kind of clause in here or something to consider if somebody can stay in the home when it's been partially damaged versus if you have a full move out, if your you know, entire home has had um something come in, right?

That you'd have to leave and vacate.

I guess that's my question of you only have three days that we're saying that we cover, and that doesn't sound very logical to me to think about if my entire you know one-story house had been had sewage in it or something, uh, you know, seepage, you know, then I would probably have to leave for more than three days.

And so I guess I just don't remember us talking about um the separate accommodation that might be needed.

I think some of the other homeowners were still on site or on premises, or I don't remember them asking for rental or displacement.

Well, when we did change the ordinance off the McKee Court incident, it wasn't about hotel stay, it was about uh actually knocking a uh home off of its foundation more or less because of water leak.

My my take on this, you know, it's there's a lot of human nature built into this.

So if you get somebody that's been in the water sewer business for four decades, you know, you you look about it and you think that some things can be salvaged or recovered, but for a resident that this is the first time that it's ever happened to, it's a traumatic experience, and anything that even got to look at the sewage uh is good to be thrown away.

That's clearly why we have ordinance that can clearly spell out what the rules are because you gotta you gotta factor out human nature and something like this.

It just feels like maybe there might be a middle ground on the three days.

You know, P had said they were displaced for months, and we have three days, three days just seems really minimal, I guess.

So maybe that's just something for us to think about.

Mr.

Thank you.

Um, does our insurance adjuster does do they also kind of analyze um how many days the uh the homeowner needs to be away?

Is that part of their evaluation process, or is that or do they not do that?

I do not think that they try to uh figure out how many days it need to be away from the home.

Uh the adjuster, which is is very good at at seeing through things and seeing the real cost, and and also let's uh the first thing that he does with the resident is let them know what the ordinance says, so they're clear on that.

So this resident has been told several times what the ordinance says, so it certainly will hurt to talk to them again.

And and they were told immediately after it happened, right?

That you hey, you only have three days that we'll pay for a hotel room.

He was told that, yes, by a fuel curve.

Uh huh.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Staton.

Thank you.

I think Keith.

I think my question is for Kit.

Uh uh Kit, I want to make sure I abide by FOIA.

So if I wanted to share, like I was uh shared a big collection of photos of the damage.

If I wanted to share that, should I send it to Cara if I wanted to share that with the rest of the council?

So I don't want to violate any FOIA.

Certainly, you could uh share them with uh Kara or have her put it in the agenda packet if you want to.

Okay.

It might be good just as a courtesy to let the applicant know that if you do that, that before we put photos of the interior of his home.

Oh I mean, I certainly wouldn't want that, but thank you.

Yeah, we just mean bit, but maybe you know he may not mind, but that might just be a courteous thing to do.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

That's a good Keith.

Just kidding maybe one thing you can clarify.

How does the homeowner's insurance policy factor into this?

Well, we exclude if if a if a homeowner has an insurance policy that covers that, they're supposed to let us know.

And then the only thing we would pay at that point in time would be the deductible, but that's only if the insurance company would not claim our payment as their own subrogation that is what's that called, because we don't want to pay an insurance company's uh policy.

There's a homeowners pay the insurance company for these damages, they don't pay us as an insurance policy, and so uh we don't want to pay an insurance company out of this, but they're supposed to tell us if they have insurance and and have to certify that that they do not have it that would cover this.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I believe that is our last item on consent, and I believe is now the I don't know that we really have rules that govern when the administration brings up a walk-on at agenda session, or do we?

Anytime you want to do it.

Okay.

Um do y'all care?

Okay.

Since it's I'm just gonna do it now because I'm afraid I will forget if not.

This is um an item I emailed the council and the city attorney and the clerk's office about it on Thursday.

So you should of last week or on Friday, rather.

Um, this is a grant opportunity through the Department of Transportation.

Chris Brown is here and can speak about it if you have questions.

Um we just couldn't quite get it to you in time.

Um, we're seeking permission to apply for the grant.

I will tell you that we probably would have requested it go on consent had we made it, had we made it in time, we just didn't meet the cutoff deadline.

But does that mean do we need to put it on new business and not put it on consent since it's being walked on today?

Whatever the city council would like to do.

I'd like to see if they would have to do that.

I mean, it seems like an over and I'm very excited that we're focused on the Weddington corridor.

I mean, I I'd be agreeable.

