City Council Agenda Session – April 28, 2026

Okay, everyone, we're gonna call this agenda session to order.

We're gonna get started.

Hello, yes, hello.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Um, I think I oh no, I think I have the wrong agenda.

No, I don't.

Okay.

We will begin next week's meeting with a sales tax and monthly financial report from Stephen Dotson, our chief financial officer.

Um after that, we will go into our consent agenda, which I'll begin reading now.

Um quickly though, Keith, Jonathan, do we have any council members that are um that have zoomed in?

Sorry, I had not logged in myself yet.

If you can give me just a moment, I think.

So, Keith, just turn on your light if we have a hand raised for um for any of our other members who might be participating that way.

First item of consent is a change order with Southern Brothers construction.

It's a resolution to approve change order number one with Southern Brothers in the amount of $37,950 for additional concrete work on the recycling and trash collections compost pad.

Peter Neerengarden, our environmental director, is here and can do a brief presentation on that or answer questions if you have them.

If not, we will move on to our next item of consent.

I do just have one question.

Peter, come on in.

Is will this be um the envisioned full build out for the compost expansion we're doing, or will there be any possibility in that space that there's going to be any future that thought of in that area?

I know we talk about a lot about the south part of campus and what might happen down there.

So this work, this work was just for repairs to our existing compost pad.

We had a a large area where there was a sinkhole.

Uh we bid the project out, and when they got in and did the demo, we realized that there was more concrete there and more repair work needed to be done than what we actually thought in the beginning.

So uh the amount of that work exceeded our contingency, and that's why we had to bring a change order back to you.

Um to answer your question, though.

No, this uh is not the completion of our work.

Right now we're beginning the remediation on the old PD shooting range, and once that lead remediation is complete, then we'll have some additional work in that area uh to to make that more usable.

And that'll have a similar layout where it will be these type of pads that'll be in that extra area as well then.

Okay, correct.

Thank you, Peter.

Okay, um A2 is a resolution to I'm sorry, I should have checked.

Do we have any more questions for Peter?

Okay.

A2, Flowers C C and D L L C cost Share, a resolution to repeal resolution 278-24 and approve a cost share agreement with flowers C C and D L C in an amount not to exceed 23,289.50 cents for the installation of a water line and to approve a project contingency in the amount of four thousand six hundred and fifty-eight dollars.

This has gone to the water and sewer committee, and Tim is here um and can answer questions about it if you have them.

Okay.

We will move on to item A3, uh, still with water and sewer.

It's at 2825 North Humeunt Road.

It's a resolution to allow the extension of the city sewerage system beyond the city limits to 2825 North Humeunt Road under the same conditions as a citizen of Fayetteville could receive such sewer services for new construction.

And Tim, do you mind to come up and tell Tim or Corey and tell us a little bit more about this one?

Ms.

Turk.

Um, I wanna I I'd like to hear what Tim has to say, but um I'd really kind of like to pull this off.

The water and sewer committee is not has not reviewed this, and there have been other citizens that are already within the city of Fayetteville boundaries that have requested sewer service, and so I want to make sure that our policies are consistent, um, especially with um sewer requests that's outside of the city limits right now.

Okay.

Tim, can you address that?

And then Mr.

Stafford, do you want to give Tim a chance to speak?

Or do you go ahead and yeah?

I have a question as well.

I I'll I'll listen to what Tim has to say first.

Okay, please go ahead.

So, sir sewer service for this single family home was requested uh due to a failing septic tank.

Um a sewer service line across North Hume Road would be required to service this property.

Uh the septic system was inspected and evaluated by a licensed plumbing contractor in February, and it was determined that the system is failing, no longer functioning or in a safe or sustainable manner.

The system is no longer dispersing wastewater into the soil as designed, causing sewage to back up into the home.

So per the city code, uh city council approval is necessary for any sewer connections outside the corporate city limits of Fayeville, Farmington, Greenland, or Johnson.

Uh addition of this sewer connection will not negatively impact our system capacities in the vicinity.

Additionally, the residence is surrounded on three sides by a Fayetteville city limits.

So annexation is a condition of the sewer service connection.

This connection is you're right, it was not sent to the water sewer committee due to its ongoing health safety and property damage risks.

City staff felt that this was an emergency situation and would be able to answer any questions from council members tonight at the meeting.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Tim, uh so it says under the same conditions as a citizen of Fayetteville can receive such sewer services.

Does that mean we're going to be paying for that extension?

There is no extension, it's just going to be a service line underneath Hume on the house.

Uh when we talk about extension, because I do have property in the city that I'd love to build on at some point, but we're currently on septic on a hillside that does not perk.

