All right, let's get started.

It's 4 30.

And we are at our and we are at our agenda session.

Let me uh Keith, do we have some council members that are on Zoom?

Yes, Minister Jones will be joining Zoom here momentarily.

Okay, great.

Okay.

Perfect.

All right.

So next week at the meeting, we will be having the housing needs assessment report.

That will be a um primarily Marley, but she'll also have some um may have some assistance from Britain in presenting that.

Uh we're really looking forward to it.

Um, and then I'll start with the consent agenda.

After the minutes, we have a resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize the purchase of new audiovisual equipment and repair services from the Field Shop Inc.

on an as needed basis through December of 2026, and this is within our approved budget.

And we have Doug here from Media Services.

If you all have questions about this item and would like him to present.

But it doesn't sound like they do, so you may be in the clear.

Great.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the next item is a resolution to approve the purchase of one tandem axle utility trailer from 36 North Collective in the amount of $21,385 pursuit to resolution 7126, plus any applicable search charges, freight charges, and delivery fees, and to approve a budget adjustment.

Um I think I'm gonna read all three of the the next four of these because they're Ross's items, and then he can come up here and we can ask questions about any of them if that works for y'all.

Because they may be similar questions.

So the next one Ross has is a resolution to approve the purchase of three Bobcat Mini Excavators from WT Transfer Holdings in the amount of $340,711.71 cents, pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract, plus the surcharges, freight charges and delivery fees.

Then a resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize the purchase of one excavator attachment from ACME Trenchless in the amount of $52,493.43 cents, plus the applicable sales taxes, freight charges and delivery fees.

And that one does require a budget amendment.

And then the last one Ross has with us is a resolution to approve the purchase of one automated side loader refuse truck from Arkansas Municipal Equipment Inc.

And it's 384,700 plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees uh pursuant to the Source Well co-op purchasing contract.

So, Ross, you're here.

Does anyone have questions for Ross about our fleet purchases?

We do not.

Okay.

The next up, A7 is a resolution to approve amendment number two to the professional engineering services agreement with Garver LLC in the amount of $2,974,800 to continue engineering design of master master plan recommended improvements to the Noland Wastewater Recovery, sorry, to the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility and to approve a budget amendment.

Tim, do you want to come talk about that's a pretty is Tim here?

If you would want to come, that's a pretty sizable one.

So if you want to give us a overview.

Yes.

Okay, good.

And Dr.

Jones is also uh on screen.

Oh, you okay?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Hey, Tim, if you could tell us a little bit more about A7, that would be great.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh so this amendment before you is to take the design of the Nolan improvements from 30% to 70%.

So we've already uh used Garver to go from the start to 30%.

That was a $2.2 million that we that was approved earlier.

This uh 2.7 is 30 to 70 to keep going, and then we'll have a another amendment to go from 70 to 100% in bid ready.

That will probably be another 2.2 million dollars to get it done.

And that will get us ready to bid the uh the project, which is estimated at 98 million dollars.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Tim.

Um item A eight is a resolution to approve task order number two with Garver and the amount of 49,300 for professional engineering services associated with the hangar infrastructure improvements phase two project at Drake Field to accept a grant in the amount of $300,000 and to approve a budget amendment.

Um this is Garver task order number two, and we'll soon hear about task order number three.

I'm actually gonna read it since they're related and then have Jared come up on both.

Task order number three um is a resolution to approve uh is with Garver LLC in the amount of 117,800 for professional engineering services associated with the North General Aviation Apron rehabilitation project at Drake Field to approve a project contingency in the amount of eleven thousand seven hundred dollars and to approve a budget amendment.

And Jared is here from the airport, or I'm Jared is not here.

Yes, he is.

There he goes.

Jared and Chris uh is also here if we have questions for them.

If you could give us just a general overview of what these things are.

Yeah, so task order two that is associated with the East Side Infrastructure Improvement Project.

Uh the goal of these projects, these are two separate grant projects.

Uh task order two is to update some of the infrastructure, some of the pavement and dirt work uh for eventual hangar development projects uh to help with our wait list.

Task order three is strictly for design services on a pavement rehabilitation project on the North Apron.

Uh now that project will eventually be uh recoverable through a coming grant from the FAA, but we have to design the project first.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, could you talk more?

I think that the language and the first item on the task order two.

Does it talk to state monies?

Is that correct?

Can you explain that better?

Because I know we talked about federal, just trying to understand the differences of what we're doing with the state grant and kind of what the requirements would be around it.

Yeah, so task order two is funded through the state aeronautics uh the ADA, which is the Arkansas Division of Aeronautics.

Uh so that's a local grant, and then Task Order Three, it will be coming back through an FAA grant in the future.

Uh, but generally with state grants, we have a little more flexibility on things of this nature.

So y'all hangar projects, things like that that would be uh harder to fund through federal.

Are there any um with the state grants?

Are there any particular um kind of like explicit terms too, though, that are particular to state grant funds at all?

Uh not like with federal grants, like grant assurances, state grants are generally uh there's no no grant assurances that come with those.

Okay, thank you.

I missed hi Jared.

I just sorry, just one more quote, just one more question.

So um you're you know, you're you're restoring all this concrete or rehabilitating it.

How long before uh more hangers are built?

So that's the million dollar question.

Yeah, what we're looking at on so task order two, that's going towards the the ground uh uh uh infrastructure for hangars as this project kicks off.

Hopefully later this summer.

Uh we'll be back to you hopefully in the fall with a couple of ground leases.

Uh, we're gonna open this up for uh bid from several tenants on the field and and interested parties in the public.

Uh these hangers will be privately developed in the in the space associated with task order two.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yes, Ms.

Mark.

I just had a timeline trying to put all the pieces together, and I know we have like a pending master plan.

I think that's still um gonna have approval.