Chris, can you just give us a quick rundown since we're talking about putting it on consent?

Sure.

Yeah, so the the Weddington corridor, we've had many, many requests, um, mostly west of I-49 for signalization.

We have some misaligned intersections out there, high traffic speeds, uh, safety issues in that uh area, and then just east of I-49, uh, obviously we have a lot of development.

That's a four-lane road in front of the all of that development.

Uh so we've been collecting funds from some of those developments for a turn lane, um, and this would allow us to to study that, determine what that uh turn lane would need to look like and and uh potential signalization intersection improvements on the east of I-49 as well.

So it includes really the entire section from Garland Avenue all the way out to Double Springs Road, uh, looking at all of those uh sections.

I do um have a question.

I know that we've very tentatively, so not to get you um or put anybody uh solid to this that we've said, but we have definitely had it proposed, um, thinking about the ownership potentially for the city from Garland, like to the interstate.

Um, how does if we're starting to already look at this section and look at this with the grant, how would that potentially interact?

Because I'm really hoping in the near term, especially with the investment we're looking at with the new bond investing on the other portion of the roadway, thinking about how this could be a continuity.

Sure.

Yeah, so the the Weddington corridor, obviously, it's a state highway right now.

Uh, so RDOT will be a partner in this study.

Um, I believe this really strengthens our opportunity to get some capital funds from RDOT if they if the council does wish to uh take over that section of Weddington, then I believe we need to use that as is leverage to to ask our dot for some corresponding capital funds.

Uh so we we don't want to we don't want to give that opportunity away, but this really kind of helps us move toward that direction.

I appreciate that, Chris.

Makes me excited.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, and thank you, Chris, for bringing this forward.

Um, is this if we are able to get this grant, will the grant be written in such a way that it will only apply to Weddington, or will it have more flexibility for other parts of town?

Uh because I'd like to go back to the constituents and say we really are trying to address some of these accident and traffic issues on Weddington.

Uh yes, this will be for Weddington specifically.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

So it sounds like we're agreed to place on consent, uh, Clerk Paxton.

Okay.

Um that brings us to what we'll hear next week for unfinished business.

Item B1, this will be our uh third read, or it was left on the forgive me, my goodness.

It was tabled, and we will now be hearing the West Michael Cole Drive rezoning.

Jonathan, is there anything new that's transpired between you and the applicant or that we have we received any new info since we last heard this item?

Nothing specifically.

I followed up with the applicant today because I know the council benefits and appreciates having information in advance of the council meeting.

They shared that they are working with Olsen, if you'll recall that uh Swope Engineering is the applicant's representative, but Olsen Engineering is doing the flood work, and so they're trying to collaborate and make sure that the uh questions about the potential to remove detention from the area of conservation cultural uh uh recreation zone district and about aligning the floodplain with the RIU zoning districts.

Uh, they were needed to make sure that the flood study could reconcile that, and they hope to have an answer for you all by Tuesday.

So apologize, that's the extent of what I have to offer today.

Okay, thank you.

Um, the next item of new business is the North Crossover Road and East Zion Road um rezoning.

And I believe we have a request from the applicant to table this item.

Is that correct, Jonathan?

That's correct, Mayor.

The applicants are the representant representative, the primary applicant representative will not be available at the next council meeting.

Uh, but perhaps more importantly for the council's purposes, uh, there were several questions that were asked for additional detail uh most prominently about how drainage will interact between this project and the existing Chandler Crossing project that they want to coordinate between again two different engineering firms.

Uh the applicant is represented by CEI with Chandler Crossing represented by ESI, and they're wanting to make sure that they can speak coherently to the council about how those drainage interactions will work.

Uh additionally, staff we I heard some homework for us as well coordinating with engineering on the intersection design details at the intersection of crossover and Zion.

Uh, there are questions of what that looks like and what R DOT would allow.

So we'll have that information for you.

Uh we could have it next Tuesday if that's helpful for the council, or we can uh delay that until uh if the council does uh allow the item to be tabled or vote to table the item.

Uh additionally, there are questions about uh whether an additional traffic study would be required, and then we're evaluating that.

Uh and finally, uh we're working to create a more clear outline for the council about how this project, if it's approved, interacts with the Chandler Crossing project because there are questions about how to make sure street improvements in particular were consistent and happening when the impacts were happening.

Um so to that, and I'm happy to take questions.

