Okay, I would now like to call the April 21st meeting of the Fayetteville City Council to order.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Present.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna.

Here.

Ms.

Bunt?

Here.

Ms.

Chair?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we read.

Okay.

First item of business is Mayor's announcements and proclamations.

We proclaimed it Earth Week in Fayetteville on Saturday.

So make sure that you are following along with all of the city's social media channels so that you can be aware of what we're doing with regard to Earth Week.

And first on our agenda is a presentation from Marley Stark.

This is a um housing needs and assessment presentation.

And I will turn the floor over to Marley.

Okay, perfect.

I'm gonna pass out some one pagers.

For members of the council.

Okay.

Thanks, Marley.

Whenever you're ready.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh tonight the annual housing update will look a little bit different, but it will include a high-level look back at what we've achieved together in 2025 and an update on our progress to date in 2026.

I'll also highlight some immediate NES steps that we see as staff, as well as three key housing goals for the city to accomplish by 2028.

In 2025, investments were made across multiple departments to power Fayetteville's housing work moving forward.

Can you hear me okay?

Sorry, guys.

Is that better?

Perfect.

Uh some of these roles were aimed to target known bottlenecks in the development review process.

Others reflect the city's commitment to deepening community engagement around housing moving forward.

Both are paramount paramount to how we address Fayetteville's current and future housing needs.

From a staff perspective, these changes have allowed us to enable higher levels of customer service to our residents and the development community as a whole, but they also provide a foundation for future process improvements, allowing us to create sustainable systems level change, delivering better housing outcomes quarter after quarter.

For example, consider the 2025 pilot of same-day inspections and over-the-counter permitting for less complex permit types.

So this is things like accessory structures and pools, but not a full-blown house at this point.

Testing this process on a more simple permit type has laid the groundwork to scale these solutions for residential building permits later this year.

Another area where we saw real improvement in 25 in 2025 was reduced permit review times.

For example, the average number of days between a permit application and permit issuance for a single family development dropped around 36% between 2024 and 2025.

Reduced permit times translate to shorter timelines to get new housing into the market where we need it.

And we know that time is a particularly precious resource for our small-scale developers.

In 2025, 726 new housing units were completed in Fayetteville.

So that's over 700 new homes for Fayetteville residents.

Around two-thirds of those were still single-family homes, though we did see a moderate growth level in duplexes and townhomes.

So duplexes represented around 11% of what was built in 2025, and town homes represented around 20%.

The graph here also includes a staff projection for 2026, just to give you a little bit of a preview and a sense of what's in the pipeline.

So this is both units that were completed in January and February of this year, as well as permits that are under construction actively right now.

By the end of February 2026, another 276 units came online in our housing market, of which about 200 were in apartment complexes.

Removing barriers to smaller scale development and increasing housing diversity will continue to guide housing policy changes recommended by city staff moving forward.

I also want to highlight a space where Fayetteville continues to lead in Arkansas and nationwide, accessory dwelling units.

In May 2025, the city modified ADU standards to address common challenges with ADU construction, going above and beyond required revisions by the passage of statewide ADU legislations earlier in 2025.

This included increasing permitted ADU placement types, formalizing the exemption of ADUs from sidewalk construction requirements, and aligning ADU height limits with underlying zoning districts.

Again, these are technical tweaks that might feel small on sort of an individual level, but I think it can really make a real difference in the type of housing that gets built in Fayetteville.

One of the biggest through lines that we see in regional conversations around municipal growth management and increasing housing opportunity is the identification of durable funding streams for new types of housing work.

Voters approved over 150 million dollars in investment in Fayetteville's water and sewer infrastructure in March 2026.

This sets us up to avoid two key pitfalls that we're seeing constrain new housing production in other parts of Northwest Arkansas.

In 2026, I'm also excited to share that we intend to invest over 400,000 in federal funding into a rental assistance program.

This will support lower income residents for at least a two-year period.

Identifying the clearest and fastest path toward a rental assistance pilot was one of my top priorities when I entered this role last fall, and I look forward to sharing more detail as we get that program up and up and running later this year.

I also want to thank the council for approving a 2026 budget that keeps over 50 Fayetteville residents housed through the city's permanent supportive housing program known as Hearth, and also a budget that continues the tradition of providing monthly support for shelter and transitional housing operations at Seven Hills.

So, what's on the horizon for the rest of 2026?

I want to highlight a few different staff focused areas, kind of in the realm of housing policy, in partnerships, and in programs.

First and foremost, I want to talk a little bit about where city staff will need council support.

Development services staff and the planning commission have worked together to identify targeted solutions to address challenges that we're seeing come through the development pipeline in real time.

To this end, staff aim to bring three additional housing policies for your consideration in June.

This includes modifying the definition of a through lot, reducing the minimum lot width requirements in urban residential and mixed-use zoning districts, and ensuring that the planning commission has the discretion to right-size certain requirements for residential development.

I think there are also a lot of opportunities for us to engage with the public and collaborate with organizations and individuals in a way that we've not done before.

Bringing on two new staff members on my team in particular, one focused on renters and the other focused on homelessness, will allow for additional improved and sustained collaboration with a host of partners in our housing ecosystem.

In 2026, we're looking forward to engaging the development community to identify common barriers to affordable housing development.

We're trying to get a sense of what's keeping people from operating in that space, and also a better understanding of what types of new incentives could work for our local market specifically.

We've also started discussions with Arkansas Renters United, legal aid of Arkansas, and the Fayetteville Housing Authority to advance new local eviction prevention strategies and encourage landlords to accept housing vouchers.

Looking ahead to this time next year, we'll have preliminary feedback and some additional data about the performance of new housing services, like some of our pilot programs, as well as improvements to the development process.

We will continue to prioritize policy recommendations that champion small-scale developers and support infill development.

It's what makes sense for Fayetteville, and we're going to continue doing that.

Staff have already begun collaborating with regional housing stakeholders to identify state level opportunities to remove barriers to building mixed-income housing.

As we get closer to the 2027 legislative session, I'm excited to keep you all posted on that front.

Lastly, I want to close out with a few sort of three key major goals around housing that we hope to accomplish by 2028.

First, we'll completely rewrite the city's development code with housing in mind.

City staff have worked with the mayor's office to identify a viable pathway to accelerate the timeline of a full code rewrite alongside the development of City Plan 2050.

This work will start in 2027 and commence in 2028.

The comprehensive plan will set the direction while the UDC sets the rules for future housing production in Fayetteville.

Important, this is an opportunity to bring a greater degree of predictability to housing development in Fayetteville.

This is one of the biggest barriers that we hear in conversations with our home builders.

We'll also add 50 new beds to Fayetteville's shelter system.

Expanded analysis of public data on homelessness in Northwest Arkansas in this year's assessment motivated the second goal in multiple ways.

While the rate of homelessness in Northwest Arkansas indexed to the overall population level has decreased in the last decade, the region has experienced a sharp increase in unsheltered homelessness specifically.

In talking with community members and providers alike, we know that there is a particular need to provide additional options for families with children outside of traditional congregate shelter settings.

With both of these points in mind, Mayor Ron is committed to leveraging city resources, be that federal funding or city owned land to achieve this goal by 2028.

Lastly, we will develop a long-term funding plan for housing.

We know that a durable municipal housing funding strategy is the foundation for attracting cross-sector investment in our housing market and ensuring our community isn't left exposed when federal dollars fall short.

As a first order priority, the city will continue to shift staff time progressively from the CDBG fund to the general fund each year.

This change frees up CDBG funding to directly benefit residents instead of covering our costs to administer programs.

Practically speaking, that means more money for housing rehabilitation and other programs that promote economic mobility for lower income residents.

By early 2027, we will identify opportunities to advocate for state level changes that can unlock greater flexibility in the ways that cities support community housing needs.

By 2028, we aim to have more financial tools at our disposal to incentivize the development of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income residents, particularly in the context of mixed income development.

As I'm sure you will all appreciate, meaningful progress on housing isn't always linear.

We're working with complex and interconnected systems.

I think it's also a matter of working to expand what counts as housing, a housing solution and where those solutions come from.

Particularly of importance that we're consulting with our community, consulting with people that are closest to the problems.

Incremental consistent action taken day after day, quarter over quarter, and year after year is how cities move the needle on housing opportunity and affordability.

I look forward to the opportunity to answer any additional questions you may have about the housing analysis ahead of its publication in the coming weeks.

And I thank you in advance for your continued support of local policies and programs that increase housing choice for Fayetteville.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marley.

I will open it up to questions.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Marley, towards the beginning of the presentation, you said in 2025 there was 725 new housing options available, two thirds were single family.

Are we capturing how many of those are being used by college students?

So we do have an additional breakdown as far as what's being permitted within the multifamily apartment complex sort of dynamic.

Can we go back to that slide so we can see what so the question is?

So this overall piece.

So we have started tracking uh within our kind of apartment data, the difference between private dorms and apartments.

So for 2025, private dorms was around 220 and apartments was 565.

I think my question is.

And that's permitted, not total units completed.

So that's not a it's not a perfect um match to this, but we can definitely follow up with more info if that's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you for that answer.

But I think my question is more geared toward how do we know that renters that are residents from Fayetteville are using these single family housing because what I see, even in my neighborhood with single family housing are being taken up by college students, therefore individuals that live work here in the city don't have access to these new 225 single family homes because college students rent them out and they sit vacant during the summer, so they'll have somewhere to be when fall comes.

So how are we measuring any of those numbers about how college students are taking up housing for our community?

Yeah, I think it's it's challenge challenging.

We have to combine kind of a couple different data sources.

So both you know, that American community survey data that we use for a lot of sort of the core metrics in the housing report that can give us a sense of where populations are living across town in terms of age cohort.

We know traditionally uh not all of our student population sort of shows up in the 18 to 19 or 2020 demographic you would typically think about.

So we've also supplemented some of that with additional analysis and the assessment.

We've tried to kind of include some additional information that we've pulled from the university, both in terms of what they're bringing online within the next couple of years in terms of dormitories.

I would say I think as a matter of policy, the university tends to think about housing first year students as opposed to their student body as a whole.

But I do know they're starting to think more about graduate student housing in particular as well.

So when I think about the University of Arkansas and student housing needs and you know, increasingly, I think in talking to some of the student, you know, activists on campus, um, hearing that they're really struggling with being a renter in Vayville as well.

Um, knowing that I think it's a very diverse uh sort of it's not a monolithic, you know, entity.

So as far as being able to give sort of a one-to-one of, you know, with new single family homes or new apartment complexes, who's going into those, it's a little bit challenging.

Um, but I think as far as what we're monitoring in terms of what we're permitting for apartments in particular, we are at least doing a breakdown of the private dorm designation versus just apartment.

So thank you.

Um the second questions I had, and February 2026, you said there was additional 276 units came online, and you said the majority of those were uh apartment complexes.

Yes.

And once again, we don't know if that's any student housing.

Um I think for those in particular, we're still doing some additional work.

It's sort of having to piece together some of the qualitative information that's in the permitting system.

So when uh you go in and look at sort of the output, there will be a description of how many units sometimes developers will make a note whether or not it's student housing.

I would say our long range planning team does a really great job for anything net new that's coming online of sort of tagging that in our internal data set to know whether or not that's um you know, sort of a student focused unit or not.

Um, but I'll I can follow up with some additional information for that, 276 units specifically if we have a breakdown of which of those might be student housing or not.

Okay.

I think my next question is you're working with FHA to encourage landlords to accept housing voucher.

Is that something you're doing or just FHA?

Uh working in collaboration.

So I think that will be one of the big um first projects that our new housing stability coordinator will work on.

Um I think it's a known problem uh that we do have you know, some landlords in the community who don't know enough about the housing choice voucher system, um, might be sort of overwhelmed by you know some of the inspections or compliance aspects that come along with it.

I think our goal and some of the lessons that we can bring from um you know outreach that we've done for the hearth program in the past is sort of an opportunity to really explain what that process looks like and just provide some education and hope that that um moves the needle.

But as far as um, you know, where that work will sit, I think it's gonna be a joint venture between us and an FEJA.

Okay.

And I think towards the end, you said um long range in 2028, you wanted to move some CDBD funds to the general fund.

Is that specifically around the HARTH program?

Um, so the goal overall, I would say is, you know, everyone that's on my staff, they're making sure some of some of us are paid sort of a percentage out of the general fund right now for our salary benefits, things like that.

Some of us are completely under the CDBG fund.

So the goal is to over time have no staff time coming out of CDBG so that we're working with that full, you know, $800,000 or so each year to actually put that into housing services versus some of it having to cover the cost of administration.

And I would say, you know, and in trying to call around to other communities and look at their consolidated plans, um, which have you know kind of their funding plan for a five-year period.

Um, this seems to be a problem that a lot of communities face.

Uh, I think it's sort of uh just a legacy of how federal funding has been treated and treated in community development just across the US.

Um so I think I'm excited to work with you know with the mayor and with Steve to talk about what that path looks like in terms of decreasing over time.

And you said that was approximately eight staff members.

And then um just for clarity, you said there is funding from C D BG to the HARTH program.

So uh we cover like our match that we use, so we get continuum of care grant funding to actually provide for rental payments.

Um, we do a little bit of food purchasing as well.

Um, so that comes out of the COC grant, but as far as staff time, in order to accept the COC grant, we have to accept we have to offer a local match as well.

And so we do that in the form of staff time.

So that um kind of overhead of having two case managers does come out of the CDB budget, CDBG budget right now.

Okay.

And the last question, um, there's been a lot of talk around revamping the CDBG application.

So therefore community members can actually also access those funds, especially if you're gonna move that time from CDBG over to the staff funding.

Do you see that application being revisited for next year?

And really it should be coming up August of 2026 for funding for 2027.

Do you see changes coming to the application?

Yeah, I think one factor that we've been talking about internally and that I'm planning to bring up um at the the CDAP advisory board tomorrow to just sort of be part of an open conversation.

It's kind of the challenge of our nonprofit grants uh currently fall under what HUD would designate as a public service, and we're capped at the percentage of how much of our annual allocation can go towards public services.

So a dollar that I spend towards a nonprofit grant is a dollar that I can't spend on, you know, expanding some of our transportation programs that we run in-house.

So I think I'm particularly interested not only to kind of talk to the advisory board about that challenge and point taken.

I think we've talked a little bit about the application process and opportunities to make that more accessible.

Um, but I think I'm also interested in hearing from the community.

I've seen a couple other communities that have used um sort of a just a brief survey ahead of doing that full consolidated plan, like funding um document that you have to submit to HUD and taking some uh sort of, I think about it almost like preference surveys.

So out of all of the things that we're allowed to fund, you know, with CDB CDBG dollars, you know, on a scale of one to five, do you prefer housing more or transportation more or workforce development more and trying to get a sense of um you know what residents would like to see dollars be spent on.

Um, you know, I think that there are uh naturally some things that we will continue to fund because I think it's important.

I think we have data to back it up in terms of our housing rehab and repair program.

I think we should continue to fund that personally.

Um but I think there's some some flexibility to sort of um you know not use our past budget as the starting point for for the next five years, but really thinking about what would it mean to build that budget from scratch.

Yeah, thank you.

And I and I asked that specifically in regards to the housing rehab program, because the feedback from communities as well across Northwest Arkansas, we have the hardest application, and it seemed to keep people out versus funding individuals.

So that's why I'd really like us.

If you look at Bin County, if you look at Lowell, if you look at Springdale, there's CDBG grant.

None of it is as stringent as Fayette Bill, and that that application was built with some barriers to keep some people from being able to apply and or receive funding.

So I really want us to revisit that.

Okay, and that's for the nonprofit grant application specifically.

Okay, thank you.

I think I'm it is it all uh Minister Jones, are you also hearing that from for the um home rehab grants or specific or for all grants or I thought you said you were also hearing that for home for the It's both, it's both.

Our C D BG grant is the most stringent in Northwest Arkansas.

Most people will bow out and say, I'm out, I'm not applying.

It's like they're trying to keep us out.

So I know medical doctors, homeowners, as well as nonprofits that have come to me and say, I will not be applying for that grant.

It's too stringent, and it's not to qualify us to be in, it's to qualify us out.

Interesting.

Um, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, Brittany and Marley, for all the time I know that you've um put into putting this information together.

I just want to ask some clarifying um questions in regard.

I think you mentioned that there might be a publication coming out, and so I was hoping could you give us some ideas about um in previous assessments, you know, we've really kind of dug into the data a lot more, you know, and had price points and kind of slice and dice.