And I know we're doing kind of additional things that are probably a part of the master plan there, kind of around it.

Um, I guess what should we expect or what does it look like usually for a timeline?

I'm used to with other departments, you know.

Usually you finish the master plan and then we start implementation, you kind of go, you know, ABC.

The airport feels a little different.

Can you kind of walk us through that?

And I'm just trying to understand too, with us kind of moving forward with some of those.

I do think they're a part of the master plan, but then how is that gonna, and I think it comes back to council for us to have a discussion.

I know the public has a lot of questions about the airport right now.

So the master plan for the airport, uh, that is a little different from what you may see with other departments.

That's a a federally mandated uh the the guidelines around that project are again from the FAA.

Uh generally speaking, what uh what you're gonna see with that uh master plan, what we have right here uh right now tonight is already in line with that master plan, right?

We've seen some drafts of it.

Uh and the grant funding associated with these projects actually predate the master plan.

So these were these were earmarked about two years ago.

Um but yes, we should be seeing the master plan back in its final draft uh within the next two months, uh, and then it will be back to you guys for adoption.

One follow-up question I have is on the master plan.

Does that open up too for like we do with some of the others where we get like um public feedback that's outside of the council meeting?

Does the public get that opportunity to do like a speak up survey or is as the airport open uh do like an open house to have comments?

We already have.

So we did we did those in I believe October or November of last year.

Okay.

Uh in the that's part of the kind of the mid mid-cycle process of of the master plan.

And then it would come back the final draft com or I guess the the adoption portion of it comes back to you guys for discussion when we get the final version.

There, okay.

Um next up a resolution to authorize the termination of an agreement with Onstot LLC, um, doing business as Red Box dumpsters of Northwest Arkansas for the hauling and disposal of solid waste in the city of Fayetteville.

This is a franchise agreement that we are terminating, and Peter is here to answer any questions if we have them.

Peter, can you go ahead and come up?

And maybe give us an overview first of why we're here.

Sure thing, Mayor.

Uh so this is one of the 23 franchise agreements we have with private haulers across the city.

They offer um roll off dumpster services between uh 12 yards and 40 yards are what we allow in the um in the franchise haulers.

Uh so Red Box um is uh has not uh made payment to the city since September of last year.

We've given them multiple uh notices and asked for payment um and as of uh February we provided them with the required notice that we were gonna terminate their uh franchise agreement um for nonpayment and so um this is the final step in that process, which is you all approving uh termination of that contract.

Got it.

Thank you, Peter.

Um you want to stick around in case we have questions about the other one?

Okay.

It's a resolution to approve the purchase of smart city technology from Routeware in the amount of 45,400 for eight new recycling trucks pursuant to a Houston Galveston area council cooperative purchasing contract through September 30th of 2028, and any future renewals within the approved budget.

If you could kind of give us the highlights of that, please.

Yes, so this is uh software for our new recycling trucks.

Um you'll notice that there's uh eight eight trucks on here.

So this is six of our uh side arm residential recycling trucks and then two front load uh trucks that will be used for recycling as well.

Uh and so this is newer um routeware um smart city software.

We currently use their older software RCC on our existing um trash trucks, um, but this newer software is got what we're gonna use for the recycling trucks.

It allows us to do route mapping and then service verification uh for all the stops that we provide um recycling at.

Um we're not with this particular purchase, we're not yet acquiring the service that is the anti-contamination detection.

Um this uh purchase though will allow us to later add that anti-contamination detection.

Our intent is to operate the system uh for approximately the first six months.

Um we using um the education programs that we're rolling out uh as part of um uh the information that's on the carts and then also the mailers that are going out to customers, measure what that baseline contamination is, and then add that anti-contamination detection element uh later and then remeasure what uh effect that has on uh the system's overall contamination.

So um this purchase is being funded through grant funds that we received through the recycling partnership.

And um, yeah, that's kind of the long and the short of it.

Um Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Peter, is this like software as a service?

I see this is just through September 30th of 2028.

Yes, so it's uh it's being purchased through uh a cooperative purchasing agreement, and so I believe that date uh coincides with the um the expiration date of the cooperative purchasing agreement agreement that we're using to purchase the software.

So at that date you'll have to either re-up or go with a different product, like you're not buying the software outright, you have to kind of like correct.

It has an annual uh subscription fee, and so come 2028, we'll either have to um uh we'll have to reauthorize if we if we decide to stick with routeware, we'll have to reauthorize a new uh cooperative purchasing agreement.

So it's like a little under three thousand per truck per year or correct.

Okay.

Is that that's typical of the industry?

And yeah, it's actually uh it's it's less than what we initially estimated the cost would be when we were um scoping this out in the beginning.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um, Peter, on uh this being the first, and I think you talked about a second is gonna be an iteration for the anti-contamination.

Is there any additional um software that will coincide with like our new program of how we're doing things into the future?

I mean, is it just those two for software?

There's no additional it'll be an additional um uh additional element of this software, initial module that will be added to add that anti-contamination um detection.

But the trucks uh that we're getting have all the cameras and equipment on them to provide all of that.

It's just integrating that software to do the contamination detection points.

Curious too, if um the company that um we're going with is I'm assuming they're probably used in other cities that are nearby, or there any in northwest Arkansas that are using them as well or I don't know in Northwest Arkansas if any of the other communities are using this software.

I'm not sure.

I can answer that.

So I think this is a very interesting question because uh route where when we originally looked at it, we looked at two different vendors, and what about a year ago?

The number two vendor we were looking at was purchased.

I don't know if it was vice versa.

So we're actually buying for this recycling, we're actually buying the software that was our number two selection when we selected routeware.

But they've merged companies.

But one of the company uh cities that we looked at was Clean Texas, they have a very similar uh recycling and trash uh system that we have.