So the kind of septic we'd have to install takes extra permitting, extra cost.

Um what is it, you know, when we're going outside of city limits to offer sewer service when we have people in the city of Hayeville that don't have sewer service.

Well, we approach those uh typically if we find out about them when there's a failing septic tank, and then when we're notified, then we address it accordingly.

The ordinance says that if you have a sewer within 300 feet of your property, that you are required to hook to the city sewer system.

Okay.

But what about uh how do we decide where to extend sewer service to in the city in the areas that are lacking sewer?

The uh extensions, main extensions are the pro uh the responsibility of the property owner.

So to do the uh water or sewer extension, they have to get a uh design plan, they have to get it approved by the health department, they have to uh get a licensed contractor to install it, and at that point the city will take over the sewer or water main, and it will be the cities that they'll maintain it from that point forward.

But if if a group of neighbors wanted to get together and extend the main, that would be up to them.

Yes, it would.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Tim, and I don't know if this is for you or other city staff, but um one of the conditions is annexation, it sounds like into the city to do that service.

I know that we've had conversations about um cleaning up our borders um around the city where we and I see like this had a has a pocket.

Is there anyone that can talk to us about uh the areas that where we're going to try to clean up for the future?

Is this getting us towards that potentially?

It looks like it might be, but I just didn't know if that's like an area we're trying to close off that's there the way it dips down.

I don't know if that's you or somebody else.

I think it might be uh Jonathan, perhaps.

I if I understand the question correctly, it or is the question whether we are proactively looking at areas like this, or what's the process for doing it?

Well, it sounded like, and it looks like in the memo, a requirement of us extending the sewer is they have to annex into the city.

Is that correct?

Okay.

And then I know in just other conversations we had over the last year, there has been the conversation about what how what will we look like for annexing, and it was more the conversation about cleaning up our edges where we have this like variation occurring.

That one seems like it is a pocket, and so I just didn't know would that be an area we would probably look to the future to be able to even out.

So I'm just trying to kind of understand as we're making that decision.

Does it go towards that goal of something we maybe were going to annex in the future, possibly?

Got it.

Thank you for the clarification.

Uh yes, when staff evaluates annexation requests, one of the the guiding or the guidelines that we use is whether we are improving or making the boundaries of the city more efficient for services, and that includes exactly what we're talking about here, which is services like water and sewer, but also police fire uh and recycling and trash.

As far as the whether staff is proactively going after pockets like this, we do not currently have a plan for that.

Uh Mr.

Pennington may be able to speak more to this, but from a statutory standpoint, if we wanted to do that as a city, uh that typically requires an annexation election that we go to our electorate and they'd have to evaluate those areas that aren't uh voluntarily being requested to be incorporated in the city, if that makes sense.

But then I guess just as a follow-up, like this isn't an area in particular that's just been commonly known that we know we'd want to annex.

Correct.

If I again if I understand your question, I think if we've we if we were approached by the applicant, if they decide to proceed and submit their annexation request, this would absolutely check that box as far as whether it can improve the boundaries of the city or make them more clear.

All right, thanks, Jonathan.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Tim, uh, I'm wondering if IRWP, Illinois River Watershed Partnership has been contacted about this because you know they've got a septic replacement program going on.

And so um rather than sort of change our policy, it would seem that that might be a first alternative.

So I I don't know if you know if the property owner has done that or not.

I don't know if they've done that or not.

And then the second issue is that uh it says it requires annexation, but there's not an annexation proposal on our agenda tonight.

And so I don't know how long that process would take.

And then I guess my third comment is over in Weddington.

I mean, I had a really similar request that you and I talked about maybe six months ago, and that these people are actually within the city limits.

So uh, and they had a failing septic system at that time.

So uh again, um, I'd prefer to pull this off and have a wider conversation uh next Tuesday where maybe we can really um sort out some of these um these issues a little bit more than we have here.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Do you know where you'd like it on the agenda in new business just at the beginning?

Sure, at the beginning of new business.

Okay.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Tim.

That brings us to item A4, a resolution to award RFQ 26-1 selection number one and authorize the purchase of on-call materials testing services from McClelland Consulting Engineers Incorporated, Olsen Associates Incorporated, and GTS Incorporated as needed through April 30th, 2027 within the approved budget.

And um Chris is here to speak about this.

Chris and Justin, if should you all have questions not addressed in the memo.

Okay.

Similarly, A5 is a resolution to award RFQ number or RFQ 26-1 selection number two and authorize the purchase of on-call surveying services from Crafton Toll, Hawkins We're Engineers Incorporated, and Garvert Incorporated as needed through April 30th, 2027 within the approved budget.