And if the council preferred me to if the council is intending to look favorably on the tabling next Tuesday, but would like to hear those updates from staff in the interim, I'm happy to do that.

Otherwise, uh we can plan on uh providing that uh at the at the uh first meeting in March if the item is tabled.

Ms.

Moore.

I'm not sure this might be a kit question, but you know, this was annexed land and the history of it, and then it was you know, master plan does this PCD in totality, and I know it's come up in conversation that um whether or not the rest of the PCD as Chandler crossing, what the hit the future is, and so for me, I need to look at that in totality, and so I don't know how that works because the current applicant is different than the actual owner, and the owner is who really did the PCD.

Can we require or can we ask for you know politely an update to just understand where Chandler Crossing is as far as are they do they have future plans to go forward with the the rest of it?

Obviously, it has to be does it still it probably has to be revised additionally now if this were to go forward.

And so I'm just trying to understand.

We've kind of talked about precedent.

So if we go and make this change potentially, are we then gonna see this entire PCD come back and be a totally different configuration?

Well, the existing PCD, if you approve this one, the remaining PCD is still uh should be a still a viable plan zoning district, even though there'll be a gap in where they originally had planned to develop it in a different way.

It doesn't mean they can't still develop their other one as it as the remaining, yeah, it shows.

However, they could also redesign their one uh to try to change uh their original PCD to take into better account this gap, it has to be approved by the city council no matter what they want to do, unless they just build their their old PCD the same way with this gap being filled by something else.

So it's uh really it remains pretty much within your power to approve or not approve if they're trying to make any kind of change in this.

I as a follow-up, one of the things I guess I'm just trying to gain insight is if we know what the additional future plans are for the rest of the remaining other portion of the PCD.

I know it exists in the form it does on paper, but we've seen PCDs not execute, and so that's where I just didn't know if we have any mechanisms at all to maybe ask and see if there's a way they could provide an update if possible.

We can certainly request that information.

Yes.

Thank you, voice mayor.

Um, I guess I just have kind of a theoretical question.

Um so is it I'm just kind of gonna go down this rabbit hole.

Um, so we've approved a PCD.

Now this is being kind of partitioned off as a separate uh uh revision.

Could they come back uh and just piecemeal this forever so that the original PCD did not in any shape, way or form um conform to what they brought forward a couple of years ago?

I mean, is there anything that prevents them from doing that?

I I know it has to come back to the council, but I'm just wondering.

I think the owner of land can always come back and ask for rezoning, no matter if they have a PCD or a regular zoning, they always have that right.

They uh approving this would not the only thing it would do is remove part of the land they couldn't ask for a different rezoning on that because they don't own it anymore.

But uh when we when you all zone land is always subject to a rezoning, which you would have to approve, but an owner can always ask to have it done.

And that's just another follow-up.

Um so you can go from PCD to a rezoning, just to a regular rezoning type, correct?

There's nothing that prevents from that reverting to or um somebody coming in later on and saying they want that neighborhood conservation or something like that.

That's correct.

The council is what would prevent it if they were not supportive of it.

Great, thank you.

I just got back, so I'm gonna go with Sarah since you filled in for me.

Sorry.

Um yeah, we we have had uh council member Turk may remember um Markham Hill was before me.

Oh, it was before you okay.

Well, all right, it was before you.

Well, I was here.

So anyway, anyway, we had a re we had a PCD then and we resisted it.

And you know, so I I don't know.

This is a challenging thing because this has been fairly recent.

That issue had been rezoned quite a while before we we revisited it, and this is fairly recent, and we annexed land to include this PCD as well.

So a lot to think about there, I think.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I think my question is for kit.

Um, I sent an email earlier, but it pretty late in the day, so I don't think anybody had time to really uh go over it much.

Uh so I'm fine if we're gonna table this, I'm fine to get my answers uh at the following uh uh agenda session.

But um I'm wondering uh so I I think it was mentioned uh improvements to crossover and north, and I know there's probably an obstacle there dealing with the state, but we're dealing with the PZD.

Do we have the the Bob do you mean crossover and Joyce or something else?

I'm sorry, crossover and sign.

Uh uh, do we have uh the authority or power to request uh improvements to the actual intersection of crossover in Joyce, or would that be outside of our um ability or or well that's a constitutional question?