And I happen to I knew their IT director, and we and they have uh the same financial system that we do.

So we worked with them to make sure that we had the best software that would also integrate with our utility mailing system.

Okay.

Now thank you for the additional information on that.

Yeah, and the two cities as we've been looking at this particular module that we've looked at are San Antonio, Texas and uh Miami Dade County, Florida.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, I'm gonna stop touching that microphone.

Yes, stop touching it.

So I have one quick thing to add.

Yeah, uh, Councilmember Stafford, this includes tablets as well, so it's not just software, so it's the hardware and the software piece.

That's why it's so expensive.

And then yeah, the renewal will just be reviewing the software or yeah, they're tablets, they have a warranty on them, so something they go bad, we ship them back.

It's just it's really a hardware and the software as a service, both together.

Okay.

Did we have somebody on Zoom that had a question, Keith?

Okay, okay, got it.

Yes, I was a question.

Um I'm excited about the new program, obviously.

I'm just curious about how some of these things will work, and I'm trying to think about you talked about with it mapping the route.

So does it integrate to whenever someone does like C click fix, or they said like they didn't pick up my service, maybe put it into their does it log it into the system or does any of that it doesn't integrate with C click fix.

Um that integrates with our work order management system.

Okay.

So if we got a work order through C click fix that said, oh, you didn't you didn't pick up our recycling.

What we could then do is go into the routeware software and verify when we went by that house, was the cart out uh and we just drove by and missed it, or was the cart actually not out?

Okay, when we are we gonna want people to report those things a different way or just continue to like use C click fix and use C click fix or they can also call our office.

Okay, okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you, Peter.

Um the next item is uh reappropriation amendment.

It's a resolution to amend 4826 by reducing the amount of reappropriations to the 2025 budget by 21,340,684 dollars, and to approve a budget amendment.

Steven, can you explain this to us a little bit, please?

Good evening, council.

Uh so this is a routine budgetary housekeeping item by statute.

The state of Arkansas doesn't allow for multi-year budgets, and therefore uh we submit a request to council each year to roll forward funding for projects that the city has already committed to, but that remain uncompleted or outstanding.

In February of 2026, uh we brought forward resolution 48-26 to add a total of 187 million 993,330 to the budget for these uncompleted uh uncompleted projects.

But now that we're closing out uh fiscal year 2025, we're coming back to council with this item tonight.

And what this item does is it reduces that 187 million dollars by 21.3 million.

And we're doing this um, as I mentioned, as part of a routine year-end process to account for any year-end payments that we received um after February and between between then and now that were booked back to 2025.

So we do this in order to make sure that the budget is straight and that we don't overcommit our budget in 2026 and that we account for things properly in the 2025 fiscal year uh that need to be booked back to the 2025 fiscal year.

So something we do every year.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Is this the final accounting?

This is the closeout for 2025, or should we anticipate uh another reconciliation next month?

This no, this should be the final reconciliation of those reappropriations for 2025.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Do we have anybody on Zoom, Keith, with that one?

Just want to make sure.

Okay.

Okay.

Um next up is A13.

It's a resolution to award bid 26-29 to approve a contract with NEC Inc.

for the construction of bus stop concrete pads at 21 Razorback Transit and Ozark Regional Transit Stop Lations in the amount of 116,397.50, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $50,000.

And Dane is here to tell us more about this, please.

Yes, good evening.

Um, this contract is for construction of the concrete pads where the shelters can be bolted down as well as the accessible uh loading platforms at these stops.

Uh the bid did come in lower than we expected.

So the contingency is there with the hope that we will be able to do more stop locations, maybe as many as 30 instead of 21 with the added contingency.

Bob?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so Dane, what's what's the average size of these pads?

Is there a certain so the uh the different shelters are either eight by five or twelve by five?

And we need a little bit of extra space on there for bolting down, and we like to add a little bit of extra space for bike parking, scooter parking, those kinds of things.

So they they vary a little bit depending on the size of the shelter.

Do we know what the pore thickness is?

Is it a four-inch lab or six inch lab?

We're doing six inch of base and six inch of concrete.

Uh in the cost, is that because there has to be groundwork done?

Because it seems like just for a poor, it seems a little pricey, but is that include the excavation and groundwork?

So this is a turnkey contract, so uh it's excavation site uh prep, haul off of the material, uh dress up everything done.

Um then the contingency uh did seem a little high, 43% contingency, but you're saying that's because hopefully we can get more stops in.

Exactly.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

And there were 25 bus stops that are bus shelters that arrived today that are being assembled.

So and we'll hopefully be installed.

So what do you think the timeline is on those 25 being installed?

I know those are just razor bike transit, the ones that that got in today.

But we have about uh six locations that we're think that we consider shelter shelter ready.

Okay, and so uh as soon as we can get those shelters assembled, then we can go ahead and install those uh in the very near future.

Okay, and the uh the contract with uh for the the construction of these pads, we have uh 120 days to get those um pads and voting platforms installed.

So we'll be rolling those out during the period.

Great, okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um A14, a resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize a contract with sweetster construction in the amount of 155,295 dollars for the construction of drainage inlet tops and inlet extensions associated with phase one of the Sunbridge and College drainage project, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of 25,000 dollars.

Alan is here and can speak to this project if anybody has a questions, or maybe Chris, according to Mr.

Wheedaker.

Um think we're good.

Um A15 is a resolution to approve a new resident requested traffic calming policy.

Um I know we're gonna have some questions about this from Ms.

Turk and maybe others.

So Dane, if you could go at Dane, if you could go ahead and come up and talk about this.

Thank you, Alan.

Yeah.

So um for the folks that may not be familiar with our uh traffic calming request program, uh residents can request traffic calming on their streets.

Uh city staff will evaluate those based on our uh criteria of scoring and determine if the speed and volume and the nature of the classification of the street meets our policy.