A6, plain view, plain plain view avenue and rolling hills connection.

It's a contract amendment with Garver, a resolution to amend the professional engineering services contract with Garver LLC for additional design services and the amount of eighty-eight thousand fifty dollars to continue engineering design on the Plain View and Rolling Hills Extension Project.

I know this has been one staff has been working on for quite some time, and proud to get it before you.

If we have questions about that, Marley, do you mind to go ahead and come on up?

We'll start with you, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I know that this has kind of been um a process conversation that's kind of been um ongoing.

So um I understand that as you've come into the office and are kind of making some changes and adjustments, there's kind of a need to kind of continue forward with some of the ways of of um of what's kind of happened on these kind of services.

But I just wanted to make sure for the future award that potentially is happening for the next cycle.

Um, are we going to be going forward with an open bid for that to ask for and kind of scope out the types of um provided services that we're gonna get for um servicing our unhoused um community?

And just to clarify, um wanna distinguish that, make sure I understand your question um because I know this item includes both for the day center operations as well as the Walker Family Um Center.

So just on that latter piece, just wanted to remind everybody that that does sit on city property, so we sort of see that piece and where it sits in our CIP you know, program as you know, that's uh really I think kind of a broader operational goal to keep that facility in good shape.

So setting that piece aside, uh, I think we're definitely open to sort of broadening the scope um of uh you know city funded um homelessness services.

Uh so that's definitely something that we've talked about internally.

And so I think in not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, opening that up to RFP is something that we will be doing in the future.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you, Marley.

Thank you.

Um A9, installation of security bollards at the upper ramble, a resolution to award bid 26-32 and authorize a contract with Hutton Corporation in the amount of 166,647 dollars for the installation of security bollards in the upper ramble to approve a project contingency in the amount of $20,000 and to approve a budget amendment.

And Chris can speak to this one as well as Keith, should anybody have questions.

I know the goal is to have these installed before several of our large June events, including NWA qualities Pride Parade.

Okay.

Moving on to A10 purchase of 2400 West Valley Drive, a resolution to approve the purchase of property located at 2400 West Valley Drive in the amount of 200, 25,000 to approve a contingency in the amount of $7,500, and to authorize the mayor to sign all closing documents.

And Chris is here and can speak to this one as well.

Um Ms.

Turk.

I I would love to hear a presentation about about this.

I'll I'll hold my comments until after Chris's discuss.

Yes, this is a property at Valley Drive and uh Porter Road.

Uh it's in the floodway of the of the creek in that area.

Uh this property came up for sale.

Um we had been talking to all of the property owners in the area uh about options uh for uh either uh raising the the elevation of their houses or potential buyouts, uh all the different options that we've been discussing over the years.

Um so this property came up for sale and uh the property owner, because we've been talking to them um contacted us and let us know that they were intending to sell it.

Uh so we wanted to take the opportunity to uh present this to council.

We did make the the offer contingent on council approval.

Uh this will remove uh a house from the floodway again.

Uh it's uh it's directly in the in the floodway, not just the floodplain.

Uh it will allow us to uh clear some of that floodway, provide a little bit better uh flow in that area, potentially um do some uh excavation to uh improve the flow as well.

Uh we did get an appraisal for the for the property.

Um it was a little bit lower than what they had requested, but they indicated that uh they had offers of the 225, so we're recommending approval of the uh 225,000 dollars.

Um this funding is coming from the uh drainage bond program.

It was money that was set aside for floodplain buyouts or similar type uh projects like this.

So uh again, this is just an opportunity that uh presented itself, it allows us to get a structure um out of the flood zone.

We'll go with Ms.

Turk.

Okay, Mr.

Wheat.

So um a couple of questions.

The the last I heard was that we were waiting on federal monies to be able to address this um constant flooding issue.

Um and so could you tell us what the status of those federal funds might be?

Um we we we're doing several things.

We have um submitted a request for for federal funds um through FEMA.

Uh we've not heard any response on on those grant requests.

Uh we also have set aside uh 200,000 per year in our in our stormwater program for these kinds of things, including uh raising the elevations of of the houses as we talked about.

Um and then the third thing that uh we're still finalizing the design on is the work along West End Avenue that takes out those foundations and uh lowers the floodplain elevation in that area uh to improve the flow in that area.

So those are all still in progress.

So I talked to one of the neighbors, and what she thought was that um if this house was purchased that um that ditch that borders Porter could be expanded and allow more capacity for stormwater.

So was there any discussion with the property owner about just partitioning off part of that that that a portion of that could be sold to the city for additional right-of-way?

Uh we we did not talk about that again because it's in the floodway and in the very most restrictive area, uh, those are those are structures that um you know, if if we had our preference, we would have none of those in the in the floodway.