And so can you give us an idea of what this publication is and kind of what it will look like and kind of when we can expect that?

Yeah, so we are um sort of just taking and tie-in, checking all of our data, um making sure that all of the numbers are perfect.

Um, as you can imagine, it's a lot of different tables from a lot of different uh sources.

So we just want to be um, I think really acting out of an abundance of caution that the information we're putting out is 100% correct.

Um, so that's something we're working to finish up with in the next two or three weeks and have that online, you know, typically like we would in the past.

I would say moving forward, we have been having internal conversations about whether or not it would be beneficial to move to like more of a quarterly report for you all with some of that information that we've we're used to seeing on an annual basis.

So, like when we get updated median rent or updated median income info, we could potentially bake that into one of the quarter reports.

But I um, you know, sort of operating on the assumption and feel free to say if it's not helpful, that I think it would be helpful to get more of an update, especially on the production and preservation project side of things, um, giving you you all information about that on a on a quarterly basis instead.

So certainly open to additional feedback on what would be most useful from from council's perspective, um, but also from you know the community's perspective, because I I'm always um very excited and surprised whenever I have a resident who's mentioned that they've they've read our previous housing assessments.

So I know um the reading audience is is probably larger than we we might think.

Yeah, no, I appreciate you clarifying, and I'll speak just for myself and not my colleagues, but I know I would definitely benefit if it was feasible to be able to do a quarterly update.

And I think if we needed resourcing for that, be it you know head count or funding to be able to do that.

Um I know there are other projects in the city looking at doing online dashboards and things like that.

And so I don't know if there's an opportunity to kind of skill share and resource share across any of that, but definitely think that as we're making decisions about the particular projects that come across our desk and the complexities that they face, being able to have as much data in front of us obviously is incredibly helpful to understand if that's kind of driving us towards closing some of those gaps.

And so I've recognized that has a lot of challenges, but also too, we have um only so many staff too that are working on this, and so um definitely want to recognize that and say if we need to support in some way, I'd be very happy, and I'm sure my colleagues would be to support that.

Thank you.

Um I had a couple um other questions I just want to ask um and get some clarity.

Um whenever we're talking about um, you know, we had declared a housing crisis now.

It's been um some years now, and um I know that we have challenges that are in the state and the federal level, and I think we've all kind of held hands and said, you know, as a city, you know, no one's probably really coming to save us, and so we're gonna make those strides on our those efforts, and I think we will make inroads, but I know we're not waiting for that.

And so I was just hoping, um, especially when we're talking about 2028 for this long-term funding plan for housing.

I was hoping that maybe we could get a little more clarity and a little more detail on what that entails.

And um, I'll kind of like put out there, for instance, you know, our community has been talking a lot about social housing.

Um, social housing to me equates city-owned uh property, city owned housing.

And so just want to, you know, kind of understand those are housing trust funds, those are uh revenue bonds and things like that.

And so just want to get a kind of a better idea of kind of what the thoughts are on what that particular goal is today with 2028.

Marley, I can take that one if you want, because um, when we I know you had a meeting with um Marley and Jonathan and Jesse and Keith, the chief of staff in Britain, and where we talked about um exactly those ideas that you brought up about housing trust funds, and we talked about how those were all on the table that we just simply did not feel like we would have a solution until 2028.

Um and so, and I know that you expressed wanting us to bring it forward, but as we talked about in the meeting, bringing it up before it's ready could set us back even further.

And so those still are ones that we are that we are considering and looking at and exploring the legality of thank I appreciate the clarity though that those are all kind of a part of that.

And just as a a note that I think you'll appreciate for the the report itself, we do have a section where we kind of talk about different um you know, social housing sort of more broadly defined as an umbrella term.

So we've got um, I think some additional data about our existing stock of um, you know, voucher holders, uh, you know, public housing, sort of what that looks like.

Um so trying to get some additional math on the page of of where we're starting from.

Um I'm hopeful that that will be you know helpful um in any kind of uh you know changes that we might be advocating for in the future, but definitely um takes a lot to to get the full picture.

And then I just want to put this one out there and don't know if this would be a response today or just for something in the future as you're working with the publication and talking internally, it's just the protection of housing stock.

Again, I know in 28 that could be a potential, but trying to look at every possible opportunity about um how we protect housing stock, just knowing that you know, we're having even you know, houses amongst amongst neighborhoods that have been historically affordable.

We're seeing those unfortunately with all the pressures that are happening for those local owners that they're just having with maintenance and insurance, turning those over, you know, to market.

And so it's it's not even that it's even just in the larger complexes that are losing federal protections, but I'm just seeing it as I'm talking to just kind of mom and pop shops, which really faithful um has been so special that I think they're just feeling so much pressure.

And so over these next couple of years, I have a lot of concerns about how much of that housing stock is probably in peril uh with all the conditions that we're kind of faced with right now.

So again, not necessarily needing a response right this moment.

I just kind of wanted to put that out there that I think that is something that has to start to be software, and I don't know that it can wait, and I don't know what those solutions are, but we have a lot of smart people in our region, and so I hope we can figure that out together.

So thank you very much again for all the hard work and the conversations we've had and for the conversations I know we'll have into the future on this topic.

Uh Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, uh Marley and and Britton for all your work on this.

Um, we have this chart up.

Um just as a minor suggestion would be if we were to track student-oriented housing as another housing category.

And the only reason I say that is because my question was going to be do we have any idea if there's any more student special housing in the pipeline, or if we do we think we're about to reach market saturation, would be a question that I would have going forward out of morbid curiosity.

And um I I don't know how Fayetteville did it or its staff did it, but um interest rates drive housing startups as much as anything, and uh interest rates during this time period have actually increased, and yet the startups are not showing signs of of being deterred by that.

And I don't know how this was accomplished, but kudos to everyone who's been involved in that because it just means that Fayetteville has remained an attractive community for housing investment going forward, and I think our commitment to that is valuable.

So thank you.

Okay, uh Minister Jones, did you have another question for Marlowe?

I did have one more question, um, and maybe this is for a follow-up uh meeting.

I appreciate um my peers, Councilmember Moore and Whitaker bringing up about the protection of public housing.

What I'd like to find out is um how much actual public housing is being taken offline.

I know for a fact that they are moving people out of Lewis Plaza, and I have no idea whether people are going.

Um the same with Morgan Manor, people are being asked to leave, but where are they going?

Next will be Willow Heights.

We're moving people out of public housing into where if we don't have housing for other people.

So I really would like to know what is the plan for telling someone you can't live in public housing because we're gonna rehab it, but in the meantime, what are we gonna do with individuals that we're asking that are living 60 percent below the poverty level in those housing projects, and then we don't have any place for working um individuals that are on the just on the spectrum that's trying to find regular housing, but we're moving them out saying where are you going?

And so I'd like to know how much public housing is being taken offline and then where what are we doing to rehouse those individuals?

Yeah, I won't.

I can answer part of that just because uh I've been in contact with Chonda on several issues that they're dealing with with drainage, and um they had a couple water leaks that we've been helping with.

I think it'd probably be appropriate to invite her to have her come speak and give an update on what's going on because I know some of those the move outs that she's been dealing with lately is to move people out to repair some of those properties.

So I think it'd be great for her to come to give a presentation.

Okay, uh Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, along that subject, uh we as a council had uh made some efforts to help FHA kind of ride the ship.

Uh has that been a positive uh occurrence, and how has your work and relationship been with FHA?

Yeah, absolutely.

So um, you know, Shonda was a great partner, uh, you know, kind of in my first couple of months in this role.

Um we had assembled sort of an informal uh working group with staff, uh, but she was someone that you know frequently came to those every week, and we also um you know speak personally just one-on-one every couple of weeks.

I know the last time I talked to her, um, and this would be public information, so I think it's it's okay to share.

Um, I know they were um you know deep in preparation for their um sort of latest audit that they were doing, and they had uh you know definitely called in um you know some colleagues out of Hamburan um who are very experienced and seasoned in that space um and just to sort of have uh borrowed additional hands on deck um to get through that process.

So that's the the latest update I've had from Shonda, but I know um we're we're scheduled to to meet again next week, and I I um particularly like Keith's point about um having her her come in and maybe provide um an update that is a little bit more comprehensive than what we can probably speak to Mr.

Whitaker.

Thank you.

One quick uh comment, almost an admonition for the administration rather than you, Marley, and that is I continue to read about the Northwest Arkansas Council wanting to make infrastructure a regional project, so to speak, whether it's wastewater treatment or other things, and I my admonition is to see that we take support support of our homeless population, our unhoused individuals also as a regional housing infrastructure issue worthy of the region's attention and not just Fayetteville's attention.

I thank this community for their compassion to that population.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you so much, Marley.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up we have our consent agenda.

Um, go ahead, um, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion we vote to approve the consent agenda as read to us at the agenda session.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to us uh approve the consent agenda as previously presented.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

And now we need a vote correct to approve the consent agenda.

Clerk Paxson, please call the roll.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And that brings us to Section B, um, public hearing.

And I apologize.

I should have read this at the very start of the meeting in case we have members of the public that were here just for that purpose.

But I believe Mr.

Kirth is going to ask us to table both of these items.

Um Jonathan, can you speak to that, please?

That is correct, Mayor, as I alluded to at agenda session.

Excuse me.

Putting these items on the agenda has afforded us a uh opportunity to engage with the applicants uh where it may not have been available before.

Uh and one has submitted a demolition permit that we're working through right now, and the other has submitted a plan for how to address their property.

Uh and as a result, we are recommending that both items be tabled, albeit albeit date specific, so that we can have for opportunity to revisit this if progress is not made.

Uh so if the council is amenable, uh we ask that this item be both items be tabled to the June 2nd City Council meeting, please.

I can answer any questions or go into any details if it's uh helpful for the council.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Moore.

I just make a motion to um postpone B1 to the June 2nd meeting.

Second sorry to table table to the June 2nd.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to table uh item B1 to the June 2nd council meeting.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And I believe you're making that same request for item B2.

Is that correct, Jonathan?

That's correct, Council.

We have a I'll make that motion to table till the June 2nd.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to table item B2 to the June 2nd council meeting.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

That brings us to Section C of the agenda.

Unfinished business.

The first item is C1, an ordinance to amend Section 39.1 C and 39.11 C 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 an emergency.

Kit.

Mayor, since uh this was approved initially, this initial change was approved.

We had another ordinance review committee meeting, and there was one other change that they wanted to make where currently the code uh says dislocation expenses are not to exceed three days.

And so they wanted it to uh not have that, and it was a difference.

So I have uh drafted section four and then section four, uh the current section four would be re number five and the other one six.

So the amendment would say that the city council hereby amend section 39.10 C2 by repeating the last seven words, dislocation expenses not to exceed three days and enacting the following to replace it.

Dislocation expenses as determined by the adjuster not to exceed the current per diem rates published by the U.S.

General Services Administration, and I think that's what the ordinance review committee uh agreed and recommended to the council.

So I'd ask for that uh amendment to be made before we go on to any further readings.

Okay, Mr.

Berna.

I'll make a motion to second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend section four of the proposed ordinance.

Um Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Okay.

So Mr.

Berna, would you like to speak more about this before we go to you need to read the whole thing?

It was so this was left on the first reading April 7th, but then we've just amended.

Do you need to read anything or is we sufficient there?

Uh I think that uh you know, I don't think I need to read the entire body.

We only change seven words.

So I think that uh that's very well understood.

So we I will have to either read the title if it's if you suspend the rules, or I'm gonna read the whole ordinance if you'd like me to.

So you would welcome a motion to suspend the rules and take it to the third and final reading.

I'll make that motion.

So I could hey we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and take it to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

In order to amend Section 3910 C and 39.11 C 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 an emergency.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

As we discussed in the last meeting, uh at present, our uh spending approval level was it that max out of a hundred thousand dollars.

What this uh uh ordinance does is it gives the city council the the right after a uh third party adjuster reviews the claim that we can as a city council can approve upon uh uh unanimous consent uh up to the adjuster's amount.

Uh once we brought that forward last meeting, uh it it some questions were uh were raised about in the ordinance it specifically says we're limited to three days of housing.

So we went back to the ordinance review, put uh pass that through.

Uh it it was a lot more complicated than just three days, you know, and let's let's give them X number of days.

So we came down uh with the understanding the best way to do this would be to push this to the experts.

Um, you know, I'm a funeral director, you know, other guys, other people, other city council members have other jobs.

I'm not an insurance adjuster.

So um uh we felt like it was uh the the right thing to do would be to push it to the insurance adjuster, let them review it, and then it would be a considered in the adjusted amount.

So we thought in the at the end of the day that was the fairest way for both the city as well as the citizens.

Great, thank you.

Um Miss Moore and then Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I do just have a follow-up question on the adjuster.

Is it just the same adjuster that's looking at the project?

Does the like the housing part as well?

Or did you guys talk about does it require anything further as round for lodging, or it can be the same person?

It'll be the same adjuster.

Okay, thank you.

And and correct me if I'm wrong, but on this particular uh the reason this issue came to light uh was a large claim that we will we'll talk about the next uh issue, but we will need to table it because if we pass this, we obviously need to get uh an a second or not a second review, but a re-review of that adjustment or that adjusted adjuster's report to take into consideration what the new amount is and the homeowner needs an opportunity to review everything.

So, in fairness to them, we'll need to we'll need to table the next item until everybody can review it.

I appreciate that extra information.

It made me think of another question.

It may be for Kit, I'm not sure.

But um, with that being an adjuster, and they're kind of making these like they look at the concrete numbers, but they make estimations.

If you're thinking about like someone still out of their property and there's an estimated time for their return, how do we figure out the lodging?

I guess how is an adjuster or how is that because I know that whenever we offer it to the homeowner, they have to sign off entirely.

And so I just I'm just curious if something else occurs on that process.

I'm trying just trying to think through how do they know when they're doing that.

Yeah, how I think right.

Like how do they take into account is there kind of like we do contingency, so do they somehow put a buffer of days?

They think they're gonna be out for six months, so they sign the check, but they put in like a 15% adjustment in there just in case there's a gap, because I just don't know any construction projects or remodeling that hits the timeline any longer.

And so I'm just trying to think about when they look at it and they're thinking, okay, if they just are saying they're gonna be in by X day, do they give them lodging to that day, or how does that process work?

I'm just trying to think through practically.

And also can when you answer that, can you kind of give us guidance on what you think would happen if someone likely isn't going to wait?

It's not the expectation that they wait till everything is completely finished before they submit the claim because they're gonna need that money as you go.

So how does that how does that work?

I think the best way and what the city uh ordinance review committee believed, the best way was actually to rely upon our experienced adjuster.

Uh he can look at see what the damage is, what needs to be cleaned up, how fast it's cleaned up, and look what's reasonable under the circumstances.

And I think it's probably better to have a third-party adjuster make those decisions rather than the city council trying to figure out every case was this good or bad or not or not, because this is more of a test we're trying to get to.

And uh so I that's why the using the experienced adjuster who's done this work before, I think uh we're leaving it in the adjuster's hands to make a recommendation to you, and that would be your ceiling, but uh, you know, if you disagree with the adjuster, you don't have to go all the way up there or don't have to pay anything if you don't want to.

But anyway, uh that was the way that the best way we figured was to have the adjuster make the determination and not make it a political decision by you all.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you.

And that was one of the items that became really complicated because we could not figure out a vehicle uh because once for the property owner to get money, they have to agree to the settlement.

So if they get six months down the road and for whatever reason their home is uh if if can be you know viewed as still not uh habitable, the only thing we could come up with was to come back to the council with another uh second uh uh claim with just fiable uh situation.

That's the only thing we could come up with because they've got to sign off on the claim to to get the money.

So I mean, so we're we're kinda at that point.

We got no options.

Well, and I know that you guys looked at a lot of scenarios, so I appreciate you taking the time to go through that and explain it too.

Okay, if we don't have any more um questions for Scott or for Kit, we will open it up to public comment on this item.

If there are any members of the public that would like to speak, please come up to the microphone and please be mindful of the three-minute time frame.

And please keep your comments relative to changing of the code for damage claims.

Hello.

Hello.

Chris Scrocky, 516 North Fallon.

I know the drill by now.

Um yeah, so just a uh a couple comments uh related to this.

I was just had a chance to kind of take a look at the uh at the memo.

Um so right now there's not a uh mechanism to to resolve uh differences between that uh estimator and then actual uh costs.

Um informally, you know, it's not again defined uh within the ordinance, um, have had that follow-on meeting with the uh estimator that the city has hired, and so we've been able to discuss some of those issues, but there's not a formal mechanism again, you know, as as sort of written.