And we've uh successfully installed traffic calming on about 15 streets under that policy, but we have noticed some areas where we felt like and residents felt like it didn't quite meet the expectations of people requesting traffic calming.

And so we tried to adjust that scoring system to better meet the uh the expectations and to match our newer speed limits, which are 20 miles an hour on most residential streets, and uh set the scoring up where those streets have a more uh fair chance of qualifying for uh traffic calming.

Uh this has been through Transportation Committee as well as reviewed by the Active Transportation Committee and recommended for uh consideration by the full full city council.

Okay, great.

I don't think we have any questions.

Thank you.

Oh, and we do.

Listen if you didn't have your line on.

Sorry.

Does anyone know what our budget amount is for traffic calming per year uh that uh the funds come from the street fund, and uh there has been some flexibility in that area, but we've we've never exceeded about $50,000 a year.

Uh the rubber bolt down uh traffic calming devices are more affordable, but we do want to start going to more permanent materials, concrete, and more durable materials so that can stand up to plows and things like that.

So we may be doing replacing some of the ones that we've already had in the rubber uh with concrete, and those uh do cost a little bit more, but I think will save us on long-term maintenance.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, or Sarah and then Teresa.

That's news to me.

We're looking at going towards the permanence.

Um, I guess partly when we looked at these, we had been discussing that they had movability, and so I guess my question would just be what our policy and criteria are around making something have permanence.

I know um the um speed tables in Wilson Park.

I still get resident requests to have those removed and re-evaluated because there are concerns that folks have there with uh safety response um in that area, excuse me.

Um, and I know I I brought those um to the attention in the past, knowing that we weren't necessarily putting in things with permanence when I discuss with residents.

So just wanting maybe that's something to add to the agenda for the transportation committee next to kind of discuss that further, just to make sure that we're giving residents appropriate information, and then just wanting to understand, kind of like where we're putting the permanent, you know, bus shelters.

If we're deciding permanents, just trying to understand, you know, are we thinking that that's our roadway in particular, too, that's gonna have consistent you know issues or you know, how are we gonna do the speed pillows, a certain amount of time to evaluate if you know we go back to that.

There was some benefit to having things that are temporary and don't have permanent.

So I don't definitely don't want to lose that ability.

So just wanting to better maybe understand kind of what the policy and the thinking is around it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh thank you, Dane, and other folks that worked really hard on revising this traffic calming policy.

So um I think this policy is really gonna reflect um, you know, kind of the the reality on the ground and what the neighbors have been concerned about.

So thank you so much for all the all the efforts and the all also the transportation committee.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I just had one one more follow-up comment with uh council member more's um remarks.

So this is a resident request uh process policy, so it's for really when the when the requests come in to staff, how we manage those and approve those and um issue this policy doesn't really touch on like long-term maintenance, for example, or things like that.

So that's that's outside of this policy, but certainly something that we'd like to talk more about.

Yeah.

Okay.

Moving on to section B of the agenda.

Um we have a um next week we'll have a public hearing, and it is two raise and removals, and Jonathan is going to present each of those to us, starting with a resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Stephen and Greta Smith, located at 20 North School Avenue in the city of Fayetteville.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kurth, Development Services Director.

This property is, as Mayor noted, uh in downtown on North School between Meadow to the north and center to the south.

It's on the east side of the street and is uh perhaps uh familiar to some council members is the location of a former dry cleaning uh business uh located northwest of the church of Christ that is adjacent to the south.

Uh codes, compliance received a complaint about the property in late 2025.

Uh an investigation uh found that the non-residential structure was in an advanced state of disrepair.

Uh it's largely open to the elements for what appears to be many, many years uh with ceilings collapsing, rot, water damage.

Uh and after contacting the property owner, uh staff has not seen any plans or or intent to uh to to move towards making repair or progress, or excuse me, make repair or demolish the building uh accordingly and as a lined out in code.

We're bringing it to city council uh to request a order to raise and removal the structure.

Uh since placing the item on the agenda, the property owner has re-engaged with staff uh and have submitted an application for a demolition permit, which is uh, however, requiring some uh additional documentation.

Some older buildings require uh reports about asbestos and and elements like that to make sure they're not gonna cause an issue, it wouldn't take them down.

Uh as a result to put this on council's radar, we may be asking to table this item at your meeting on Tuesday.

If it does appear that the property owner is moving towards taking care of the issue themselves, uh that's always our preference rather than to have the city or a contractor do the work and and file a lien for the scope of that work.

Um but I'm happy to take any questions that the council has, and Billy Bryan, our lead code officer, is here as well in case uh I can't answer something.

Thanks, Jonathan.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you.

Mayor uh Jonathan, how many months do they have to act on their demo permit before the permit expires?

A typical demolition permit is good for a year.

Uh however, when there is an active raise and removal case, we need to see progress on it.

Um I believe after we issue a violation letter for a raise and removal, a property owner has 30 30 day period to begin some degree of work or secure the building.

Uh, there are several checkpoints that property owners can use to buy themselves time, such as securing a building, closing off the windows to make sure that it's not an attractive nuisance.

Uh so I the short answer is demolition permits are good for a year.

However, when the case of raise and removals, that is not a timeline that's typically afforded them because of the urgency of the situation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Uh the other raisin removal um is an resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Born in a Barn Incorporated, located at 848 North Jackson Drive in Fayetteville.

And this property is in East Fayetteville.

It's two blocks east of Mission Boulevard and four properties north of Rockwood Trail on the east side of Jackson.

Uh we received a complaint about the property in early 2025.

Uh, an investigation found a vacant single family detached structure uh with prominent signs of rot and and uh quite a bit of exposure to the elements, uh suggesting that it could be uh uh a case of impending collapse.

Uh uh code work code and building safety were able to make initial contact with the property owner and outline the issues of concern.