Uh do we have uh the authority or power to request uh improvements to the actual intersection of crossover in Joyce, or would that be outside of our um ability or or well that's a constitutional question, and it depends if the this new development that you're talking about, uh the impact of that new development would be such to justify requiring them to spend money and how much money on a splash rate, especially an off-site improvement.

So it is something that has to be done, looked at very carefully, and uh originally by the uh the planning commission will look at it, uh staff first, but then uh they can appeal to the planning commission and to the city council.

So that's really a constitutional issue about whether or not there'd be enough impact to justify requiring them to pay money.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so that brings us to the new business portion of next week's meeting, I believe.

Item C one is a resolution brought forth by Dr.

DeAndre Jones, a resolution to rename the City Hall Annex to the Lionel Jordan Municipal Annex.

There we go.

Oh, sorry, good evening.

Yes, I'm here.

Um this has been brought um by me on behalf of members of the of our fraternity.

Um of course, Mayor Jordan is an honorary member, and um I'm bringing it on their behalf, and as Mayor on As she just stated, uh they're wanting to uh we are wanting to rename the annex um the Lionel Jordan Umnex Um because he was uh for one of the reasons he was the longest serving mayor in Fayetteville, and next next week actually we've got two fraternity members who will be doing a presentation.

So uh if y'all have any questions, then it will be available on next week to do a presentation uh as it relates to uh any questions you all may have.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones.

Um Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I think my concern is um I I do believe uh, you know, uh Mayor Jordan was the longest serving mayor.

I would love to name something after him.

I would hope that we could name something uh significant, more significant than the annex building uh in his honor.

Um I mean that not many people in the public even know that building exists.

It it's just kind of a a staff overflow building.

I mean, our parks and wreck is there, uh some of our meetings are there, but I really think that um if we're gonna do this, I I would hope that we would do like a uh um have the building be more a uh uh a landmark building, if that makes sense.

The purpose of discussing this next week, uh I'm not going to go into it right now because this is the agenda session.

This is not time for that.

So uh we will uh I think next week is the more appropriate time to discuss um to have that conversation.

Okay, Dr.

Jones, I'm gonna get to several several of your.

I don't know if you're able to see us uh in the way you're set up, but we several lights are on, so I heard, but I am gonna go ahead and call on everyone and give them their chance.

Uh Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

DeAndre, this is uh a remarkably gracious um gesture on your part, and I deeply appreciate that.

Did you have an opportunity to to talk to uh Mr.

Jordan?

Yes, I spoke to Mayor Jordan last week.

Okay.

I think uh I have some tendencies to agree with councilman Stafford in the sense that for a dignitary like our long-serving mayor, I think kind of my preference would be for city involvement and city council involvement versus a single entity bringing that forward.

And so that's just I don't know if we have a process for naming structures like we do for naming streets, but it might be something for us to consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's Bobber, thank you.

Ms.

Bunch, um, I was going to bring up some of the same issues that um council member Stafford and Councilmember Wheaker brought up, but um, so they kind of hit on my my points as well.

I I do think we need a possibly a process on this, and uh I would hope that um when we get to our meeting next week that we can have a you know that our conversation will it needs to be a council conversation.

Um, you know, it needs to be uh, you know, I'm hoping that uh council member uh Dr.

Jones will be able to answer some questions for us too.

Thank you.

Okay.

If we don't have any more questions about this item, I'm gonna go on to item C2, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-74 for approximately 0.23 acres located at 1023 South Morningside Drive and 691 East McClinton Street in Ward 1 from NC neighborhood conservation to UN Urban Neighborhood.

And as we decided at the beginning of the year, we are going to go back to by default having Mr.

Kurt present um at least a brief overview on rezoned.

So please go ahead, Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And before jumping into the next four items, I did want to point out to the council since I know you've noted before uh the planning commission votes and as an indicator of how many commissioners are in attendance.

You will notice that all four of these items had five commissioners in attendance.

Uh, I'd like that to be it'd be understood to the uh uh the council that that was our inclement weather meeting.

That meeting occurred on the money Monday of that weather event.

So uh in my eyes and estimation, we were fortunate to get the five commissioners there to in order to be able to carry forward business.

Uh so I just wanted to present that and let you all know it.

Uh I don't think it is representative of a dereliction of duty.

I think it's more representation of their commitment.

That said, and getting to the item at hand.

Uh this is in Southeast Fayetteville, uh, is east of Walker Park on the southwest corner of Morningside in McClinton, uh just west of the Park Meadows neighborhood.