So um in in this case, the initial discrepancy uh between the ex the uh hired um uh person um and then uh two contractor estimates I received is about an 80 percent uh difference right there.

And there were some uh acknowledged uh mistakes in that uh hired estimators information, for example, the uh flooring materials in four separate rooms were actually inaccurately uh labeled uh in that.

So there's some some things, and those those were acknowledged, and so we were we did discuss that in that follow-on meeting which took place last last week, I think it was.

But um again, that wasn't that's not formally uh described um as it stands right now.

So obviously we're going back and forth, but in thinking about how other residents may be affected for hopefully not anyone nearly as badly as as I have been for quite some time, but it will happen eventually.

Might be a good idea to kind of think about how those things get resolved as well.

Um there were acknowledgments of of issues with uh a software error with the software which was used to generate the estimate that was pointed out that that was caught by the estimator.

So there are these things that um you know will come up that need to get resolved and probably ought to be a I think a process to resolve those discrepancies kind of formalized well while we're talking about ordinance um review.

um as well um there were acknowledgments of of issues with uh a software error with the software which was used to generate the estimate that was pointed out that that was caught by the estimator so there there are these things that um you know will come up that need to get resolved and probably ought to be a I think a process to resolve those discrepancies kind of formalized well while we're talking about ordinance um review and um actually I've we've got some folks here who do have a backgrounds in uh insurance and have a pretty good understanding of kind of how that process works whenever you have a significant claim covered by insurance in terms of rebu resolving those discrepancies so if they want to speak by by all means um yep and then it was just mentioned obviously that uh you all are looking at the at the lodging as well so I get that thank you thank you all right do we have anyone on Zoom who would like to I'm sorry do we have any more I it doesn't seem like we have any more speakers in the chamber okay do we have anyone on Zoom?

Oh okay yes hi just to first of all yeah my name is Miller Wilson I am a favorable resident here Miller Wilson favorable resident uh and insurance agent for Chris Grocky uh to your questions on the rental value typically in kind of hypothetical because it's not an act of God that created this so but it would be 20 percent on fair rental value to the dwellings coverage a dwelling amount for the lodging itself so it would be that 20 percent would be the rental value for said displacement and all on that um the uh what was your other question on too on that I'm sorry on the insurance part um I had those answered by the city attorney but thank you thank you so are you I'm assuming this means you are supportive of item C one side yes I am great okay thank you confirmed Keith do we have anyone on Zoom who'd like to comment we do not okay I'm gonna bring it back to the council for any final comments before we call for the vote.

Oh I'm God I'm so sorry I was staring right at you and I just didn't see the light.

Yes Mr.

Burnout please go ahead I'm sorry.

Uh thank you mayor I just wanted to reiterate uh the ordinance review and staff put in a lot of time and this this is not perfect.

Right.

There's no way we're gonna get to a perfect solution.

There's just not so uh I think we've done a really good job of trying to get as close to right as we can and with that I'd like to uh make a motion uh to approve the ordinance or with the other um we are I think we also look like we are on the third final lead because we may get those in the rules high right as you may have comments okay sorry so uh we'll start with Mr.

Stefford we'll go this way thank you mayor um first really want to thank the ordinance review committee I think you guys really did a stellar job on this uh and and taking it back up to deal with the uh uh time out of house uh situation and I think you come up came up with the most elegant answer that that we could ask for a quick question for kit just based on the uh uh kind of uh uh comments we heard uh is it safe or presumptuous to assume that the in this process like there will be disagreements between the uh adjuster and and uh the claimant but uh I mean we we will see is it safe to assume that those will be uh discuss that discussions will take place and they'll try to work through those uh uh differences like it's not like the adjuster just looks at it once and sends us a a number like there's there's conversations had is that correct well especially in a complex case like this uh there are gonna be discussions no question about it in a lot of cases it's it's gonna be a very low number there's been very few people that needed housing and so that's a very rare thing to come up but the more complicated case obviously there are going to be discussions on there uh the the homeowner has to describe his losses his property that was damaged and all that kind of stuff show where it is and and that kind of stuff or how it's damaged so obviously there are gonna be discussions like that and uh yeah so I think that happened here or uh here very recently again so I I think that I'm gonna rely upon the insurance adjuster that we have who's really disinterested just trying to do his job as fairly as possible I think that's by far the best way to to get to the final result.

Thank you K and uh I I feel the same way I I that aligns with how I feel I think that uh we could try to adjust this to our we're blue in the face but I think we what we've got now is is pretty good and and as we go forward well obviously if there are issues those will come up so I I'm in support of passing this as is tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

uh we could try to adjust this to our we're blue in the face but i think we what we've got now uh is is pretty good and and as we go forward well obviously if there are issues those will come up so i i'm in support of passing this as is tonight thank you mayor um i'm similar uh council member staffer kind of had my clarifying question i know in code uh we can't necessarily um be explicit about every single types of like instances and absolute concrete barriers but um i just wanted to offer this up to the mayor and the city staff for any potential clarification they might meet want to make that would be outside of the city attorney but you know this does get managed by city staff and I think that you know they interpret and and have to work within the ordinances that we do pass and put on the books and so I would think that they would have the discretion like the ability to kind of facilitate between the um uh the the uh can you think of the word of it the the person who's doing the outside work and then managing that the adjuster and managing it with the city and so there is that involvement of the back and forth and so I think just to answer the question that came up during public comment just to clarify that so much of like the guardrails we put in place for ordinance does leave the discretion for the administration and staff to just actually take that case by case basis and put that in place and so just want to at least give them that assurance that you do have that ability to do that maneuvering that you need to do with what we're doing I think that's real a really good point yes I don't know that did we do you have an I mean I don't know that I have an answer yeah but I agree with you that I think that's yeah I just wanted to make sure they knew that you weren't handcuffed to the explicit letter of what the ordinance says that's so much happens that staff does have to do a lot of interpretation and kind of back and forth and I think this probably allows them to do that.

It seems like it does and I know that's something that Kit was very sensitive to so I appreciate you saying that um Ms.

Turk I just want a second council member Berna's motion okay we have a motion and to see we don't need a motion well we already have a second ordinance we just call a roll okay great so well then we don't need a yeah all right clerk paxon will you please call the roll Ms.

Moore yes Mr Wiedaker yes Mr.

Berna yes Ms.

Bunch yes Ms.

Turk yes minister jones yes mr stafford yes and in deference to council member turk we do need a motion to pass emergency clause I'll make a motion to pass this emergency clause second okay we have a motion and a second to pass the emergency clause on items related to item c one clerk paxon will you please call the roll Ms.

Moore yes Mr.

Wheataker yes Mr.

Berna yes Ms.

Bunch yes Ms.

Turk yes Minister Jones yes Mr Stafford yes okay so um that passed unanimously and so this uh amended ordinance c one goes into effect immediately and I believe now item C2 uh 516 North Fallon Avenue sewer damage claim um we are going to need a request to table and I believe that would be the request that Mr.

Scaraki would make as well um so if we could have a motion to unless you would like unless you feel unless you feel differently I'm gonna ask for a motion to table yes okay I'll make a move to motion to table just clarification how long do we need to table it um until then do we do until the next meeting kit do you have a recommendation I think we're pretty okay at that point in time and we are passed an emergency clause so this is becoming effective pretty quickly and I think that should give enough time to get a report from our appraiser about the new uh not three day limit on housing um Keith have you can you have you consulted with Tim or do you have an idea on how long we might need to make sure that happens I believe Tim said that they're working on that and should have something this week from our Tim can you give a thumbs up if you feel like the next council meeting would be okay seems like the next council meeting will be sufficient.

Okay so that's a motion from I'll make that motion if no one has okay so we have a motion from Mr.

Stafford second and we have a motion from no Monet did Minister Jones make the motion okay will you amend will you amend the motion to say the date we restate it with a new date yes I am in the motion to restate with our new date okay got it so the next council meeting and a second from Mr Stafford Clerk Paxson will you please call the role to table item C2 until the next council meeting Ms.

Moore?

Yes Mr Wheataker yes Mr.

Berner yes Ms.

Bunch yes Ms.

Turk yes Minister Jones yes Mr Stafford yes okay that brings us to item C three amending 161.38 district CCR conservation cultural and recreation it's an ordinance to amend 161.38 um CCR to prohibit detention and retention ponds on CCR zoning districts from serving any uses except use unit one's permitted uses and at the April 7th council meeting this ordinance was amended and left on the second reading kit I think that there uh council member Turk wanted to have an emergency clause placed on this okay do we just do a motion to amend to add an emergency clause yes I move that we amend to add the emergency clause second okay we have a motion to um amend item C three to add an emergency clause and we have a second clerk Paxton will you please call the roll

Kit I think that their uh council member Turk wanted to have an emergency clause placed on this.

Okay.

Do we just do a motion to amend to add an emergency clause?

Yes.

I move that we amend to add the emergency clause.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to um amend item C three to add an emergency clause, and we have a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay, so we are now.

Do we need a we're on the third and final reading?

Do we have any further comments?

Well, it was left on the second reading.

Just left on a second, then I'll either read it.

Uh, if you want me to, it's very short, or else uh they can expand the rules and I won't have to read it, but the title I think we want to hear you read it, Kit.

You have such a wonderful speaking voice and you're so eloquent.

Please go ahead.

I think you've already read the title, so I'll read the body.

Whereas drainage detention retention pond should only be permitted in a C CR zoning district if they serve a permitted use in use unit one.

Now therefore it be it ordained in this by the city council, the city of Favor Arkansas Section One, that the City Council of City of Favor, Arkad here by amends section 161.38 D by enacting a new section 1630 161.38 D three as follows.

D three detention retention ponds are permitted in a CCR zoning district only if they are serving a permitted use.

And I forgot the emergency clause is longer than that.

Section two emergency clause.

The city council of the city of Faivil, Arkansas hereby determines that this ordinance should become effective without delay, so that all pending rezoning requests for CCR conservation, cultural, and recreation district zoning will not have detention or retention ponds within them that do that do not serve a permitted use in use unit one.

Therefore, to guard against the creation of a detention or retention pond within a CCR zoning district, which could serve a use not permitted in use unit one.

The city council hereby declares an emergency exists, and in order to preserve the citizens' peace, health, and safety, this amending ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thanks for the council's indulgence to try and you know get this um this minutiae right with the CCR.

Uh just as a quick recap, um, we created this conservation cultural uh recreational um zoning district in I guess it was late last year, and the whole idea was preservation.

And um that was kind of the whole uh you know conservation and preservation because we didn't have a zoning district like that, and uh we never envisioned the discussion about detention resent retention um ponds being added.

So um my initial thought was that they should be prohibited, but then I met with staff and we came up with this other I I would say a compromise, and probably actually much better than uh than we originally thought.

So use unit one is the only allowed use within that um that zoning district, and so these types of activities that were just handed out would be allowed for a detention retention pond to be constructed.

And you know, many of our discussions were talking about um, you know, um par park areas, um, nature conservancy areas, those kinds of buildings.

So this fits pretty nicely within this use unit one.

Well um, so that will be an allowance for that, and then the ongoing conservation projects of stream restoration or stream fortification that um some of the other city staff are working on would be allowed under this amendment.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Do we have any questions for council member Turk?

Councilmember Moore.

Thank thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I believe you said this before.

I just want to get clarity for sure.

Um you said that the um environmental action committee was supportive um of these updates, and then with this update with use unit one.

Do you is staff now like fully supportive of this?

Do they still think that potentially there's some challenges presented with folks wanting to pick the conservation zone just because it might have some challenges potentially with detention, or does this basically maybe solve for those?

Just want to check.

Well, I checked with a couple of EAC members, so I didn't go before the EAC formally to check in with them.

But they um they said yes, this was in their understanding what our goal was when we drafted this when we had all of those conversations, and they also thought that this was um actually a a pretty good compromise that it it fit.

It actually sort of fit better than just an outright complete prohibition.

Okay, and um Jonathan can comment about what planning staff is is thinking.

I can thank you for the question, Councilmember Moore.

That this does address our concerns that I expressed at the previous meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Um I do have a quick question here uh for council member Turk.

So you spoke with not the EAC as a body, but a couple of members of the EAC.

Okay.

That's correct.

Okay, um, I just didn't think the timing was gonna work out, but to get the to get that, but I I thought this was a pretty clear um uh this was a pretty clear compromise or and actually actually fit better, and they echoed that um okay completely.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Thank you.

Okay, I think it seems like it's time for some public comment.

Um if any members of the public would like to speak on this item, please go ahead, state your name and address.

Do we have anybody that's called in?

Okay, so I'll bring it back to the council and it is on the third and final reading, and unless you have comment.

Yes, Mr.

Weedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

I did just want to comment and um thank Teresa and the AEC for their work.

I think I mean normally I don't like the idea of creating additional zones.

We already have enough.

I wish I had a dollar for every zone we had.

But I like the idea of not leaving land zoned agricultural because of the uses that are permitted, and so I would like us to at least keep an eye open on how many people don't use the zone who would rather not leave their land agricultural, but would be willing to forego chicken houses or pig farms or any other allowable agricultural use without actually entering into a formal legal conservation just by having the zone to preclude those uses.

And I'm not gonna I mean I'm supportive of this tonight and happy to be supportive of it, but I would kind of like to make sure that it gets used, and if we scare people away with a formal uh conservation act, then we kind of miss the benefit of all the hard work that you did.

And those are my only comments, and I'll wait to see if anyone else has a comment instead of making a motion.

Ms.

Moore.

Um, I'll make a comment and then a motion maybe.

Um I just I don't want to put staff on the spot, but I know over these last several years, this is my fourth year on council before this was here.

You know, we always kind of you know uh cringed a little bit when we were using the um rural agricultural for um our preservation, and so I know that that's happened quite a bit over projects, and so while this is a voluntary zone, I just didn't know if there have been any internal conversations or consideration to think about some of those more recent that might be a fit to maybe uh proactively reach out to them and see if they might reconsider zoning to this potentially.

I know nobody likes a rezone, but just because some of the intentions that were expressed to council with using that particular zone really seemed to match more of a conservation, or there wasn't um any thoughts at the time for development, and so I didn't know if we kind of been thinking about that as a potential uh project to create that conservation, thinking about um, especially I think about our um you know goals for canopy and things like that to truly try to protect it.

I I mayor I can respond I think I heard it.

Sorry, yes, please go ahead.

I I think I heard a question in there, and if the council will think back to some of the early conversations about a conservation zoning district, there are some legal concerns with requiring that of people or pushing it on people because it does inherently reduce their development rights, their property rights on it, and so the consistent feedback as we develop the zone district with the legal department is that this needs to be something that people put forth voluntarily.

I don't know that we have come up with a way to navigate what it would be like to suggest that to people without it sounding like it's an imposition on them, but I I I certainly hear the feedback and so I'm sorry, good were you making the motion?

Sorry, I was gonna motion I do want to uh thank council member Kirk for for bringing this forward and then working through it to make sure we get it right and to make sure that staff doesn't have any uh lingering issues on it.

Uh and with that I will make the motion that we suspend the rules okay.

Okay, we have a m um second.

No, it's on the third reading, so I don't think we need a motion.

I think we're just I was just giving you all time to comment, and it seems like everybody is done so clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll for to pass the um to pass the item?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes, Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And again, we need a vote on an emergency clause.

And we do need a motion for that.

I'll make that motion.

Second, okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxon, will you please uh call the role to enact the emergency clause?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item C4.

Amending Section 114.02 of City Code to update regulations governing farmers market operations.

It's an ordinance to expand the physical physical footprint of the Fayetteville Farmers Market, allow additional market days and times, and authorize the limited sale of alcoholic beverages by amending 114.02 of the Fayetteville Code.

Um of the first things that um Justin, if you I know Kit's gonna read it, but if you want to go ahead and come up because one of the first things Justin is going to do is uh present an amendment.

So Kit, do you want to to do that or let's do that to the amendment?

Perfect.

Right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council.

Um so the amendment has to do with the alcohol provision of this proposed ordinance.

Um the ordinance that was proposed a few weeks ago simply added um alcoholic beverages as an item that would be permitted to be sold at the farmers market.

Um this amendment would further clarify um that local vendors could sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption, so to go as well as uh on premise consumption, but it would be limited to one vendor per market event.

So there couldn't be multiple vendors um selling alcoholic beverages at any one given market event for on-site consumption.

I think that's based on some feedback um that uh that the farmers market heard from uh interested stakeholders.