Uh following that the property owner did make uh some progress towards removing rotted overhangs uh and cleaning up some debris on the property.

Uh however, that was in April of 2025, and we've not seen any progress since then.

As a result, uh, we're bringing this to council uh with a request uh for an order to raise and remove the structure, similar to the last item.

Uh and since placing this item on the agenda, the property owner and their legal council have contacted staff and are meeting with us later this week.

Uh, depending on the outcome of that meeting, uh, we may also be asking that this item uh be tabled as well.

Uh but uh uh at the chance that it is uh considered by council, I'm I'm happy to take any questions so that you can make an informed decision.

Thank you.

Hello.

Hey, Minister Jones, go ahead.

I just had a question.

What um types of communication have we sent?

Um and what any if we receive any response?

Typically we engage with property owners uh with a violation letter uh as the initial point of contact.

Uh that's for a couple of reasons.

Uh one is the most prominent of which is to formally document the violation, and that way it gives staff and the property owner a starting point uh within which to uh begin considering the due process uh uh uh process.

Um that is the first point of contact.

Um, if the property owner does not respond, uh we try other methods.

Um we can uh we have been successful in identifying phone number contacts in some cases.

Some property owners don't live in the city, so mail is the only opportunity we have.

Um this particular instance, I believe uh code enforcement has been in somewhat regular or irregular contact with this property owner.

Um, but I don't know, uh Mr.

Bryant, do you are you able to speak to a little bit more detail that uh Minister Jones?

I'm gonna refer your question to Billy Bryan, our lead code officer.

Uh sure.

So early on in this case uh contact was primarily due uh code officer Jason Sweatnum and her through text messages.

And then maybe six months after the case was started, there was a little bit of progress, but then all communication fell off.

And can you describe how we've re-engaged with them most recently, please?

Uh yes.

So they have hired representation and they reached out to me uh by phone and I spoke with him late last week and he requested a meeting.

So myself and building safety director Dennis Sanders will meet with them on Thursday.

We're meeting with the owners and representation to see if we can kind of move this process a little long a little forward, see if we can either get it down or if they're gonna repair it and what steps they're gonna take.

Does that answer your question, Minister Jones?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Billy.

Oh, I'm sorry, please stay there.

I apologize.

I didn't see that we had that Monique, please go ahead.

I uh I guess my question is what formal documents are we sending from the city?

And I know you said text messages were sent.

I'm just wanting to before I make a decision as a city council member, I'd like to know that we sent certified UPS, some type of formal document saying at this date and time, we as a city will make a decision and move forward to demo this property.

Yes, so we do send that via certified mail.

And I I mailed the so I mailed the notice of violation is sent certified mail, and then the notice about the city council hearing is also sent certified mail.

Was that March of 2025 or was that this year?

Uh the city council hearing was sent in late uh Mar February.

Of this year.

Yes, yes.

Uh they were in form more than 30 days ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, can you it's been a minute since we've um had a structure come forward um to be um uh removed.

Can you walk me through?

Because I see our form also when you get a complaint, allows for you to recommend securing the structure.

Um what I guess what goes into making the determination of asking for a full raise and removal versus like a securing of the structure.

So on a securing, typically a securing is fine if the structure is not so far dilapidated as far as stability.

Um but with securing in our codes, uh a structure can only be secured or boarded up for no longer than a year.

And after that, it is recommended that the structure come down.

So if the structure itself is sound, but maybe has boarded up windows because it's not occupied um to prevent maybe intrusion, that would after a year that would violate city code, I guess is what you're saying.

And then we'd recommend that structure to be removed.

Yes.

Oh, interesting.

Okay, I didn't realize that.

Thank you.

Um, and then uh do we currently have um as part of that process.

Do you we recommend um any departments that those uh individuals that were reaching out to about their structure?

Do we have departments in the city that we're uh referring them to for potential assistance in the event they might have uh hurdles, you know, in maintaining that property?

Jonathan, I'm sorry, Billy, go ahead.

I apologize.

I thought you were turning on your light to answer.

I think either either of us may be able to speak to it.

There is a uh budget amount or a dollar amount that the community resources department gets typically through the community development block grant but uh fund.

Uh typically we found in the past the dollar amounts that are available to property owners are far exceeded by the amount of work that's necessary when a property reaches the state of being a raisin removal.

I don't know if you have any average dollar figures that we've seen over the years, but that has come up almost every single raise and removal that I've seen in the 10 years that I've been with the city of Fayville, and I can't think of a single instance where there was enough CDBG money available to address how severe the damage was to these buildings, whether it was as simple as a new roof or new ceilings or a full rebuild.

And I could see that being a challenge.

I was just curious too if we potentially move it on in the event, thinking about as we're looking at Marley's department differently going forward in the event as she's resourcing other things.

Would it make sense to at least involve another department who might be able to connect them to another resource or a warm handoff somewhere else?

I just I wasn't sure if that might be something we want to be considering, even if we can't handle it internally, if there might be other like they find out there's maybe a state pot of money or maybe some federal program to connect them to to apply for.

Um I know that those things are not necessarily plentiful, and I'm probably being somewhat hopeful in that.

Um, but just thinking that resources do just fluctuate over time, and so just not knowing where that would might make sense in that process um because you know these amounts are very cost prohibitive myself.

If I think about being hit with $15,000 would be very substantial for for my household.

And um I hear you that I know we don't have necessarily um we would deplete maybe all the CBDG funds with one house potentially.

And I know we try to stretch those across, but just wondering if that's potentially as we're looking at other resources, does it make sense to consider that into the future that it might be another department to at least try to put it on their radar to be able to collaborate potentially?

I don't know.

And and apologize if I made it sound as though that doesn't happen at all.

I think to some degree it absolutely does.

Our codes our code group was originally in community resources.