Uh if you visit the property, you will notice that there is a partial demolition underway on the building.

Uh, they did receive a permit for that, and their goal is to return it to its original floor plan.

Uh the request before council is to rezone the property from NC neighborhood conservation to UN urban neighborhood.

Uh staff and the planning commissioner are recommending in favor of this, and the pub we've not received any public comment to date.

And I can take any questions that the council has.

Okay.

Oh, Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, uh, and staff is in favor, you said yes, staff and the planning commission.

Oh, planning commission is in favor too.

Yes.

Were there any will you let us know with these next?

I know there's only five members there.

So were all these unanimous?

Yes, I mean I can I can save you all the time.

Staff is recommending in favor of all four of these, and they are all forwarded to city council by unanimous five to zero vote.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Yes, Mr.

Um Jonathan, could you clarify that they met quorum obviously with five?

Is five the quorum amount?

It is, and in the planning commission bylaws, there are only two classes of product or product uh application that require a uh an established number of votes to approve it.

It's conditional use permits and changes to our master street plan.

Anything else is a majority of those that are present, but yes, five is quorum.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to item C3, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-71 for approximately 1.8 acres located at 416 South Willow Avenue in Ward 1, from NC, neighborhood conservation to UN Urban Neighborhood and RIU residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This request is also in Southeast Fayetteville, albeit a little bit closer to downtown where we are sitting.

It is an unusually shaped property east of 4th Street or the intersection of 4th Street and Willow and also immediately east of the Combe Street Church of Christ.

While it does have almost 300 feet of frontage on Willow as it uh goes from being an angled street to running due north-south, uh, just slightly less than half the property is actually set back from willow, located within the block of this area.

Uh the request is to rezone uh the majority of the property, uh about 1.6 acres of it to RIU residential intermediate urban from its current NC neighborhood conservation designation, and then the corner of the property on Willow would be rezoned to UN urban neighborhood.

Going back to the applicant's original request, their proposal was to rezone the entirety of the property to UN urban neighborhood.

Uh staff did not uh recommend in favor of it because of that odd-shaped property.

We did have concerns about the potential increased intensity and activities that could occur basically in the middle of the block in people's backyards and did not feel it was an appropriate location for that.

Uh the planning commission uh agreed with SAF's alternative recommendation, which is what's before you, which is to have the majority of the property zone to RIU with that corner as UN and forwarded it to city council unanimously.

There was some public comment heard on this item.

I believe it's at least three members of the public expressed opposition to it with concern about the potential density on that property.

Although one of those uh one of those individuals did express support for the amended request, which is uh before council.

I I can't speak to the other two though.

And I can take any questions that council has on this one.

Ms.

Moore, thank you.

Um did the applicant state then that their plans for the property would work with that change and approval.

They expressed that they were amenable to the change at the council meeting.

I know since then they have reached out to planning with potential iterations.

Uh staff's preferences to move forward with what's before the council or will be before council on Tuesday.

Uh so I don't know if they will bring an alternative to council or speak to more details about that, but okay.

I'll I'll let them know that the question was asked.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you.

And that brings us to the oh, I'm sorry, sorry.

Sorry, Mayor.

I was late late on the light.

Uh I just wanted to let everybody know I did hear from one uh constituent about this who has a neighboring property, and I think their main concern was just having a uh I guess it'll be a road or is it a road or driveway that they'll have going back on the property?

Given the shape of the property, and it's got a there's a point if you have your wrap in front of you, it may be helpful.

Otherwise, I can pull up.

There's a it's basically like kind of a two-lobed piece of property.

One lobe is up against willow, and then there's a pinch point between adjoining properties before there's a second lobe of land that's within the block uh within it.

Uh and to access that back portion, it would certainly have to have a driveway back there.

I don't believe it could accommodate a public street though.

Okay.

So I think that was their concern is having that uh driveway like along the side of their house that'll serve uh multiple units.

But that's it was just that one constituent I heard from.

I haven't heard from others, and I don't know.

I think they were at the planning commission meeting.

I don't know if they're satisfied with the new request or not.

I'll reach out to them.

Thank you, Bob.

I think this is the first meeting in a while.

I can recall where all four are recommended not only by staff but also by all planning commission.

So that's nice to see.

Um, and we are keeping with our theme of ward one tonight.