Of course, they're here and can speak more to that as well.

And um Kit, may we read since it has been amended?

Can we read the articles permitted to be sold section since that's where the changes are either using the case?

It's so late.

I probably ought to read that one before we I think that would be at least the really it's the articles permitted to be sold is the only section that's changed.

I think it would be good to read that.

So this amendment would be just to amend section three of the ordinance, uh where it says repeal section 114 of the faithful code and enacts a new one fourteen oh two D as follows, and here's the new language.

Articles permitted to be sold.

The following articles may be sold at the marketplace, established hereby, vegetables, honey, raw juices, molasses, fruit, and other produce grown by the vendor thereof, plants, artwork, craft work, and other processed farm products produced by the vendor thereof.

All products sold at the marketplace must be produced in compliance with all applicable regulations of the State Department of Health and have all appropriate permits, food prepared by local vendors, including baked goods from local bakeries, nuts, coffee, tea, and non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption, and items for approved food trucks may also be sold.

Alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption may be sold, but are limited to one vendor per event.

Okay.

Um do we have any questions for um I know we have some representatives from the farmers market here.

Either questions for Justin, Kit or representatives of the market.

Okay, it doesn't look like we do so.

I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

All right.

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

If so, please come up and state your name.

And you will have three minutes.

Good evening.

My name is Matt Varros.

I'm owner of Hatch Farm and a licensed mobile vendor with the city of Hayeville.

This proposed ordinance change extending a monopoly is unfair.

It creates a less space and time available for the mobile vendors to set up near the square.

City code 178.4 already allows food trucks to set up on the proposed expansion area and times.

The Rural Mountain Producers Exchange just wants to be able to dictate who can and who cannot set up and sell and charge the vendors for the privilege.

All this approve, all this approval would do is allow this private entity additional oversight and authority over city property where city code already applies.

Giving this exclusive members only organization more power to discriminate.

This discrimination is already apparent with the two current food truck spaces granted by city code.

They only allow the same food trucks to participate in the yearly market.

Nothing in the code states that these food truck spaces cannot be rotated between other food trucks, but yet they are not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

Yes, please come on up.

And if you'd like, you're welcome to just line up if that's easier for you.

It's up to you.

Hi, please go ahead.

Hello, City Council.

My name is Daniel Evans.

I'm a farmer at the Fayetteville Farmers Market and the Vice President of our Farmers Market Board.

Um I wanted to say I'm in favor of the change to the city ordinance.

And I wanted to thank the council members who were able to ask the board some questions last week.

And I hope that if you had any questions, you were able to look over our bylaws and see that we're a very democratically run organization and that all of our board members are elected by the vendors.

I also wanted to thank our managers who have maintained a great relationship with all of the businesses around the square as they've run the market and maintained a good relationship with city staff.

And I hope you'll approve the changes to expand the reach of our farmers market.

Thank you.

My name is Tyler Ack.

I live here in Fayetteville.

I own honed in knife and tool and honed in sharpening.

Two weeks ago I stood before you with a prepared statement.

I don't do that today.

Today is off the cuff.

Um I was under the impression that administrators or leaders from the farmers market would be presenting today in a public format to discuss their transparency, um, how vendors are selected and other things that govern our market.

I'm kind of disappointed that that hasn't happened, and I'm speaking before that today.

I'm also like to ask Mr.

Williams, Kit Williams, you and I met on February 14th, 2025, where I presented documented evidence of mistreatment, harassment, threats, and past communications that are not consistent with how the market is being ran today.

And you agreed that past actions by the Rural Mountain Producers Exchange were inappropriate.

And I'm just curious how that meeting is being weighed today and how those documents are being kept or how they were received, and if any of that is being considered today, sir.

Thank you.

My name's Pat Duncan.

I've been a vendor at the farmers market for 19 years.

Is that better?

I'm not used to this.

Okay.

I just want to give you a different perspective of the market.

I'm one of the silent majority that just sits back and lets other people run the market.

But that doesn't mean I don't pay attention.

And I watched the video version of the city council meeting last week or two weeks ago, and I was just so upset that I was I was livid at some of the comments that were made.

Uh because it's just opposite from my experience at the market.

And I want you to but I just want you to know I've calmed down now when I've here to just give my my viewpoint.

One of the things that we love most about the market is uh just the broad base of people that come.

We've gotten to know uh Fayetteville residents, uh people from all around the United States, and frankly, around the world.

Uh we've sold things to people from England, Poland, Denmark, even Russia and uh China, even Iraq, South America, and I can't tell you how much pleasure I get out of that.

And knowing that little piece of Fayetteville and me is spread all around the world.

Uh and I think uh we're just a good influence.

Um the market is a real asset to Fayetteville.

Brings people here.

I think they leave with uh the impression that this is a good place where we have friendly people, and on top of that, they leave with a little less money in their pockets, and they've helped support Fayetteville and the market.

Uh another thing I love about the market is that you don't have to be a high-end seller to be a valued member of the market.

There's very very few members ever leave unless they move away, have health issues, or die.

Uh I'm 80 plus years old.

And if I get to live to be 90, I hope I'm still at the market.

Uh how many places do you know where uh nobody wants to retire and the board has figured out a way to uh keep people here, maybe if they don't sell too much.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

So thank you so much.

Okay.

Um Keith, go ahead.

Yeah, I failed to mention that the farmers uh market, they do have representation here and they are prepared with a presentation tonight.

So um thank you.

Um Keith, what I might like to do is um ask the public if they would be willing to hold you.

We will get another public comment period.

I'm not, I'm not you will st you will still have a moment to speak, let the farmers market come do their presentation.

I did not realize they had that.

Thank you.

And then open return to public comment.

Kit, does that seem proper to you?

Yes, you can give them another public comment after reading the ordinance.

Okay, um, so it's not about reading the ordinance, it's about the farmers market.

They um so Keith was I didn't I think he was sub why don't you go ahead?

So generally, I mean the farmers market people that are here are basically the applicant.

So they had an opportunity to have a 10-minute presentation that was something the city council had asked for at the last meeting.

So they are prepared to provide that presentation that was requested.

I just missed it by I didn't forgot to call on them to have them come up to do their presentation before we opened up the floor for public comment.

So if we can have them do that presentation as requested by the city council, yes, and then we will resume public comment at that time.

Okay, okay.

Um, if there's a member um, and if Keith, if you'll keep I'll be I won't miss another one if I can see your light, and then you can if I can call on you, and then I'll know that you have an applicant.

So uh please come up and and go ahead.

You'll have 10 minutes as the applicant.

Okay, good evening, city council members, Mayor Ron.

Um, I have two things this evening.

I have our annual city council report.

And then I also have a short PowerPoint presentation.

So I'm going to jump in with the City Council report.

2025 was a difficult year for all farmers markets in the area.

And the Fayetteville Farmers Market was no exception.

There were more rainy Saturdays than any of our vendors could remember and some intense storms.

Despite that, the market had very high sales days from May continuing into September on the nice weather days.

Our highest sales day, Mother's Day weekend, had 10% higher vendor sales than the highest sales day of 2024, also Mother's Day weekend.

The rainy days did decrease overall sales and vendor attendance.

However, we did see an increase in commission income by 2% from 2024.

Sales of market merchandise, which helps pay for advertising and other market expenses, were down 33%.

Gross profit decreased by 2%.

50.6% of revenue was utilized for administrative overhead.

Another 8% was utilized for advertising, with the majority going to KUAF, the Fateable Flyer, and other local businesses.

Total 2025 expenses were 11% higher than 2024.

The 2026 management team is unchanged from 2025.

Kayla Lindsay is the market manager.

Julia Denher is the outreach manager.

The board of directors in 2025 consisted of Cody Condrie of Rocky Comfort Natural Farm President.

Daniel Evans, Honest Art Market Garden Vice President, Marquita Denherter, DH Farm Secretary, Henry Francis, Evergreen Beef Treasurer, Leon Kneehouse, Red Bud Garden, Judy Cavane, the Ugly Bunny Garden, Albert Ray, Margaret's Food Truck, Alexandria Freeze, Ozark Natural Bread, and Robert Jensen and Susie's Granola.

At the end of 2025, Henry Francis, Leon Neehouse, and Rob Albert Ray reached the end of their terms.

Leon and Albert ran again and were re-elected by the vendors.

Henry Francis chose not to run for a second term.

New board member Susan Golpsky of Two Birds Farm was elected to the 2026 board.

15 new vendors were approved for the 2025 market season.

18 new vendors have been approved for the 2026 market season.

The market received approximately 44 applications for the 2025 market season and 60 applications for the 2026 season.

Vendors are typically declined for reasons such as noncompliance with market guidelines, insufficient experience or skills, or an oversupply of similar products at the market.

92 vendors are returning in 2026 for at least their second year.

At the market, two vendors have been present for 40 plus years, five for 30 to 39 years, 11 for 20 to 29 years, 30 for 10 to 19 years, and 57 for one to 10 years as of the end of 2025.

The current makeup of the market includes 45% farm vendors, 26% craft vendors, 27% food and food truck vendors, and 3% personal care vendors.

The Fayetteville Farmers Market is dedicated to participating in food affordability initiatives.

In 2025, our EBT program processed 27,852 of SNAP funds into food tokens spent within the market.

The market's double your dollars program funded by UAMS matched 34,250 dollars in WIC vouchers, senior vouchers, and SNAP funds.

Unfortunately, this year there was a reduction in funding for the program.

When double your dollars fund funding ran out, the board of directors voted to set aside market funds so that the program could continue.

The market also participated in Pantry to Plate, a voucher program funded through the NWA Food Bank and Produce RX, another voucher program funded through UAMS.

Food affordability programs help the market make fresh food accessible to every person in our community.

The Fayetteville Farmers Market aims to support our local producers by connecting vendors directly with customers.

The market also works to boost the local economy by supporting small businesses in Northwest Arkansas who produce high quality, healthy produce, farm products, and handmade food and goods.

On average, products only travel approximately 22 miles from producer to market.

By shortening the distance, products travel, supporting natural farming methods, and encouraging the use of compostable packaging.

The Fayetteville Farmers Market is helping create a sustainable future for our community in Northwest Arkansas.

Okay.

And I also have a uh short PowerPoint that I wanted to give regarding our ordinance changes.

We have that already, I think.

So if you'll give us just a minute.

Okay.

Oh there we go.

Okay.

And do I change the slides or do they sorry?

Um the first one is updates since the last council meeting.

Um we reached out to you all, City Council and the mayor.

Um we've had a phone meeting.

We've had meetings with some of you members of the city council.

Um I've sent bylaws, our policies, vendor selection process, um, things like that.

Um, hopefully to clear up any confusion and answer the questions that you all had.

Um we have contacted, we uh cast a wider net as we were suggested and contacted alcohol establishments, um, not just on the square, but beyond the square.

Um, we have revised the vague wording of the alcohol section of our ordinance, which would set a limit of one alcohol vendor at a time.

Um we also have developed a protocol for dealing with public intoxication.

Um for our mountain street expansion.

Uh, this is just a map of what that will look like.

Um, and it also shows our plan for directing traffic and what the barricade there will look like.

Next slide, please.

Yes, sorry.

Oh, okay.

And um, this one is a map of our proposed expansion.

We will have approximately 15 new vendor spaces with two food truck spaces.

Um, we have broad support from local businesses uh from members of the community who we've spoken to and from our vendors.

Um the Tuesday night market will reach a new customer base for our market by trying to get some people who can't come to market in the morning or are a little overwhelmed with the crowds on Saturday actually to come to market on the evenings.

Um we believe this will also increase our vendor sales and bring the community to the square on weeknights with an event uh similar to first Thursday, um, which we think will help both our farmers market and all the businesses around the square.

Um we received broad support from our community and local businesses for this for this uh Tuesday night market.

Um additionally, it will operate on the interior of the square, so there won't be a street closure required for this.

Uh market season extension.

Uh, we are proposing to go from mid-March until Christmas instead of April to Thanksgiving.

Um the market is already operating during this times.

Um, this just will save us having to file special event permits to extend that season.

Um, aura at the farmers market.

Um, we are looking at uh one local brewery, which will be rotated seasonally.

Um we have amended our ordinance wording to limit market to one alcohol vendor at a time.

Um a training is has already been completed by the Fayetteville Farmers Market and will be completed by any vendor before they come on and sell at the market.

Um we will be following proper permitting uh from alcohol um beverage control and uh department of health will be required for sales.

Um no brewery vendor will be placed adjacent to an alcohol establishment.

And um, we have already done four successful events in 2025 with Aura, which we're operating under a special event permit rather than our ordinance.

So we are comfortable that that we can deal with uh with having an aura vendor at the farmers market.

Um local square and off square alcohol establishments have been contacted for feedback.

Uh we have received direct support from Jam and Java and big box karaoke.

Um we communicated with the establishments off square that have voiced concerns.

Um and while we we do recognize that we don't have complete support for this, um, we are committed to marketing efforts and additional signage that will promote the brick and mortars around the square, um, cross-marketing campaigns, um, and even more advertising to educate the public on aura and try to talk, um, try to show our customers that they can go into these other businesses and get an aura drink as well as shop at the farmers market.

Our uh public in talks protocol.

Um, alcohol vendor will be instructed not to overserve and to contact the manager if someone is visibly drunk.

Um we will have we already have a code of contact conduct in place for vendors prohibiting prohibiting inebriation.

Um markets with an aura vendor will have increased staffing and a manager and one manager point person to report to staff and board will be on the lookout for inappropriate behavior and will contact that manager on duty.

Um the manager will assess the situation if someone appears aggressive or um just not someone that we can deal with.

Um, we'll immediately contact the Fayetteville police department.

And Kayla, if I can ask you to just pause for a second.

I think she's you're probably it's close to the end of your slides.

Is the council okay giving her another two minutes?

Um this is my last one, actually.

Please go ahead.

If the person is willing to leave we will ensure a safe departure and then we will document the incident.

And that's all of that I have thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we I think we're gonna provide counsel time since we have the presentation to ask a couple more questions before we return to the public comment period.

So Ms.

More.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you, Kayla for the um presentation.

On any of these questions that I've got if you don't have the information I'm really happy to just have that provided later because I understand I didn't provide these to you but because of the report you sent today um I really appreciated that and it kind of added additional questions that I that I had so I wanted to put those out out there to you.

So thank you for the report that you did turn in to us and presented tonight.

Thank you.

One of the things that um you had detailed out was like the length of the vendors and um uh how many have applied and so I was curious in particular about the applications you had 60 folks um that applied you were able to get another 18 to at least 42 um what do you what opportunities or are there things that are able to be looked at to think about I think you had some criteria that said well maybe some of them maybe weren't appropriate or maybe were duplications of things that we had but I would think there's probably viable vendors that are wanting um an opportunity at the square what does that look like for evaluation um for bringing those folks in with the variety of days that you have available um so whenever a vendor fills out an application um one of the questions is to um is which days they would want to do the market so we do um often bring on vendors just to do a Tuesday market or Thursday market um and then you know we even have some vendors that only do our online market um so it's um it's totally up to the vendor what days they want to come to the market whenever they apply okay thank you um and then um uh I wanted to double check as well um on the people that are listed on your board uh can you tell us are you able to share with us like what city or what county they represent um and then I'm curious about the makeup of your vendor community too like how many of those are Washington County and Fayetteville versus other surrounding counties do you have that today or it might be in the future that you'd have to provide that I do not have that information for all of our vendors.

I could I have a pretty good idea about our board though.

Okay okay um so uh Cody Condry is in Madison County uh Daniel Evans is in his farm is in Fayetteville and he lives in Fayetteville I know that he's actually in board one um Marquita Denher is in West Fork so she's in Washington County uh Robert Jensen is uh he's in Fayetteville uh Leon Kneehouse is in Madison County uh Judy Cavan is in Barryville um Albert is in Springdale um Alexander Freeze is in Fayetteville and Susan um is in Fayetteville as well okay thank you for going through that that's that's helpful to understand and then um uh I I know that uh there's been a lot of conversation about and this has been a longstanding entity that exists this is not necessarily totally germane to the item we're seeing today but but I did think it was something to maybe bring up is that you know obviously the city's experiencing change our reason region is experiencing change I'm sure you're seeing that too at the farmers market and so I just wanted to check in and see you know there are you know the potential for looking at you know we have Fayetteville residents who um potentially want to you know have maybe more participation with the market or there might be feedback from those businesses right about how we work together in the future just wanted to double check with some of the comments that have come up and kind of conversation um sounds like is the market um available and open to kind of continuing to look at this ordinance and to kind of talk about our partnership here with the city in the future.