It's been moved historically uh multiple times.

I think where codes is most able to play that role is in a proactive uh element when they get complaints about properties that are appear to be approaching a state of disrepair or a lack of maintenance, those are the opportunities where C D BG money could make the difference and prevent them from crossing over that that breakover point where where it's beyond the scope of repairs or our ability to fund it.

But I'd certainly hear the feedback about looking for other resources.

Yeah.

And I think the point is taken that even if it's not CDBG, I think what I'm hearing you say is like what are other resources Marley's team can help put them in touch with, so it's not just like Cat.

Did you have comments?

Yeah, I think that's been a conversation we've had uh prior to Marley starting and after Marley starting is how we get this information and kind of get the programs in a better um situation and hand them over to code.

That's always been something that they're aware of, those programs.

But I think that we've talked, I mean, Jonathan and I talked about this uh yesterday actually about this is just how to continue to improve how we leverage those funds to help uh people in need.

And I appreciate you guys having those conversations and too, don't want to definitely don't want to minimize.

I understand that those are very small and finite funds too, and that you're being creative with those today.

So I want to acknowledge that and say that I'm thankful for that because I think we're trying to get them across more households too.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Jonathan, did you have anything to add?

I don't, Mayor, thank you.

Great.

Okay.

Billy, thank you.

So much.

Um and forgive me.

We we spoke about both of them, correct?

We spoke about D3 and okay.

So um we will move on to wait.

I'm so sorry.

Forgive me.

That was our um public hearing.

We are now on unfinished business.

Um unfinished business section C.

First up is an ordinance to amend section 39.10 and 39.11 to authorize the use of an experienced insurance adjuster to allow rare, exceptional and substantially proven claims above 100,000 to be paid if approved by unanimous consent of the city council and to declare um an emergency.

And I think Mr.

Burno, you were taking this one.

Yeah, nothing's has changed as of yet.

We're meeting tomorrow to kind of hash it out, see what we can figure out.

Do you think there's a potential not to put you on the spot, but do you think there's a potential if it that you all could come up with something tomorrow and that it'd be walked on on Tuesday, or it's my hope that that can happen, but I think once you get into it, I think it's gonna be a lot more complicated uh process than what we we might think it's gonna be.

So that's my fear.

Okay, got it.

So I guess that probably speaks to what will go, what will happen with C2 of the resolution uh of the Fateful City Code to authorize a pay or the res a resolution pursuant to 3910 C4 of the Fateful City Code to authorize a payment of 100,000 dollars to Chris Chris Scaraki for a sewer damage claim arising at 516 North Fallen Fallon Avenue.

Um we are likely then expecting that if we don't, or are we expecting and predicting that if we don't have resolution on C1 that C2 is is then held?

I would I mean I would think either way it's probably gonna be tabled because you're gonna have to give him time to I mean because he's got to sign off on the release and everything.

So I think it's gonna have to be taken.

Likely tabled.

Okay.

Um C3, an ordinance to amend 161.38 district C C R to prohibit detention and retention ponds on C CR zoning district from serving any uses except for use unit one's permitted uses.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I've checked in a couple of with a couple of EAC members, and um and uh they um have reiterated that this is pretty much consistent with how our EAC discussion went, um, that we'd like to prohibit as much as possible the detention retention um ponds.

And I think um this is a good compromise in the interim, uh surprisingly there has been uh developer that would like to use the CCR zoning district, and I think that rezoning was just passed last night at the um at the planning commission.

And so um uh thank you, Kid for drafting up this emergency um uh task.

If uh if it does pass on uh next week, we might want to consider the emergency action as well.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

And so just to you would be amending on Tuesday at the meeting, you would be amending to make this amendment the um to add an emergency clause.

Correct, Mayor.

Thank you for clarifying.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh dumb question, but refresh me.

What are the unit one uses?

Oh, there's a long list of them.

That's kind of what I'm assuming.

Um, you know, I can um I I guess that should have probably been in the packet, and I apologize for not including that in there.

Um there's quite a few use units, um, or quite a few uses within that that unit type.

Uh Jonathan, I don't know if you have those handy that you want to.

I mean, there's a lot of them.

Certainly, I I can touch on that.

They the the use unit one is title is uh citywide uses by right.

Uh a lot of them are more passive uses, things like fire hydrants, sidewalks, uh things of that nature.

Uh, there are also some that could have larger impacts, including an arboretum, uh, which could have more public facing elements, uh, includes parkways, wildlife preserves, reservoirs, uh, conservation control flood projects, which was a point of conversation the first time this came before council.

So uh it's varying in how they could have impacts, but uh they're all allowed citywide by right, and it was included as the only use unit in CCR by right.

Oh, Mr.

I'm sorry.

I don't know.

That was that was fine.

I just wanted to follow on with what Jonathan said.

You know, there's a lot in there, but some of these, I mean, like uh fish fish hatcheries kind of caught my eye.

But um, but you probably wouldn't use this CCR as if you were gonna put a fish hatchery in.

So um again, it's kind of like trying to balance all these.

How would uh a company go about doing this?

They probably wouldn't use CCR.

Okay.

Thank oh yeah, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you.

Um can Jonathan, can I hate to put you on the spot except for I'm trying to go back and I guess I could watch the tape, but what what are thoughts from staff though on the way that this reads today as we're kind of thinking about it per Tuesday next week?

The main consideration I brought, yeah, it has been amended.

The main consideration I brought forward to council is when staff uh proposes an ordinance or an ordinance change, is if it's intended to promote or discourage a behavior, typically in the development community.

Uh if we're looking to promote a behavior, we look the goal is to make a process or a requirement as easy to approach or as easy to manage as possible.

If we're trying to discourage a behavior, you could you can use the process, you can use your laws to to make them that way.