Um C4 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-67 for approximately 2.42 acres located at 660 South Crossover Road in Ward 1 from RSF 4, residential single family, four units per acre, and C2, thoroughfare commercial, to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This remains in Southeast Fayetteville, but instead of coming closer to downtown, we are much further to the southeast of this the core of the city.

Uh this is about 200 feet north of the gas station that's located at the northeast corner of Huntsville and crossover, if that helps orient you.

The property is currently developed with a single family zone or single family home, and it is uh split zoned east-west with the northern portion, currently zoned RSF4 residential single family four units per acre, and the southern portion zone C2 Thoroughfare commercial.

The request is to rezone the entirety of the property to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Uh, staff is recommending in favor of the request, and the planning commission forwarded it to council unanimously, and to date we've not received any public comment on this item.

I can take any questions that the council has.

Minister Jones, I just had one.

I want to go back, mayor.

I had noted that staff was not in favor of RZN 2025 071.

Is that correct?

We did not support the applicant's original request, and we put forward an alternative.

The planning commission accepted that, and per our ordinances, what the planning commission accepts and sends the council is officially the request.

So the request that's before you is what staff recommended as an alternative.

So we are supporting how the ordinance is written on that item.

Yes.

So sorry for the confusion.

We did not we did not support their original request, so you're you're correct in hearing that.

Is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-73 for approximately 0.3 acres located at 1149 Southwest Avenue in Ward 1 from RMF 24, residential multifamily, 24 units per acre, rezoning to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This is in near South Fayetteville.

Uh it's about a block southeast of the National Cemetery.

It is mid-block on West Avenue between 11th Street to the north and 13th Street to the south.

It was previously developed with a single family home that was a uh significant source of resident concerns and complaints due to its derelict state uh previously.

Um I mentioned that because if you visit the property in the uh the upcoming week, you may notice that the house on the property has been demolished.

Um so it was not livable or it was not in a livable state, but I did want to pass that along to council.

Uh the request is to rezone the property from RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

And as I previewed uh the first item, uh we are recommending in favor of this request, and it did come to the city council by unanimous five to zero vote, and we've not received any public comments on this item, and I can stand for any questions that the council has.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Jonathan, it looks like that lot's pretty deep.

Um I'm just wondering if there's an alleyway.

I I don't see one in there, but um, I don't know from the graphics if I would see one.

Um, because now we're you know allowing um homes to be built uh budding alleyways.

You could clarify for me.

Certainly, yes, thank you for the question.

There is not there is a platted alleyway, so there's alley right-away on the west side of the property.

It is not improved alleyway, however.

Uh so to maybe answer what may be a question, if they were to utilize the right the alley right-of-way that's on the west side of the property, they would have to improve it either north to 11th Street or south to 13th Street so that it was actually served as an accessible route to the property.

And how um would they be required to get um their neighbors' approval or how would that how would that process work?

We do not require neighbor approval when we're improving this the city's public right-of-way.

Uh sometimes there are interactions in alleyways like this where they've been platted for 50 years, 100 years, and they've never been improved where residents have perceived that it's their property and have placed sheds, and in those instances, we we have interactions with those property owners.

Um, otherwise, if the improvements to the alley or street or any public right-of-way is within that right-of-way, uh, we don't require adjoining property approval.

If it bleeds over or if they need to make improvements, like add walls or or capture stormwater, it would require their consent.

So, if um, you know, because it hasn't been used for all these years, um, if there were fences and all that sort of thing that were already over the right-of-way, the alley right-away area, how does that process work?

Does the city come in and say, hey, um, this is going to be improved now?

And what's yeah, if you could just you know enlighten me on that process.

Typically, it is the property owner's responsibility to move their fences out of the right-of-way.

Uh, you've probably seen many of our city projects, we tend to work with property owners, and we will often relocate their their fences, but uh it is ultimately it's the public's right-of-way.

Okay, thank you so much.

Certainly.

Okay, that brings us to the end of our agenda.

I think we have an announcement from the city clerk.

Good evening.

And just to let everyone know, we are accepting applications for the city's board committees and commissions.

Um, the application must be submitted by 5 p.m.

on Friday, February 20th, 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do you have any further announcements?

Uh the only thing I have is the uh mayor say the city will be immediately after this at the uh Fable Town Center.

And just a correction, when you say immediately after this, you mean 6 30.

Doors open at 6, but the speech at 6 30.

Correct.

Okay, great.

I was making just making sure.

All right.

Thank you all so much.