Oh yes absolutely um I'm sorry what exactly was your question I'm sorry yeah no that's okay no um I just I wanted to just double check I mean there have been lots of comments about you know the the market being kind of similar in nature over time and just our region and our area faces a lot of changes right and so tonight we're talking about one particular change my question is just for future as we're working together market in the city is there openness with the board and with the market to continue to look at and consider the local businesses the fateville residents that might want to participate in potential changes in the future for the market.

Um mainly before you know I stepped on uh as the manager that I saw um or that I heard that um maybe there weren't some change there weren't changes where there should be.

Um, and that's something that I'm trying to do by by proposing these ordinances is um expand our market um and show that the market is willing to change as FAVL changes.

And um we are we are working to improve um lines of communication with local businesses.

Um we uh we're going to start putting out regular newsletters to the local downtown businesses, um, and then as far as public comments, you know, um we receive a lot on social media.

I receive public uh comments every day, you know.

My email is always open to public comments.

Um, and then our board of directors, all of their contact information is also available on our website.

That so they receive comments from the public as well.

So it's okay too for folks if they want to reach out to board members.

Oh, absolutely.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Kayla.

Yeah.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you for meeting with me last week.

We met over an hour.

You answered a whole page full of questions I had and and really did address uh most, if not all my concerns um regarding uh everything from governments to transparency.

I really appreciate that.

We did talk about spreading that wider net uh with notification for the uh the the area bars.

You you mentioned that there were you did hear from a couple or a few that they took issue.

Do you know how many that was?

Uh two.

Two.

Um I will say that they hadn't reached out uh to me at least.

I don't know if they reached out to anybody, anybody else.

Was it a soft kind of concern or was it was it a hard uh uh objection?

Could you describe um yes, they they did have concerns that um having an or a vendor at the farmers market would it would affect their business.

And were they mostly concerned about uh Tuesday evenings as opposed to I don't imagine there's many bars open on Saturday morning, but I yeah, I wouldn't imagine so.

Um they didn't specify that though.

Okay.

And you said it was just two?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Um all right, thank you.

I will also add the downtown Fateville Coalition did a survey to people in the downtown area and asked for feedback, and I know they are open and happy to share those results with anybody that wanted to see them.

Um Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Kayla, for your excellent presentation tonight.

I I appreciate that.

And I appreciate all the vendors or the uh the board taking the time to meet with me last week that cleared up a lot of questions that I had.

You all addressed that uh really nicely.

Um I I thought that might be helpful for the for the council to understand that we discussed was that there's an Arkansas state law that actually says that um farmers markets have to be allowed on city squares.

So that's a that's a state law that you all mentioned, and I thought that was particularly kind of germane to some of the comments that we've heard in the past.

Um the other thing that we discussed, but I haven't heard mentioned tonight, is maybe if there was an informal liaison, a city liaison with the farmers market, so that there's a point person if there's any kind of I don't know, conversation about or um ambiguity about aura or some of the other city um ordinances that we pass from time to time or have ongoing.

So I just wanted to put that back out into the into the conversation and the discussion.

Um, but again, I wanted to say thank you so much for the meeting, was extremely helpful for me.

And I certainly support the farmers market and and really love what you all are doing there.

Thanks.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I think that's it for cancel council questions, Kayla.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all so much.

Yes, and so we're going to continue part two of our public comments.

So I'm sorry if you got cut off uh initially.

And if we have any uh comments from members of the public, if you would like to come up, please state your name and address.

Um just didn't it caught me just in time.

James Morgan, uh been a member of the farmers market since 2001 and I'm a meat vendor.

I hesitated because I since I spoke last two weeks ago, I want to make sure other people had a chance.

Um I just wanted to talk about the the value to the community in a couple ways of the farmers market.

Uh food that's been harvested within two to three days, especially produce has 30% more vitamins.

Food that's been harvested within two to three days, especially produce has 30% more vitamins.

So this is providing health to the community at all levels if they take advantage of the fresh produce.

The other thing that that's been pointed out with farmers market studies and also thing along that line is that a dollar spent at the farmers market moves around the community five times.

A dollar spent at a supermarket probably goes out of state almost immediately.

So we're providing benefits to the community as well as the recreation and social, et cetera.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hello, Mayor, City Council.

My name is Julia Dan Herder.

I am the outreach manager for the Faithful Farmers Market.

So I handle um advertising communication.

I just wanted to share very briefly something that we did get to share with some of the council members we met.

A bit of the history of how the farmers market started and why the ordinance exists as it does today with the Rural Mountain Producer Exchange operating.

In 1973, the Washington County Office of Economic Opportunity was looking at a loss of funding and was looking for opportunities to create economic impact for retiring farmers who did not have social security.

And as a result, um they uh were able to start a farmer's market because it would be low overhead costs but still be able to generate income for farmers.

Um the city council was not amenable to a farmers market operating on the city square because in quote, they didn't want a bunch of hippies smoking weed.

Um so um and in that time and I've gotten the chance to sit with uh Marcella Thompson, who is one of the founding members um who worked for the Office of Economic Opportunity and kind of hear the story of how they got to and um and I do not remember the legislative code off the top of my head, but um someone did find area in the legislative code that allowed for farmers to be able to sell at city squares, and so that was the origination of the farmers market ordinance and why the city um and the Office of Act and Opportunity opened or founded the Rural Mountain Producers Exchange to operate the market, which allows the vendors to have the majority control in market operation um and a lot of uh input on how the market is run so that it is in the best interest of the vendors.

Thank you.

Okay, and typically um we do not allow just uh people to speak on an item twice.

However, I believe that we made a mistake, I made a mistake as the meeting chair and and our team made a mistake by um by neglecting to allow them to present before public comment.

So in this instance, as a rarity, please come on up and you can have another moment at the mic.

Thank you.

I'll try to keep it brief.

Again, my name is Tyler.

I think since we're gonna consider new vendors to the Fayetteville farmers market, it's important to understand my story as a new vendor.

I applied in 2019.

I was fast tracked to the market because there was no other sharpener on the market.

Um I was uh allowed to set up right next to Chuck Rutherford, who is president.

Um, and I feel like I was given that close proximity to the board of to the board president because they were kind of unsure of my operation.

Sharp knives, general public, I get it.

Um Chuck ended up retiring from the city around the same time that he ended up retiring from the board.

Um, I believe that's a reason for oversight.

During my time as a vendor, I kind of felt never as like a a true vendor.

I felt always like a less than vendor because I didn't grow anything, I didn't create anything, I always just provided a service, and I was the only service member.

Um, whenever they changed the rules and regulations to exclude service members, I had no idea.

It was during the off season and a January.

Um, and I had no idea that that board meeting was happening.

I had no idea of the agenda to that board meeting, and I had no idea of the minutes after that board meeting.

That is true for every board meeting that took place during my five years of membership in Rural Mountain Producers Exchange.

So that's why I'm asking for oversight.

I love the market.

I love the community that the market generates.

I love all the opportunities that the market gives small businesses.

Whenever I had to tell my small daughter that we were no longer allowed to vend and do business and seek our friends and seek our customers on the Fayetteville Square without reason, without justification, without recourse.

It was single-handedly the hardest most difficult thing I've ever had to do.

There were so many tears in my house.

And so before we consider new avenues of business to grant people new opportunities, let's kind of settle on what we have now and decide if it's being ran the best.

I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Keith, do we have any?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Please come on up.

Hi Marquita Jen Herter.

Um I've been a market vendor for 20 years and I've served on the board of directors for 15.

Um we are a private business.

We have our own bylaws that we go by.

We have rules which have been made available.

They're on our website.

You guys can access those.

Um the situation with the service vendor is we went back and were reviewing the city ordinance, and it was not directly in there, and we were in violation of the ordinance, and we were wanting to maintain what we do.

We we want to be upfront, we want to be following the rules.

We want to do what we're supposed to do.

So we sent a letter explaining what why we were dismissing the uh that him from the market.

There are other things, but we don't want to get into that.

But I'm gonna I'm gonna stop us right there because what I worry about is that we have drifted from what we are supposed to be talking about, which is if we are in support of or not in support of C4, and I just want to be careful with our rules of order and procedure that we don't get into a back and forth of he said she said.

And so yes.

We we do have transparency.

I believe that the two um we invited all the council members to have a choice to come fit see with us.

I believe the two that um were there saw how we operate, understood what we were doing, and do see that we do have total transparency in what we do.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anybody on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the city council.

Um the first item is we have an amendment to this ordinance as presented by Justin that we did not yet make a motion to vote on.

Uh, we got a little uh out of order.

So um I think before we go any further, we should consider motions on the amendment and then we can continue the discussion.

I'll motion we uh approve the amendment.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on the amendment.

Clerk Praxis, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wiedaker.

No.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes, Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

I believe that passed five to three.

Okay.

Um so we are now talking about the amended um the amended the amended ordinance as presented earlier by Mr.

Williams.

And do we have any uh we'll start with uh you, uh Ms.

Moore, any final we've already had our question?

I know we got a little out of order.

We've already had our question period, we've already had public comment.

Now we're back to final comments by uh from the council before the vote.

Um I did have a question from the public comment that I wanted to see.

Um there was brought up about mobile vendors, and so I did want to try to get a better understanding about how close mobile vendors can be to farmers market.

I believe the execution, I don't know if that's Justin or who does that in the city, but I do believe I've seen mobile vendors have the ability to be on some of the um side streets that abut right to the square when markets happening, and I just want to get a better understanding if that is allowable, that people can be peripheral and very close by to the market.

Is that justin, can either you or Keith speak to that.

Um yeah, mobile vendors can't operate in um public parking spaces.

I mean, they have to be licensed as a mobile vendor, obviously, and um there's a provision that they can't be outside of a um you know brick and mortar business that does similar business, and there is a time, there are time limited, so 12 hours, I believe.

Okay, um, but yes, we do.

But it would be doable for someone to be able to be a vendor that maybe didn't get accepted to the farmers market that might want to use a mobile license to come and do these hours of the market.

Doable and has been done.

Yes, okay.

All right, thank you, Justin.

Um, thank and that's my only other question.

Um, I just have my comments.

Um, I just I do want to reiterate, I'm incredibly I mean, the farmers market is an incredible jewel, right?

It's um iconic to Fayetteville.

I mean, it's it's a part of our our ethos and our culture, probably, just that friendliness and neighborliness and people uh coming together and sharing time together on a beautiful day and not so beautiful days sometimes, and popsicles and dogs and all that good stuff.

Um, you know, we do, I think do need to recognize that our city and our region are changing.

And so I do just want us to stay very open to thinking about, and I appreciate that we have been making adjustments to the ordinance.

And so I do just want us to stay very open to thinking about, and I appreciate that we have been making adjustments to the ordinance, and so uh we value in the city of Fayetteville having a diverse set of experiences and thoughts to take into account.

And so I do think that we want to continue to think about um our Fayetteville residents and and growers and makers and our entrepreneurs.

We hear a lot in our strategic plans and our economic development plans about the struggles that our um local folks who are entrepreneurs are you know facing with their the economic headwinds that they face.

Um and then also, you know, I am incredibly appreciative.

I want to recognize that on the alcohol sales that there was the recognition to go back and make a revision to that.

Um I am in board two.

Um that's the downtown, that's all those businesses, and the downtown uh coalition did do a survey of the downtown businesses, and all the businesses except for one that responded were absolutely opposed um to the sale of alcohol with farmers market, is what I took, and I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.

I've also had additional conversations with uh the owners of Penn Point with folks at Maxines and others.

Um, and we have to recognize economic headwinds that are faced by our local businesses.

They have dub double digit, I mean crisis and all their goods goods costs, their labor is going up, and their rents have increased dramatically, and we need them to be in our locations every single day.

Um places like Little Bread who are iconic to Block Street, um, you see them incredibly busy, but they are clawing tooth and nail to exist in our communities, and that's the unfortunate truth of what happens is that their overhead is so high it takes a high volume of items.

And unfortunately, oftentimes alcohol is the driver of that.

Um and I say that because I want to be supportive and I want to find those um mechanisms to make the farmers market continue to be funky and unique and serve um the niche in Fayetteville.

But we have to just balance all the needs that exist in our community.

Um and with the current climate that's happening with our businesses, um, I don't think that I would be doing them justice tonight um to allow even one vendor to set up um on the square today.

Um so tonight, really I am gonna be asking the city attorney um for his recommendations, but it looks like I can just strike the last um line of uh the revision we made.

Alcohol beverages for on-premise consumption may be sold but are limited to one vendor per event.

Um, because again, I just really think that our city has to stand behind our local businesses, and if they have expressed even one IOTA concern that this could have uh detriment to their businesses, that we need to just go back to the drawing board and have additional conversations.

It doesn't mean we won't get to a conclusion in the future, but I think right now it's not the right time in the climate that we face.

I've had businesses tell me how much they've put in recently and that they're gonna you know be getting a negative return, and so that's just a struggle for me.

So I'd like to make a motion to admir that that amendment that we made um that we remove and strike the alcoholic beverages for on-premise.

Thank you, Miss Moore.

It sounds like because we already have a passed amendment that we have to vote on that item.

Is that correct?

And then you would have to then come back and propose a different amendment.

So the amendment, well, the original amendment was passed, and now she can make an amendment to that.

Okay, okay.

So okay, we don't have to have a vote.

Okay, great.

So you're making an amendment to strike the last um and remove alcohol from it so that it would just end food prepared by local vendors, including baked goods from local bakeries, nuts, coffee, tea, non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption, and items from approved food trucks may also be sold, period.

And then the on-premise reference is deleted in your amendment.

Is that correct?

Okay, we have a motion for an amendment.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll on the amendment?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Berna.

No.

Ms.

Bunch.

No.

Ms.

Turk.

No.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

No.

What's what's that count, Kit?

Well, the amendment failed.

Okay.

So we are back now to the original non-original the amendment proposed by Justin earlier this evening.

So let's continue with comments before we I would also welcome a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

I I understand.

And Ms.

Moore made an amendment.

And so in accordance with the rules, I then have to go to vote on that amendment before we go over.

And I understand, and Mr.

Weedaker's lights on too.

So I have not forgotten you, I promise.

Okay.

Mr.

Whedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I heard from uh brick and mortar businesses as well.

Extremely appreciative of the market.

They feel like it does bring foot traffic, it brings them new customers.

They were supportive of both the expansion of dates and the expansion of the additional footprint, the concerns that were expressed was that with the existence of an aura program, they much prefer that we advertise that to allow visitors to the market to purchase from them with their aura cup or a bracelet and then shop at the market.

And so that's my hesitation as a representative that they commented uh to that uh I think they have a very valid point, and so I cannot be supportive of the ordinance as it's drafted tonight, although I do support two out of three provisions, the expansion of dates and the expansion of the footprint.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was I was trying to speak.

I appreciate all the public comments, so I'm going to comment on that first before I make my statement.

Um my council member next to me alluded that we have a city liaison to feel foot future concerns, and I didn't get a response from you or Keith.

And I didn't see anybody flinch on that, and that kind of concerns me.

The second one is Tyler mentioned that Chirk retired from the city and retired from the board.

That's a sustainability issue.

When one person leaves, everything should not change.

We should have rules and regs in order to backfill those positions and have oversight of these boards and these commissions.

I understand this is different.

I understand what the umers market is, but if we had somebody in the past from the city on the farmers market board, why if one person retires, does everything change?

That's my second point.

I also agree that the farmers market does supply health to our community, but is it to everybody?

I challenge every single person sitting in here, not just the board members, not just the city council, is when you walk through the farmers market, you tell me if you see one person of color.

So my comments are around making sure that we're fair and we're inclusive.

So I want to talk about because I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We all say that we love this farmers market, and as said earlier, this is a private business.

So they're choosing who they let in.

They're choosing who they keep out.

But if we say we are a part of this city and they are part of this city, then we need to be intentional.

So I thank you for the work everybody on the board and at the market.

What you've done so far to support and grow the farmers market, but I want to share a concern that has come up with several community members and people that have emailed me and called me is how do we make this inclusive?

A truly vibrant market reflects the full richness of its community it serves.

And right now there's an opportunity to be more intentional about inclusivity, expanding outreach to minority-owned farmers, food producers, small businesses could strengthen the market and help ensure that all residents feel represented and welcomed.

Many talented local vendors would love the chance to participate, but may not need clear, but may need clearer pathways to coming into your private business.