Uh and so that was something I encourage the council to think about uh adding this this item to uh the CCR zoning district, which I think gets to the balance of how EAC intended having a conservation easement as a tool to prevent or or limit development in CCR areas with the fact that many areas that may be zone CCR are going to be areas of floodplain or or low points of properties where where water naturally flows.

So that's it that I think that's the the balance of considerations from from staff's perspective.

Okay, thank you.

Um moving on to C4.

Um updating uh updating regulations governing the farmers market operations, um, an ordinance to expand the physical footprint of the Faithful Farmers Market, allow additional market days and times, and authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages by amending 114 section 02.

Um we may be receiving a and we may be um bringing an amendment uh from the farmers market related to um alcohol.

I think there has been some, I think there was some confusion over um there is the sale of our alcohol, there is the service of out there's serving alcohol, and there's the consuming of alcohol in each three of the like every single thing, each of those three things is regulated differently.

And so I think there was some confusion about what they really wanted and how they were asking and if this was meeting that.

Um and so my office is supposed to talk to them tomorrow, and so it may be that we see them even bring forward a uh a little bit of a tweak in that.

Okay.

Can can as you guys were in meeting with them.

I hope we can raise up I know just from businesses.

I think it felt like I heard, and if I heard this differently than others, please chime in.

But it did just sound like there was concern about it's very open-ended, and so if there could be some way too that there is some kind of like number or range of, or it is a vendor, if that's specified could be helpful just because you know it almost sounds like you could have a full-bown, you know, beer garden or and I don't think that's what they told us their intent was.

Councilmember Whitaker is ready to go now.

Um, but in the event that that could be clarified further, I think that would maybe help some of the concerns that were raised.

Perfect.

I think so too.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

I just wanted to say I'm planning on meeting with them on Thursday, so to ask them a lot of questions and line a few things out, and hopefully they'll include some of that in a presentation.

So great.

Okay, thank you.

We're gonna move right along to the next uh why do I keep doing that?

Okay, now we are on new business.

Um first item of new business is a resolution to grant the appeal of city council member Teresa Turk and deny prelimin preliminary plat application, PPL 2025-05.

Um, should we this is an appeal of a planning commission approval on Liarly Lane and Velma Drive.

Um should we start with Mr.

Kurth on that or with Ms.

Turk?

Just Ms.

Ms.

Turk, I saw your light first, so you go.

Mr.

Kurt probably has a lot more details than I do.

I I was approached by um the neighborhood and um they had several concerns and I thought it was worthy of uh granting their appeal or sponsoring their appeal.

Thank you.

Jonathan?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh to orient the council, this property is in Northwest Fayetteville.

It's about 2,000 feet north of uh Holt Middle School and about a thousand feet west of RuPa Road.

Uh the council most recently saw it just last year.

This property was annexed into the city and received a zoning designation of NC neighborhood conservation at that time.

Uh it includes a little bit shy of 20 acres of land that are bordered on the east, south, and west by incorporated city property that is developed as single family subdivisions and unincorporated Washington County to the north.

Uh of note, the subdivisions to the west and east both include stub outs contemplating development of the area in between the three subdivisions.

Um as for what is being requested, it's an 82-lot single family subdivision.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of the request.

Uh there was a variance uh requested and granted by the planning commission for block length requirements.

Uh we have connectivity standards in the city of Fayetteville where uh you can blocks have to be broken up by intersections at certain uh distances.

Uh given this property is constrained on three sides by existing subdivisions, uh staff felt it was appropriate to support that request since there weren't opportunities to connect to them.

Uh the planning commission felt similarly and approved the request uh by seven to zero with two commissioners uh recusing.

So uh staff and the planning commission are both in favor of this request, and I can hand it back off to Councilmember Turk if she would like to add on.

Uh you will see the uh there is an appeal letter that is attached to the staff memo uh that takes the place of a staff review form uh since it's been a minute since you all have seen this.

So to clarify, because you said staff and planning are both in favor of this request.

Do you mean not in favor of the appeal?

I think that's a good clarifying question, yes.

Uh staff recommended in favor of the plat being approved.

Right.

And the planning commission approved the plat.

Yes, neither staff nor planning commission are in favor of the appeal.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

I just make I mean I'm not one way or another, just trying to get all the info.

Yes, Ms.

Turk.

So I think the um I was just the sponsor.

I think the applicant will uh give a presentation next week, really outlining and detailing their concerns.

One of the things that caught my attention is that there's several springs within that area that I don't recall um seeing when we when we um rezoned it.

So um I'm just pointing that out.

I don't recall maybe that was in the packet and I missed it, but that certainly uh caught my eye as something that we might want to reconsider again.

So uh no, we did not do a property tour.

And thank you for bringing that up.

That was actually on my list um of maybe we should go on a little tour.

Thank you, Councilmember Berna.

Um we might like to go on a little tour, Jonathan.

So if you could Okay, I can if I'm happy to talk about that now.

I think our convention has been to talk about at the end of agenda session, but at the risk of it slipping aside.

Um does the do the attending commissioners have a preference on a date necessarily.

I tend to try scheduling these on Fridays and Mondays, so that would be this Friday or Monday the 20th, uh, as options if uh there's a preference, or I don't also don't know if there's consensus that the council as a whole would like a tour.

So uh either date's fine with me.

I'm sorry, will you tell us those dates?

I heard the 20th.

What was the other date?

I apologize.

This Friday the 17th.

Is it supposed to be rain?

Friday may be better.

We're celebrating the amazing tree.

On Monday.

On uh Monday.

Uh-huh.

That's in ward two, isn't it?

It is.

I believe it's in ward two.

It is I think yeah, Friday and Friday will be right after we've had all those days of possible rain, too.

So that might be a good time to go look at it.

Okay, great.

Well, it sounds like we've got that handled.

So um a tour it is.

The next item is an order.