I'm sharing this in a spirit of partnership and growth.

A more diverse vendor base not only enriches the market experience but also builds trust, equity, and stronger community connections.

I would be happy to help brainstorm ideas or connect with you with groups to support this offer.

But if we say Fairville's an inclusive community, it needs to reflect us at all times.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Um Councilmember Jones, I think were you asking if Mr.

Rutherford was a liaison between this was a city employee that worked as a liaison with okay.

My my understanding, and I believe Mr.

Rutherford is here tonight.

I'm not sure what department he worked in, but I don't think he was actually a liaison.

That's incorrect.

I think he actually just worked for the city and was also, you know, and and I think it was just a you know, uh, Mr.

Eck was saying he when he left the city left the board too.

And and that's that that was my understanding.

I think what you're trying to say is those two things are unrelated.

Yeah, they're two, they're not they're not related, is what I'm thinking.

So sorry.

Okay.

It sounded like they would be.

Okay.

Um so we can leave it here.

We're on the second reading.

We can make a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final.

Uh Ms.

Turk.

I'm sorry, I was late to pushing the button here.

Okay.

Um, I do want to bring up this city liaison idea, and and it doesn't have to be formal, but I think that it would help everybody if there was more of a consistent connection.

And I know that the farmers market staff and city staff work together all the time, but if they had a single point person that could track down some ambiguities and address any concerns that either side might have, it I I just think it might work.

Yes.

And so I want to, I think there might have been some confusion in my reaction to that.

We do have a liaison with the city.

It is Justin Clay.

He is our liaison with the farmers market in the city.

That relationship has been in place for several years.

It works well.

If by liaison you mean board member, then do then no, we do not have that.

But as a liaison, meaning their single touch point, if they have a question, they call Justin if Justin can't answer it, he knows how to help route them.

But that so I just want to clear that and case make sure I was sharing that.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I was unaware of that.

Um and I did discuss um having a uh city employee be on the board.

Uh, but after the conversations with the um with the farmers market uh board members, I kind of pulled back from that um because it would uh it would um they would have to change their bylaws, maybe it's um a little bit of an overreach or maybe not, but I thought the liaison was the um was the was basically the compromise there.

So I I just think it sounds like um from what I understood and maybe I misunderstood, is that maybe there was some ambiguity around around that so Mr.

Stafford?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um it seems like there's still some questions and hesitancy uh here on the council.

Uh I I know there was an emergency clause tied to this.

I do wonder if we should just leave it on the second reading for now to get some of these questions answered.

Uh it seemed like the Ward 2 council members have heard some from some local business owners.

Um I have not.

Uh I rem recommend to all of us to tell everybody to reach out to everybody so that we're all operating from the same info because I can't call Mike or or Sarah to say uh to talk about these things.

Uh it violates FOIA.

Um, and so that said, uh since there seems to be concerns about that, seems to be concerns about the other thing.

I don't want this to fail on the floor tonight.

And and I so I do think uh with that in mind, uh that that I would be okay leaving this on the second reading.

Okay.

Um might I um I would like to share with permission from the farmers market um something that they shared with the mayor's office and the city attorney's office earlier today, and that is that if it is the alcohol amendment that is holding this up, that they would be willing for us to strike that and move forward so that they have some certainty and can plan and deal with their expanded footprint and their additional hours because they're in the middle of their season, and so I know we already voted on that and it already failed, but in order so that we might give them some certainty and move forward tonight.

If kit would allow us, maybe Miss Moore would want to re do her amendment removing that so that we can then get a vote.

The appropriate motion would be a motion to reconsider, but it'd have to be by someone that had voted on the winning side, not the losing side.

Can I I respond to his comment?

Is that appropriate?

I I just because I had had my light on because I did want to weigh in that I mean similar to Councilmember Whitaker, I'm supportive of everything except for the alcohol, as are all the downtown businesses.

But tonight I'm similar in nature to him.

If we move forward, I'm no to the entire thing.

So I don't want to hold you hostage, but I do think they do want to move forward.

And so if you care to proceed tonight, I would like to do the reconsideration.

Okay.

So Ms.

Bunch.

I was I I voted in I'm sorry, Mr.

Berna, I didn't mean to.

That's okay.

You're used to it.

I was just gonna say, had I known that that what you just said about the board, I would I would not have voted the way I voted.

So if either of you would like to make a motion to reconsider Mrs.

So Ms.

Ms.

Moore's previous amendment.

I was uh I would like to make a motion to reconsider.

And what would be how would our vote be on this if we reconsider keep uh well first you'd have to vote to reconsider it once a majority vote, and then once that passes, assuming it passes, then you'd be right back before you made the vote on the original amendment there.

So we have a motion to reconsider for Ms.

Bunch.

Mr.

Burnout has a second.

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

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Yes, Mr.

Berna.

Yes, Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay, so we are right back now, and we are going to would you please restate your motion?

Uh the motion is for um the language to re be removed the last um Senate states.

Alcoholic babergas for on premises consumption may be sold but are limited to one vendor per event.

Okay.

So we have a motion and do we have a second?

I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll to pass Ms.

Moore's amendment?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Second.

I think second.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

In case you couldn't tell that passed.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

So the amendment has now passed.

Now we are on the we can still on the second reading.

Did you just make it?

Mr.

Stafford has a motion to move it to the third and final reading.

Do we have a second?

Yeah, or Ms.

Moore had that mo.

One of us has do we have a second?

I have a second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll to move it to the third and final reading?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

An ordinance to expand the physical footprint of the Fayetteville Farmers Market, allow additional market days and times, and authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption by amending section 11402 Farmers Mark of the Fayeval Code.

And for those of you playing along at home, this is the vote to actually pass the ordinance change.

This is the final vote we will take.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Congratulations.

The emergency.

Thank you.

Let's keep let's order.

Let's let's none of that.

You'll get me in trouble.

Yes, ma'am.

Go ahead and make a motion to pass the emergency clause.

Yes.

We have a motion from Ms.

Moore to pass the emergency clause.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second to pass the emergency clause.

Kit.

I do not see an emergency clause.

I don't either.

But but Bob made one.

So I've just was thought there was one.

Well, if not, they have a 30-day delay.

We probably need to do one, don't we?

I mean, how quickly are you?

So y'all just gotta decide.

We got an amount.

We got a motion to do one.

Okay.

Second.

Can we do it in one vote?

Pass add and pass.

No, unless we're going to be able to do that.

Clerk Paxson, will you please hearing adding?

Will you please call the roll on the amendment to add an emergency clause?

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And if you didn't know, the emergency clause says that you find you determine there's an emergency to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Fayetteville, that this must be effective immediately, and that's your determination.

Okay.

So now we will vote on the emergency clause itself.

Clerk Paxton, please call the roll.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to new business.

Item D1.

A resolution to grant the appeal of City Councilmember Teresa Turk and to deny the preliminary plat application.

PPL 2025-5.

This is south of West Lyarley Lane and North Velma Drive.

It's an appeal of a planning commission approval.

Let's go first to Ms.

Turk, who brought the resolution and then to Jonathan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Residents in Ward 4 reached out about this new plat and that had gone through the planning commission and and presented some concerns.

And so I uh said I would actually support them coming forward.

We had an excellent tour on Friday, albeit a lot a lot of a lot of ticks were out.

But aside from that, the tour was was excellent.

It was very informative, and I was happy to see a lot of the uh the uh neighbors out there talking with staff and with other council members.

And so I will um that's all I will introduce and um I guess if Jonathan wants to take it away, and I think um I think there's also a presentation that um the applicant has before us.

I'm gonna ask Ms.

Bunch to sit here for just a moment and then Jonathan, please go ahead though.

Don't wait on me.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh beginning from the top and orienting the council.

This particular property is in northwest Fayetteville.

Uh that red or yellow and black dotted line you see on the aerial image at the north end of the property there is the uh city limits between uh incorporated uh city of Faville and uh and unincorporated Washington County.

Uh we're located about 2,000 feet north of Holt Middle School and about a thousand feet west of RuPaul Road.

Uh this property may be familiar to council because in October of 2025, uh you entertained request to annex this property into the city of Fayville and rezone it to NC neighborhood conservation.

The city council at that time unanimously voted in favor of both of those items.

Uh the request that's before council tonight is an appeal of the planning commission's approval of an 82-lot residential subdivision with two unbuildable lots, uh, one on the southern end and one on the northern end intended for stormwater, tree preservation, and tree plantings.

Uh of note, uh, because there was uh I have heard some uh comments on the number of units proposed within the subdivision.

Uh a reminder that neighborhood conservation zoning district does allow up to 10 units per acre.

What is proposed with the subdivision is closer to four units per acre, which is uh almost an identical entitlement to the RSF or zoning districts located to the east, south, and west of this property.

Uh moving forward and of the items that staff reviewed, uh three in particular merit highlighting here for the city council.

Uh the first of which is connectivity.

Uh if you do not recall, Faivil has adopted standards to ensure that there is safe access to and between neighborhoods and to disperse uh traffic and pedestrian movements uh through as many options as possible.

Uh this is most readily manifested in this subdivision's proposal by connections to the west to Briseus, which is an existing street stub out to the east to Violet Street, which is another existing street stub out, both contemplating development of this specific piece of property, as well as a connection to Larry Lee Lane to the north, and one additional street stub out for a future connection uh to the northeast of this property.

Uh of note, this uh this is the subject of the only variants that this project is requesting.

Uh, because of the existing developments to the southeast and west, the property does not or the developer, the applicant does not have the ability to provide an additional stub out to the south uh as are block length requirements would typically require.

Uh staff feels that this is a rational and reasonable hardship to not provide that stub out.

So we recommended in favor of it, and the planning commission forwarded it as well.

Uh the only condition associated with that variance approval is to provide uh what we call knuckles on those turns.

Uh that affords the opportunity for uh uh not just residents but also service vehicles, trash recycling fire to turn it through those areas uh more readily.

Uh it also serves to help capture and direct stormwater uh as a part of the the subdivision's construction.

Uh the second item I wanted to highlight is the street improvements proposed with this project.

Uh the within the subdivision, uh the applicants proposing our typical uh right-of-way dedication and master street plan improvements for all those internal streets.

They're all intended to provide on-street parking as an option.

Uh additionally, uh the project is being proposed to improve half of Lyarley Lane along the northern property line of the property, uh, or that right-of-way that's within the city of Fayeville.

Again, that's the portion of the property that uh immediately north of it is outside the county, and Larry Lane is also divided at the midpoint, half outside the county.

So we're recommending the portion within the city of Fayetteville be improved to our standards.

The third item I want to highlight is uh tree preservation.

Uh this came up uh when's with staff's review, I believe during the annexation and rezoning conversations and during the tour.

Uh while it does look like there is a fair amount of tree canopy on the site today, I think it does bear noting that this is very young tree canopy.

Uh these aerial images uh uh juxtapose the property uh between about 20 years ago and today, uh 20 years ago when the property was uh uh cleared and used largely as pasture land, indicating that most of the canopy on site is fairly immature.

Uh accordingly, when our licensed uh tree or urban foresters reviewed the property, they recognized that uh much of this canopy was considered low priority uh per our standards and emphasized uh preserving the portion and particular on the eastern portion of the site, those tree line or those fence line trees that have grown up to the the largest uh uh uh uh uh caliper, the largest tree sizes, trunk sizes.

Uh it is worth noting uh that the because of the number of trees that are being removed, they have technically fallen below the minimum requirements for uh canopy in a subdivision again.

Uh that has to do with the quality of the canopy.

Not only is it very young, but a significant amount of our invasive species that we are prioritizing removing citywide, much less on this property.

Uh however, the the developer is required to mitigate that removal, uh the majority of which will be provided on site uh or it will be provided on-site in those green spaces uh on the northern and southern portions of the site, particularly in association with those uh stormwater ponds.

Uh otherwise, I did want to comment.

I don't want to spend much time on this because I believe the appellant will speak to this, uh, but you may have seen in the letter that the main public comment that we've heard on this item relates to traffic safety and concerns about the subdivision directing traffic eastward uh through the Magnolia uh subdivision.

Uh there's also concerns about tree loss and and drainage and and flooding as well.

Uh moving on to more recently to last week's tour.

Uh, there were three items I wanted to touch on in addition to what I spoke to a moment ago.

The first of which is wetlands.

Um again, circling back to October of last year.

The applicant, when they brought this item forward for annexation and rezoning discussions, uh, recognized that there may be wetlands on the property because there were hydric soils, uh, which is a technical term for those soils that uh may be indicative of a wetland on the site.

Uh the applicant uh preemptively did a wetland delineation uh survey study and determined that there were wetlands on the property, but these were non-jurisdictional, which is the uh Army Corps of Engineers terminology for wetlands that do not typically require any sort of mitigation, they're not tied to a larger network waterway network.

Um a second item that came up at the tour, uh, one resident expressed concerns that there may be endangered species on the site.

Uh we did share that uh the only instances where a species survey is required is when federal dollars are in play.

Uh at this point we have not seen seen any instance where this development is is proposing to accept federal dollars and that type of survey is not required.

And finally, and most prominently, uh the discussion revolved around traffic safety and and traffic calming.

Uh first and foremost, in that conversation, our city engineer uh shared with the residents and the council members who were not maybe familiar with it that we do have a traffic calming policy in the city of Fayetteville.

Uh that was adopted in response to uh several traffic calming installations that were thought to be desired by residents, but it turned out the majority of a street sometimes did not want them installed, and so that was implemented in an effort to achieve consensus among neighbors prior to traffic calming installations occurring.

Uh it was shared with residents that that could be requested today if there are traffic concerns.

Uh the subdivision immediately to the west east, excuse me, already has speed cushions installed on many of those streets.

For those who are able to visit the property, you may have noted that.

Um then speaking from a uh concern about whether there is an existing uh dangerous traffic condition or this project will create one.

It is staff's firm determination that it will not.

Uh this is the most recent uh traffic accident data that we have available.

Uh, this is collected by the Arkansas Department of Transportation, and it represents uh data collected through our Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and our local police department as well as the highway patrol.

And there is uh only one uh suspected minor injury accident identified in that five-year period, and it's not within either subdivision to either the east or west.

Uh accordingly, again, uh we don't find that there is an existing situation.

We don't have any reason or indication that there will be a dangerous traffic condition.

All that said, uh staff is recommending approval of this project, and we did so at the planning commission with the conditions that were found in your packet.

Uh the planning commission approved it unanimously with all those conditions, uh although there were two recusals.

Uh, accordingly, we are recommending that the council turn down this appeal tonight and uphold the planning commission's uh uh approval.

And I can stand for any questions that the council has.

Uh the question was posed to me or generally at agenda session uh as a reminder what items the council can consider uh if uh denial of a project is up for deliberation.

Uh these are those six items.

Um I can summarize those briefly.

The first is uh that the project is not submitted in accordance with our UDC.

Uh staff only found one instance where that was not the case.

That was the variance of block length, which we recommended in favor of, and the planning commission also recommended in favor of.

Uh the second is that development would violate city-state or federal standards.

We have not found any uh indication that that is the case.

Uh for regarding the third, the developer has agreed to uh dedicate the required right-of-way and public streets within the subdivision.

Uh the fourth item, which I just touched on, is the creation or compoundment of a dangerous traffic condition, which staff does not find this to be uh likely to cause.

Um the fourth or fifth, uh very objectively, whether water and sewer is available or not.

Uh the two street stub outside I mentioned at the top of the presentation, they have water and sewer lines uh associated with them, which can readily tie into the subdivision.

And finally, whether the developer refuses to comply with any on or off-site improvements, and uh to date we have not uh heard any objection to that from the developer.

Um again, I can take questions and mayor, depending on how order you'd like to take this.

Uh Larry McCready and Tom Henley are here for the subdivisions application team.

Okay, great.

Mr.

McCready, would you like to present Mayor Ron, uh members of the council, thank you.

My name's Larry McCready.

I'm a lawyer with RMP law firm.

I represent the owner of the property, and I'm joined by Tom Hennley, um, who is a representative of Crafton Toll, who is part of the design and engineering team.

Um questions that Jonathan, I think did a very good job presenting.

Any technical questions that I may not be able to handle.

Certainly, Mr.

Henneley will be able to weigh in to answer any questions that you might have.

Mr.

Kirth, he reminded the council of the the history and the recent history of this.

Um the council annexed and rezoned this recently, just last October.

Um, the owner, when that was done, developed the plan and submitted for approval plan consistent with the neighborhood conservation zoning district that it was rezoned to.

Um it was approved unanimously at planning commission, as Mr.

Kerr said, Um, and this appeal followed.

Um there was the site visit out there uh this past Friday.

I thank you to the members who were able to make that visit and and see the property.

Uh so I appreciate the time that went in.

I hope it was informative.

Um before addressing the specifics of the appeal, uh, I just want to reiterate again the plan that the owner submitted on this is as Mr.

Kirth noted.

I think was a it was a fairly conservative plan.

It was the the density on it was was just over four units per acre by right.

This district allows 10 units per acre.

Um it was done this way in in large part as well to remain the consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods, which uh I think has been accomplished.

Um, and so I did want to notice that, and it wasn't a more aggressive plan to maximize the density that they would have been able to uh uh to plan and submit for approval.

Um we're here on appeal that was uh was brought by a resident.

So um Mr.

Kirth touched on uh most of the issues that were raised.

The appeal, as I read it, there were three primary issues.

I'm just gonna I'm not gonna spend a whole lot of time on them because I hope you got the letter I sent out to the the members that addressed them.

Mr.

Kurt did, and then we can certainly answer any questions that you have.

Um the first one was the traffic issue, and that seems to be a bit a big one.

I want to be sure it was clear that the developer is part of the process, had a traffic impact study performed.

Um, and the results of that did not get above the threshold um of the the uh the new trips that would be generated by these new houses.

So there was not any required expanded traffic.

I think it's called a traffic impact analysis that was performed.

It wasn't because it was skipped, it was because it's not required by the code.

Um, and I also want to point out that uh, and and I think this was taken into account of the traffic impact analysis, but there is a new connector that is currently under construction that will col that will connect Learley Lane, which is at the north of the property, through the new Magnolia Park subdivision to RuPaul Road, and that will further help ameliorate any concerns about increased traffic through the adjacent subdivisions, whether it's to the west or to the east.

So I do want to make sure that's pointed out because that's been approved and it's currently being constructed.

Um the tree preservation um the developers fully complied with the um the mitigation plan.

They submitted a plan that's been approved by the urban forester, um, and it includes the planting of new trees to help um to meet the mitigation requirements.

Developers fully committed to that.

Um, and the one final issue that has been brought up on the appeal, or at least that I read about was their concerns about some drainage to adjoining properties to the east.

Um we understand that as is sh was shown on the map there.

There's uh two new detention ponds to the south of the property that are part of the subdivision.

They will capture the stormwater runoff.

They uh the design meets all of the criteria favor um excuse me of Fayeville's drainage criteria manual.

Um, and so there will be assurance that any of the the peak flow post-development is not going to exceed what it was pre-development.

If anything, it may improve any flooding issues that are currently existing out in that area.

Um those are the major things that I've seen that was addressed by the neighbor who appealed it.

I certainly understand the concerns.

We're here to answer questions, but we feel like this plan was sensibly developed, it was done by competent professionals, it was reviewed by um the the planning staff and approved unanimously by the planning commission.

And so tonight we would ask that the appeal of that decision is denied and that the preliminary plat is approved.

And as I said I'm happy to answer any questions uh that you all may have for either me or Mr.

Henley.

I think first we need to if the appellant is here and would like to speak we need to give them time and then uh Mr.

McCarty will know that you're available for questions as well.

So okay.

Okay.

All right I have a uh fancy slide do I where do I point okay all right my name is Krista Hinson.

Oh my name is Krista Henson and I live at 2843 North Whistlepost Drive and that's just to the east of this new development.

And first of all thank you so much for all of this this whole experience has been really great.

Um thank you for listening.

Thank you for coming out and walking around all that craziness and getting all the ticks on it.

That that was insane I'm sorry that you had to go through that.

But I really appreciate you all coming out.

I appreciate Craft and toll I mean those guys were awesome really kind and um I'm really glad that we're part of a community that hears your residents.

I love that thank you.

This is such a good place.

Let's let's go to my next slide.

So I mean there's a there's us um you don't see a ton of children that were hiding in the background all playing together.

So there were lots of kids all of our kids were out there because really um next slide our our um our concern is traffic our concern we live on whistlepost there's no there's not many people coming through there right now and the way things are lined out um most of the the traffic's gonna come from RuPaul over on Tanyard and then up through our street all those little yellow dots represent um houses where there are children.

So we have a ton of kids ton of kids if you uh go to the next slide you'll see a ton of kids look at them all just riding around and that is um violet where it goes into this new neighborhood.

So that is our big concern is that our our children are safe.

Honestly hearing that Learly is going to connect um in that that northern part over to the new neighborhood that the new northern part of Magnolia part that that's really exciting to me.

I didn't know that so I think that that will be another little um out outlet through our neighborhood so that not everything is coming from that from that east side.

But that was our big concern honestly I'm I'm just cur I'm concerned about our kids riding around and just how much change there is but we know that um we need housing like we need housing in Fayetteville and we don't want to deny that and I agree that you have done a really great job of um you know not putting as many houses as you could have um I think it's gonna be a great neighborhood that'll be right next to us and I think we're gonna have a lot of friends um and we've been a part of the Fayetteville community for a long time um my husband and I have a marketing business that we've had since 2013.

My family my parents who live right beside me um they had Savoy Tea Company on the on the square up until last year that was about 13 years.

So we love this community and we understand how hard it is for businesses and they have to make an ROI like we know that they need to make an they they probably paid a lot of money for that land and um we know that it's good for them to put houses honestly I just care about the kids and um I'm asking for some traffic calming which sounds like there's a new avenue to get that started and this is not really the place but you can look at my pretty slides how I am requesting that if you go to the next one there we go.

There's some I just some more traffic bumps or uh cushions as they are called now and also I don't know I would like to see um the intersection of whistlepost and violet have a four-way stop.

It's already uh two-way stop on Violet but it would be really great to have that four-way stop that's right in front of my house and my mother's house and they're just always tons of children in that area so I would love to see that um I'll so I'll pursue whatever I need to do to to get that to happen.

The next of course is just a nice thing like if you go uh to the next slide it was just the trees it's beautiful I mean but I know a lot of people um who back up to beautiful trees get all those taken down and new houses come up it's just the way of it I am just requesting that if you can find a few extra ones to save that would be awesome because that's my cute little girl and those little deer you know that's all I'm asking if you can find some more trees that would be great.

At the end of the day I'm very happy to be a part of this whole thing.

Thank you guys for listening.

Thank you for serving our community be awesome.

Thank you and thank you for I think I can unequivocally say being the most pleasant and kind and positive appellant we have ever had up here before at least in my time so thank you.

Um you can sit down if you'd like, and uh because I think we or we or stay there.

We may have questions for multiple different people, but we'll start with you, Mr.

Stafford and work our way this way.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think my question's for Kit, and it's to wrap my head around what's in front of us, because at first this came to us just as a straight appeal, but now that it seems like and and I'll be honest, I I was not supportive of the appeal.

Um we do need the housing.

Uh I know that uh there's always things for people to want to say I'm not against housing, but anyways, the the thing that's confusing me now is that I guess there's been an addition uh that uh council member burner brought up that if we vote for the appeal, the plat will still be approved but with conditions of a traffic study.

So we're not we're not here to say no to the plat, no to the project.

We're just gonna say that there's some conditions involved.

Is that because I don't want to say no to this housing?

But what was proposed by uh uh council member Berna was that uh there needed to be one more condition placed upon the uh preliminary plat, and that is basically just to uh have uh request the city to conduct a traffic calming study to determine if traffic calming measures are warranted after the development.

And so this is just simply a request, it doesn't say there will be traffic calming measures imposed.

You'll have to go ahead and meet the standards that the city has.

Uh but to do that, if you want to put any other condition on, you have to grant the appeal, and then you uh still uh approve this the uh preliminary plat with this one extra condition.

What so the housing would still get built?

Pardon?

The housing would still get built if this appeal is.

The preliminary plat would still be approved, it'd be approved with one extra condition.

And I just read what that condition is basically a request to look at whether or not they need traffic calming.

Okay, I think if I may, can the confusion I think is in based on what it says in this printout, and maybe Mr.

Berna can explain it in a different way, is that it seems as if voting for the appeal voted it seems as if Mr.

Berna's recommendation that I'd like him to speak to is to vote uh for the appeal.

And I think the concern that Mr.

Stafford was trying to explain is that that seems to be denying the action by the planning commission.

I think that's where the confusion is.

And in fact, it it would be denying the action by the planning commission, but then it goes on and says that this body then approves the P the preliminary platition.

Okay, if I may, I'd like to hear I I do want to hear from Scott.

I'd also like to hear from the applicant about if no, the the applicant uh if Mr.

McCready.

Mr.

Yeah, to see if they've had a chance to look at this and what their thoughts are uh on my comments now or you could if you could answer Mr.

Um Staff if you could come on up to answer Mr.

Stafford question.

I don't know if you've had a chance to see this.

Yes.

Would you like for me to explain my reasoning and then that way it'd give him a full yeah, yeah, sure.

My reasoning I I am not against this proposal at all.

But with you know, you saw the way the the uh uh applicant demeanor was that was uh the whole time we were out there, that's the way everybody was.

Kids were everywhere.

It was a great, quite honestly, a great experience.

But the overwhelming uh concern, except for the ticks.

Uh uh the overwhelming concern was the safety of the children.

So I thought that there's no guarantee we're still gonna go ahead and do agree to the development, but that the developer would agree to be proactive at the end of the development after it's constructed to apply to the city for a traffic calming study to see if it even qualifies.

There's no guarantee it's even gonna qualify.

But the the to ease to recognize the neighborhood's concern, we would go ahead and put that in there and let the developer be proactive and uh asking for it at the end of the development after it's constructed.

Would we wait until like half the houses were sold so that the neighborhood has actual people like it if the houses are constructed but it's an empty neighborhood?

Like are we are you gonna wait a year?

Are you gonna wait?

Are you gonna construct?

Are you gonna build it out all at once, or are you building it selling the lots as uh do you know you're I don't think there's a clear answer that I know of right now, Mr.

Berna, to be able to answer that.

I think I I think it much will depend on market conditions once the development is done.

So um I I don't know the answer to that.

And and it says after completion of the preliminary plan or after completion of the project, which means that the houses have been built at that point in time, they probably all won't be all built at the same time.

Some will be occupied and some won't.

But by but this says that it's after the completion of the project, therefore that's when they would ask after the last house is built.

Okay.

And I agree, and may I address it now.

Um I have one question, sort of for how this works.

My client is not is not opposed to it, right?

Certainly, if that's the will of the council, they will comply with it.

Logistically, I don't really know how it works.

I don't know who performs it.

I don't know what the cost of it is, and so obviously that's a concern.

But um if that if that is what it takes to get it done, they my my my client will will certainly agree to that.

Um regarding the merits of this, Mr.

Stafford.

I had the same question when I read this sort of the procedural posture, and I think Kit you addressed it, Mr.

Williams.

You addressed it that I but I want to clarify that it's correct because as I read the section one, it says the city council grants the appeal, and so my concern in reading that is making sure that we don't end up but granting the appeal means the planning commission's decision is overruled.

Right.

Which which is what my concern is, and I obviously I defer to you for the procedural stuff, but I just want to make sure the that we're all on the same page about what the effect of this would be.

Um and so um it is that's what I would just respectfully say that we get some clarity on so everyone is clear about what they're voting on.

When you do mayor, if you want me to explain please uh in order to put an additional condition on the preliminary plat at this meeting and not send it back to a planning commission for further discussion.

Just bring it back.

And they would have to grant the appeal, which does kind of stop that situation, but then it turns right around and says, but approves the preliminary plat.

Um with uh as approved by the planning commission.

So just exactly as approved by the planning commission with one additional requirement, and that is to request a traffic calming study after the project is finished.

Okay.

And I think we can clear this up right now and make it easier, Mr.

Berna.

It's getting way too complicated, so let's stay with just the straight appeal, and I would ask this to the mayor to have the administration uh uh administration to be proactive and do a traffic calming study at the end of the debate.

We don't have to have that's not something you have to apply for, it can be resident-led.

It's also something that our staff can simply say we commit to doing a traffic calming study.

Yeah, and we will and we will do that.

And I can assure the council, my my client, I mean, they want a safe neighborhood and they're committed to doing what's necessary.

And I can make sure that you know we have our team in the and the street department and then in our um bike Dane and Matt and those guys that are very committed to traffic calming policies, and we're happy to make sure we take a look at that.

Um I'm gonna turn it back, Mr.

Stafford.

So you can finish and then we'll go to Minister Jones.

Thank you.

And and I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused on this.

Um, and and I do want the applicant and the appeal to know if it was up to me, we would have speed coming uh every 500 feet.

There would be so many speed cushions in this uh town, it would look like an amusement ride.

Uh and and four-way stops everywhere.

But not everybody shares my opinion.

So uh I'll let the other council members ask their questions and I'll save my comments for later.

Thank you, Bob.

Uh let's go to Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, I actually had a question from you.

I'm going all the way back to your presentation.

In the presentation, you said there was some mitigation with stormwater ponds, but I didn't see any on your drawings on their drawings, whoever's drawings.

Thank you for the question.

If you allow me one moment, I'll get that pulled back up.

I think that was one of the questions in the MPEL was traffic impact study, new connections, tree preservation, mitigation, and drainage to the property to the east.

I just wanted to make sure we address that with the detention ponds, and I think um Mr.

McCarthy just said um that two depend detention ponds to the south of the prize property post develop will not cause flooding.

I think I had Council Member Turk describing where it is, but I think to go in a little bit more detail to what Mr.

McCready described.

One thing that our engineering group identified when hearing about the stormwater concerns is that today it's just an open field condition where stormwater sheet flows across the property by formalizing that into a detention pond or retention pond, it captures it and directs it and pipes it off the property in a structured way rather than just going to people's backyards as it is today.

And I think the second piece of what Mr.

McCready referenced is the baseline standard of our drainage manual, our drainage standards is that your existing stand your existing stormwater runoff can't be exceeded after your project is developed.

Right.

So that that is the minimum expectation that our our engineering division reviews for.

So the developer is um developing the pond at the minimum or above the minimum, just what I'm trying to figure out.

I don't know that I can answer that specifically.

All that we can require is the minimum.

I do know that as a part of their landscaping plan that they have uh incorporated a lot of their mitigation trees into those detention ponds, which is not typically required.

There are detention pond planting requirements, they're wanting to go above and beyond that and use prioritize putting their mitigation trees to account for the trees they removed in those pond areas to serve a stormwater absorption purpose.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I did want to ask, and I'm not sure who on staff this would be, but in regard to the appellant had particular areas they had to identify it.

I know on transportation committee, we've had neighborhoods that have wanted stop signs.

Sometimes they actually don't have the desired effects, and so I guess if we are gonna go with potentially um leaving this with staff, I guess just getting a little clarity too around they had particular areas in their exhibit where they already had identified uh where they wanted calming measures, and so I guess that's my question too.

I mean, it's a pretty expansive area, and we typically have done kind of street by street and haven't really looked at it on kind of a neighborhood basis, and I'm not quite sure how we execute that.

So I think that in fairness to staff, because they just learned about five minutes ago that they would be looking at this, but um just in we can I think update you on that at a diff a future meeting, but Jonathan, do you want to add anything?

And as a point of clarification, you may have you may realize this in the the applicants or the appellant slide when they were showing those speed cushions.

A lot of those exist today in that neighborhood.

Okay, I think it's mostly on the northwest streets within that neighborhood.

I thought she was indicating brand new places.

Okay.

Maybe maybe you wanted more as well.

I think she was indicating she wants more.

My understanding is yeah, especially on especially on Violet as you go east-west out of the proposed subdivision.

I think that the the appellants interest.

But that minutia we can probably work out between staff and like transportation committee to do a study area probably in the future that might be multiple streets.

Yes, uh, like it sounds like administration will work with staff to make sure that's done.

Okay, all right.

I just wanted to at least get that question and answer since it's all about the children and the traffic and the slowing down the traffic, and I want to make sure we are addressing that and figuring out that minutiae.

So I appreciate being able to do that on the fly.

Mr.

Witiger.

I'll be brief, Mayor.

Thank you so much.

I uh wish to thank Councilmember Berna for removing the item that that confused me.

I thought I was a literate man.

I'll affirm that neither ticks nor deer are endangered species.

And I would nominate Mrs.

Henson to represent every appellant group that comes before this body.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna open it up for public comment.

Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Okay, yes, come up, please state your name and address my name is Garland Yell.

I live at 3105 North Melmo Drive.