Okay, I'm so sorry.

I was going to I just wanted to ask Kit because we don't see this kind of appeal very often.

And so I just wanted to ask um as us sitting in then from the planning uh commission, what would our like legal consideration sets be?

Like I know that the um neighborhood has certain concerns they're bringing forward, but I just wanted to make sure of exactly the areas that we wish we should be considering when we hear this on Tuesday.

Well, on an appeal from the planning commission, basically you almost sit as a planning commission, although the people on that asked for the appeal have the um requirement and the duty to win the argument and have five affirmative votes to pass uh the appeal.

But you have the same considerations that the planning commission does.

You can certainly listen to what the planning commission said and what they granted, and uh you know, give them some deference if you want to, but you're not required to.

So basically it's kind of like a de novo hearing where uh both sides will present their cases and you'll make the decision.

Thank you, Kut.

And Mayor, if I may add to that briefly, just to answer the question more directly.

There are the same six factors if if the council recall that you hear on any development uh requirement or development appeal.

Uh that the first is that they have to be submitted in accordance with the standards of the development code.

Uh the the project cannot violate city, state, federal uh laws.

Uh the developer has to dedicate required right-of-way, utility easements, drainage easements.

Uh the fourth one, which usually rises to the top, is that the project uh could create or compound a dangerous traffic condition.

Uh the fifth is that water and sewer is not readily available to the property, and that the sixth is that the developer is refusing to comply with on or off-site street uh improvement requirements.

It's exactly the same six things that the staff considered and that the planning commission considered, and now you get to do the same thing.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

And and Kit, I know we ask you this every time we have an appeal, but a yes vote will be in favor of the appeal, and a no vote will be to deny the appeal.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Correct.

Okay.

Um the next item, D2, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-6 for approximately 2.46 acres, located at 620 South Crossover Road in Ward 1 from RSF4 to UT, Urban Thoroughfare.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request is in Southeast Fayetteville.

It is uh located about 500 to a thousand feet north of the intersection of mission and or I'm sorry, crossover at Huntsville Road, uh the two state highways there.

Uh the property is currently developed with a single family home, and the request, as Mayor noted, is to rezone it from its existing RSF4, residential single family four units per acre designation to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Uh this area may look familiar to the council uh since you saw it about two or the property immediately to the south about two months ago, uh, which was approved for a rezoning to UT uh urban thoroughfare, similar to this request.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this.

Uh the planning commission is also recommending in favor of this and uh sent it to the city council by unanimous uh eight to zero vote, and I can take any questions the council has okay.

Um Keith, anybody on Zoom?

I just want to make sure, check in.

Okay.

Um the final item of new business is on South Washington Avenue.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-7 for approximately 0.3 acres located at 325 South Washington Avenue in Ward 1 from NC to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request is a little bit closer to where we sit tonight.

Uh it's a little bit southeast of uh City Hall at the just northwest of the intersection of Washington Avenue and Fourth Street.

Uh the property is developed with a single family home that has access directly onto 4th Street, and the request is to rezone it from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff is in favor of the request.

Uh the planning commission forwarded it to City Council uh seven to one.

Uh the one dissenting vote had concerns about the property's potential inclusion in a historic district, a local historic district that's being considered in the Southeast Fayetteville area.

Um can take any questions you have, and uh you may see in the staff report that that historic district conversation is ongoing.

Uh went to the historic district commission this month and uh will likely be working its way to the planning commission in the future before ultimately coming to council.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Is there a historic property on the was that the concern?

Is there an existing historic property on the uh that the site?

There is a house on the property that could be eligible.

So it's a good good reminder.

When we talk about uh historic preservation, it's often two different pieces.

There's a national register that the federal government administers and doesn't typically come with any standards other than eligibility for tax credits and things of that nature.

There are also local districts which do come with local standards uh that the council can consider and adopt.

Oak Grove, just north of Washington Elementary was a most recent example of a local district that the council considered.

There is not a local district in place here today, and this property is not on the national register, but in evaluating this request, our long range group found that this the house on the property could be eligible given its age.

Um but they've not had the chance to make a full evaluation in that regard.

And the the pending local district is not in place today.

And uh if the district was in place, say that doesn't uh keep an owner from uh demolish demolishing a property, is that correct?

It is.

I think the the question you didn't answer that I'm gonna or didn't ask that I'm gonna answer real quick is that local historic districts do not address use.

They typically address design standards and they can address uh demolitions.

Um well to the extent that these dislocts are common in Arkansas, which is not uh at least in Northwest Arkansas, uh demolitions aren't necessarily prohibited, but they can be delayed uh in the sense that they go to would go to a local historic district commission to evaluate uh the certain for a certificate of appropriateness uh if the building could could be repaired if staff can come onto the property and survey and document the building prior to demolition.

Okay, but that's a very long-winded answer.

Did that get to your question?

I think so.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Mr.

Wiediger and then Miss Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

So Jonathan, these always seem to oil down to it's either a lot with issue or tandem lot, uh a structure behind and wanting to be able to do a lot split and fee simple sale.

Which example is this one, if even either of those?

I uh I'd have to review the the request letter to see if they got to the level of specificity.

I'll make sure to touch on that on Tuesday.

I don't I don't know offhand.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, do you anticipate or is it anticipated that the same kind of protections um that were with the low Oak Grove Historic District would be um incorporated into the South Fayetteville Historic District?

I do not know that, but I can get that answered on Tuesday as well.

Okay, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you all.

Um that just brings us to um the announcements.

Uh Clerk Pexon.

Just as a reminder, the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council vacancies application will be open until Friday the 17th.

And then board committee and commission vacancy announcement um for the advertisement period will end on April 24.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Keith.

Just an announcement that we have the water and sewer meeting directly after that on a separate Zoom link, and it's downstairs in room 101.

Thank you.