A good portion of the traffic in the subdivision to the west of this new one cuts up that it's a it's a lane and a half dirt road with a hill.

There's kids across the street.

My grandkids are there often.

I've lived there for 49 years, 48 years.

And this um what are they gonna that's gonna be the easiest way?

If you tell somebody your address down there and Google maps, they're gonna send a dump truck, they're gonna send UPA every there's a lot of traffic on that road.

It's a county road.

It's a small county road.

Do you think those people that live in that subdivision will take the shortest way to 112?

Or are they gonna I mean uh I feel for these people in the subdivision with all the kids?

It's rough.

People are they're gonna take the easiest way every time.

So what are we gonna do about congratulations, kid?

What are we gonna do about Velma Drive?

There's there's seven houses on that road.

There's ten acres on each side of that road.

So what are we gonna do?

Is the dump truck traffic from you guys?

Is it going down there every day?

There's gonna be a lot of road building, a lot of haul and dirt.

What are we gonna do about Velma Drive?

I mean, you guys got to wear bigger hats than just what covers the developers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay, did I miss anyone in the chamber?

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the council and um this is a resolution.

Am I correct?

Yes, this is a resolution.

So to do anything, we need a motion, and I see um I see Minister Jones, but Kit, do you want to weigh in procedurally?

Well, no, I'll I'll go away.

Okay, great.

Minister Jones.

Yeah, I guess my question is to Jonathan again.

Um I attended this um training earlier this year with the municipal league that says cities and counties should work together, especially when we're doing development.

This is this an opportunity for us to work with the county on this development and the traffic that's gonna affect individuals that live in this area.

And our citizens are right.

We can't just be thinking about one part, we have to think about the whole part.

But it's it also talked about um in the municipal training, it was saying how county has funding that we don't tap into because we're so focused on what's happening into the city.

Is this an opportunity for us to partner with the county to talk about this developing development that's happening in that area?

The short answer is yes.

Uh, I I think uh I think the more long-winded answer is when we evaluate projects like this, there are different thresholds for what cities can require of a project.

I know specifically you're talking about county resources, necessarily not the developers' resources.

Well, one reason staff did not recommend that the developer improve Velma is that that is uh about a quarter mile, that would be about a quarter mile of road that would have to be improved, and that is outside the scope of this subdivision size.

So the getting back to my for short, my first very short answer, yes.

I think this is an opportunity for us to coordinate better with the kind of that point is well taken.

Mr.

Williams.

Oh, okay.

Um so we are waiting on motions.

Mr.

Stafford need a point of clarification again because it sounds like we've changed the language, or have we struck all that?

So Mr.

Bernis struck the no about the traffic calming and simply the granting the appeal or not grappling the so to support the planning commission's decision, you vote no.

Okay, and if somebody votes yes, it means they're supporting the appeal as the plat's being withdrawn.

That it's being denied.

Yes, they're granting the appeal, and the preliminary plat will be denied.

Okay, and so um this is just a resolution.

We don't need a motion.

We do need a motion because it is a resolution.

Okay.

Um, I'll just say uh before making that motion that uh I understand the applicants' uh concerns.

I will be there to to encourage traffic safety measures anywhere and everywhere I can.

Um, but I I can't support, especially now with this part removed.

I I can't support uh you know denying this plat.

Uh and so I'm not gonna be in support of the uh uh um appeal.

Okay, thank you.

And I'll make a motion that we pass the appeal.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll to pass the appeal?

Ms.

Moore, no, Mr.

Wheedaker.

No, Mr.

Berna, no.

Ms.

Bunch, no.

Ms.

Turk, no.

Minister Jones, no.

Mr.

Stafford, no.

Okay.

So um, despite the fact that the appeal was denied, please know that we did hear your concerns about safety and and staff will be looking into those traffic calming measures.

So thank you, Mr.

McCready.

And thank you all.

We are moving on to 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 RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre, to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas Section 1.

That the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A and the legal description.

Exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF four residential single family four units per acre to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

And section two, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Hereby I manage the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, Jonathan.

Thank you, Bear.

Uh staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of this request.

It can be found in Southeast Fayetteville, about 500 feet north of the intersection of Huntsville and Crossover on the east side of Crossover.

It includes about two and a half acres of developed property, uh which is built with a single family home.

And it may be most familiar with the city council from a request that came before you recently to rezone the property immediately to the south to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Staff uh excuse me.

Sorry.

Uh the request before you is to rezone this property from its existing RSF for residential single family four units per acre to UT Urban Thoroughfare, similar to the item that the council previously heard.

Uh from a land use compatibility standpoint, uh staff does find this on the balance of considerations to be compatible.

Uh while the area to the north and northeast is largely uh single family in nature.

Uh we do feel like the urban thoroughfare zoning district does relate more to the corridor and the realities of the major intersection of two state highways immediately to the south and west.

From a land use plan standpoint, uh we find this to be very consistent.

Uh this is the northernmost portion of area in our future land use map designated as a city neighborhood area.

Those are the portions of Fayetteville anticipated to be developed with a mix of uses, which the Urban Thoroughfare Zoning District allows uh with its permission for single all the way through multifamily as well as a multitude of non-residential uses.

Uh given its distance from uh the center of Fayetteville, uh it may be surprising that there are as many infill attributes uh as are associated with it.

Uh but it is worth noting that the paved trail portion that is noted here uh is only a single portion uh single section that was developed in front of the downtown gener or the excuse me, the dollar general to the southwest.

Uh, but the again the intent of the infill attribute score is to acknowledge that as these these amenities and these services and this infrastructure is added, it will gradually justify uh potentially the more intensity and density uh in various parts of the city.

As far as other issues, uh staff did not find any of note.

Uh this would reduce street preservation on the property to 15 percent under the urban thoroughfare zoning district.

To date, we've not received any public comment.

And again, staff is recommending in favor of the proposal, and the planning commission is sent it to council with a unanimous vote also recommending in favor.

I can take any questions that the council has, Mayor.

And I believe Justin Cullers is available online in case the council has questions, but he does not have a presentation that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Do we have any questions for Jonathan or for the applicant?

Or the applicant, I suppose, is the correct okay.

Yeah, Miss Moore.

I just um I just want to because UT it does have by right correct that use unit 17 or 18, which would allow for gas stations or car washes.

That is an allowance currently as a by right and not a C UP today, and that's correct.

Okay, all right, thank you.

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

It doesn't look like we have anybody in the chamber.

Do we have anybody online?

We do not.

Okay.

Bring it back to Mr.

Berna.

Mayor and make a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second to suspend the rules.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

And ordinance to rezone the property described in a rezoning petition, RZN 2026-06 for approximately 2.46 acres located at 620 South Crossroad Road Ward 1.

From RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to UT Urban Thoroughfare.

Okay.

Are your lights on for comments?

Are you just getting ready to vote?

Okay.

Um, so Ms.

Moore than Mr.

Um Stafford.

Okay.

I just um in regard to 17 and 18.

One thing I did just want to bring, I'm gonna be supportive tonight, but just for a future conversation, it's been something I've looked at for quite some time and trying to look through the conditional uses.

But I've had a lot of residents continually tell me, are we gonna get another car wash or gas station?

And really are very concerned that we don't have the regulatory in place to really give them greater scrutiny on whether or not they're really an another thing that needs to come into certain corridors.

And so UT for that reason gives me a little pause, even though I appreciate much of um that one.

And so I just wanted at least put on radar that that's something I hope that we'll look at in the near future is looking at considerations for F 1718 to go to CUP so that at least it can get a little more thoughtful consideration about the fit um in regard to uh you know oil change places, car washes and gas stations that we really seem like we are overskewed.

And if not, we're very close to it.

So those are just my final comments, but I'll be supportive of this issue tonight.

I'm gonna really hope that these applicants are not putting in any of those businesses and they're doing one of those many other amazing things in UT.

Jonathan, is that something we can look at and address as we talk about changes that we want to examine prior to the UDC?

We can look at that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh I appreciate Ms.

Moore's comment.

Uh I I do have concerns about uh those same auto-centric uses, and I do think maybe we need to look at moving them out and just having those be uh conditional uses in all our our zoning.

Um that said, I'm very supportive of this as we grow into a town of 150,000 people, which we are doing at breakneck speed.

Uh that this section of town, uh, this is kind of my neighborhood.

Uh, we this needs to be a tier center.

This this area right here, we need grocery stores down here, we need restaurants down here, we need shops down here, and so I'm I'm fully supportive of this and hope it passes this evening.

Um okay, is that a um is that a resolution or motion to suspend the rules?

We've already done that.

Uh Clerk Pyson, we please call the roll.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

So that brings us to item D3, 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, neighborhood conservation to RIU, residential intermediate urban kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, hereby change the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit be both attached to the planning department's genome memo from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU reser residential intermediate urban.

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

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

This item is also uh before the city council with SAS recommendation of approval and a recommendation of approval from the planning commission as well.

It is south of downtown, just northwest of the intersection of Fourth Street and or yes, Fourth Street and Washington Avenue.

It includes almost a third of an acre uh that is currently developed with a single family home.

Uh while it is just outside the FEMA designated floodplain that can be found just to the southeast of the property, uh, it is subject to our streamside protection standards, which I will go into in a little bit more detail shortly.

Uh of note, uh this property was the subject of a development proposal in 2021 and 2022.

There was a cluster housing development uh considered and approved for large scale development, a conditional use permit, uh as well as a variance to some of those streamside protection standards.

Those have all since expired, and so this is effectively a clean slate that the planning of the city council is considering today.

What they are considering is a request before uh council to rezone the property from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff finds this request to be uh compatible from a land use standpoint.

Uh there are an increasing variety of housing types in this neighborhood, uh including uh attached uh residential as well as detached residential, which aligns with the uses allowed in the RIU zoning district that's limited to single, two, three, and four family dwellings.

Uh from a land use or long-range plan uh perspective, uh staff finds this property to uh be well suited uh for additional zoning entitlement.

Uh it is near the center of the city.

Uh there are a number of services and amenities that are available to it uh that are not found uh as you get further further out away from uh the areas that in fill may be appropriate.

Uh and include considering other items, uh the tree preservation standard would reduce from NC to RU from 20% to 15%.

Uh looking at the legal description, uh something of note in case you saw it in your maps is uh what went the map that went before the planning commission was uh what you see on the left-hand side.

Uh what was clarified before the planning commission made their decision that the correct legal description uh captures that larger area that you see on the right hand side of your screen.

appropriate uh and considering other items uh the tree preservation standard would reduce from in sea to r you from 20 percent to 15 percent uh looking at the legal description uh something of note in case you saw it in your maps is uh what went the map that went before the planning commission was uh what you see on the left hand side uh what was clarified before the planning commission made their decision that the correct legal description uh captures that larger area that you see on the right hand side of your screen so the planning commission was well aware of what they were forwarding so if you did see those maps there was not a misunderstanding of of what was being advanced so uh it is a is a slightly or a somewhat bigger area than was originally proposed or not proposed that is exactly what was proposed the map did not accurately capture it uh if that sorry I worded that very poorly um coming back to the streamside protection question uh as I noted there is not any FEMA designated floodplain on this property but the streamside protection standards do extend extensively onto this property uh while there was a variance granted in 2021 2022 for those uh that area uh that has since expired and at this point there is that much smaller area of land uh with development potential on it I believe the the developer would like addition the additional flexibility that the RIU zoning district affords finally and perhaps most complicated uh I did want to touch on the proposed local historic district that's being considered uh in this part of Fayetteville I received several questions about that at agenda session and rightfully so um because uh there there's a lot going on with that uh starting with the status of it at this point the the minimum number of signatures required for a a local ordinance district to advance have been collected and they've been validated by our city clerk's office uh so our long range planning and preservation staff is working with that neighborhood and representatives of that neighborhood to advance that project uh with it next going to our historic district commission at their May meeting if you'll recall from the Oak Grove zoning or local historic district that came to council recently uh the next steps will be the planning commission before it is ultimately before you all uh with an ordinance associated with it um one of the questions I was asked at agenda session if I recall correctly was concerns about whether a local historic district uh how that interacts with zoning and I think it's important to reiterate that local historic districts do not control land use that is a zoning tool uh local historic districts control design uh and how how a building appears uh more than anything else uh there was also a question that was posed about uh whether that district will include standards for demolition at this time not uh but that is potential that can be one of the standards that are adopted uh usually that takes the form of a uh a review by our historic district commission not necessarily a prohibition on demolition but it affords the opportunity for the historic district commission to review those requests uh and and survey and and document those properties before they are potentially demolished and I think those were the main questions I got agenda session please uh let me know uh as I conclude here if you have additional questions uh but do know that that is advancing uh and it will go to our historic district commission in May ultimately as I led with at the top of the presentation staff is recommending in favor of this request it came to you all uh by planning commission vote a seven to one uh the one dissenting vote did uh speak uh most uh prominently about their concerns about how this could interact with that historic district and and felt that ought to be resolved before uh zoning actions occur and to date we've not received any public comment and I am happy to take questions thank you and mayor I have Julian Schuster and Jake Chavis uh listed as the applicants for the item clearly they're not in chambers but I do see some people online if they are uh one of the applicants and they would like to speak I encourage them to raise their hand but I don't see that at this time okay all right great do we have any questions for Jonathan okay um going to public comment we don't have anybody in chambers uh it doesn't seem I'm looking over here we don't have anybody with their hand raised so I'll bring it back to the council Ms.

Moore uh mayor I'd um move that we suspend the roles and go to the third reading second okay uh we have a motion to suspend the rules and a second clerk Paxton will you please call the roll Ms.

Moore yes Mr.

Wiedaker yes Mr.

Bernay Ms.

Bunch yes Ms.

Turk yes Minister Jones yes Mr Stafford yes in order to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RZN 2026-07 for approximately three tenths of an acre located at 325 South Washington Avenue in ward one from NC neighborhood conservation to RIU residential intermediate urban okay say oh Ms.

Turk um I'm I'm not gonna support this rezoning and and here's why I think this isn't a really kind of sensitive area it's right next to Spout Spring.

It's likely that they'll ask for a variance to the streamside protection ordinance the second thing they're right in the middle of um of this historic district designation and it will be a couple more months before that actually makes it sway all the way through planning commission and to into us and then the third thing is there's not an RIU right next to that that's they're surrounded by neighborhood conservation yes RIU is kind of off to the south west a little bit but I just think that in this case with uh historic district underway for firmly underway and it's right next to the stream that I don't feel comfortable um supporting this okay thank you um Kara will you please call the roll for the final vote Ms.

But I just think that in this case, with uh historic district underway, f firmly underway, and it's right next to the stream that I don't feel comfortable um supporting this.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Okay.

That passed.

And that I believe is our last item.

Um Clerk Paxton, do you have announcements?

So last announcement as a reminder that this Friday, April 24th, is the deadline to apply to be on a city board committee or commission.

Applications are due by 5 p.m.

on Friday.

Thank you.

I have one important announcement, and that is that, and then Keith may have.

And yet behind City Hall.

And it's a beautiful monument.

And our we did that internally with our transportation team and um Terry and Terry and Chris and Byron and Quinn and John Scott and Ted Jack and I'm sure I'm leaving somebody out, but it was a great team effort.

And then also the reason for Minister Monique's uh Monique Jones's absence earlier was that she was receiving an award which she has her light on, so she will maybe wanting to tell us more.

Oh okay.

Yes, she was receiving a volunteer she was receiving a volunteer award for her work with the school district, I believe.

Is that correct?

Yeah, over the whole thing.

So she's put in a lot of hours uh there and I wanted to acknowledge her for that.

And then Keith, we'll leave you to wrap it up.

Yeah, I have two announcements.

One of it tomorrow is Earth Day, and the city has a number of events around the city.

You can go to our website and uh look for those.

Uh and it kind of culminates tomorrow night with us uh the city of I mean the city of Fayville Public Library is holding uh kind of a staff presentation on citywide sustainability efforts, and that'll be at six o'clock at our library.

And then tomorrow night at six o'clock at four o'clock, we're holding a public engagement for our Great Avenue safety improvements at Pacrat Outdoor Center, and that is part of our uh Safe Streets for All program that we received a 25 million dollar grant several years ago, which was the largest grant in the city's history to help with traffic safety in our community.

So that's four o'clock tomorrow uh at Pac Rat Outdoor Center.

That's all I have.

Thank you so much.

Kit, do you have c your lights on?

I think Minister Jones deserves a round of applause.

Yeah, that's very good, yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Indeed, she does.

And with that, we are adjourned.