So uh it really is an opportunity to remove a structure that uh is very problematic from our our uh permitting FEMA permitting standpoint.

Well, when I was driving through there, there's another house that's for sale that in that same area that is also in the floodway.

Are there plans to use that money?

Because kind of from my point of view, we're sort of picking winners and losers here.

Um if your house goes up for sale, hey, the city will buy it, and we'll buy it above the appraised value too, which is you know, maybe not the best use of taxpayers' money um potentially.

Um what we're doing today is presenting this opportunity.

We uh recommend that this be approved.

Um I I certainly understand your perspective, and there are obviously are lots of priorities in this area uh that we're working on.

So uh this is again just an opportunity that we've been working with the property owner for a while on.

So, Chris, um can you give us kind of an estimate in in general about how much it would cost to raise a house?

I mean, is it over 200,000?

Is it 50,000?

Do you have any kind of ballpark idea?

Yeah, um I I might ask for some help from from Marley's uh her group has been uh working with us on that, getting specifications together.

Uh I've had some ballpark numbers thrown out, but um I think Marley might have better answers.

Um I I think the general answer is it varies quite a bit.

I think the estimate I've heard initially is a closer to around 100,000, but I think um you know, really subject to change based on the particular property.

So maybe you could get two for one if you elevated these two structures rather than just buying this one house.

Um so those are those are my questions.

Uh I probably would like to have a more of a conversation at um next Tuesday, but I'll hold the rest for now.

Um Mr.

Wiedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Chris, I just wanted to confirm my assumption that this is a repeat loss property already.

Um I will confirm that as well.

I I don't know that for sure.

Um, but uh I know there are many um repetitive loss structures in the area.

So uh I your assumption could very well be correct.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Chris, I can't help I pulled up my my map as I often do, and I can't help but notice we have it's unless this map hasn't been updated and something has changed, we have tens of thousands of square feet of impervious impermeable surface where those apartments have been taken out on Northwest End Avenue.

Um they're just big concrete slabs there that can be doing nothing but add to our and exasperating our our floodplain problem.

Is I mean, I would think if you dug those out and turn that into something that holds water instead of expels it, that we could solve a lot of problems there.

Have we have we do we have any plans for that?

Have we looked at that?

Yes, absolutely.

That's that's what I mentioned.

Um we purchased all of those properties along West End, removed the structures.

Um the next stage of that, and we have almost bid ready plans where our our uh engineering consultant is working on getting those plans ready.

We'll be bidding that um within the next few months uh to remove the um foundations and lower the floodplain regrade in there, uh just as you mentioned.

So with that done, you you still see the necessity for further action.

You don't see that solving solving the problem that we'd still need further action by those are those are you know very close to each other and they're sort of all part of the same system, but they are different tributaries that are uh that are impacted there.

Okay.

And has this been pulled from uh okay.

I'd like to pull it for from consent.

Yeah, okay.

And uh Mr.

Ramirez will ask for that to be second on the agenda on new business then.

Okay.

Um let's go to Ms.

Moore and then I believe Minister Jones on Zoom.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I've been talking to this neighborhood before I got on council in the fall of 22, and I know the city has been talking to these neighbors for some time before that, and recognize that there have been a lot of avenues explored and kind of some dead ends hit and some grant funding pursued.

But what I really um would like to ask is that um I would like to really understand what the entire system area looks like.

What was mentioned about I do know that some houses have been recognized for um elevation raise, some have been, I think recognize that they probably need a full purchase.

And I know there's just been a lot of modeling that's been run to that.

We've hit that ends, and I don't know uh the Olsen study that was done.

I never saw the final findings of that, and I think that's being referenced.

I don't think it's in our packet.

Um, but really trying to understand the total cost breakdown of the solutions we're looking to fund.

Um, much like was mentioned by my other council members, you know, the dredging of West End.

I know we've been talking about that since 2022 as well.

So I'm really hopeful that's gonna get completed in 26.

Um, I've been talking to the neighbors um in that area one by one by one, and some folks have had um interactions with the city recently and are up to speed, and then others maybe haven't.

And so that's kind of my question too, is um looking through all those properties too, you know, trying to understand what agreements have been made so far of where folks are, and and I talked to like a neighbor of one property that I think is our number one property on Valley that maybe is gonna get raised.

The next door neighbor, you know, was letting me know, hey, I'd be willing, you know, to to sell my home to the city.

And I was like, well, is the city aware of that?

And he's like, well, I don't know that they are.

So um I so I'd all be helpful to be able to have some time and to get clarification because I did hear from one resident who did explain it to me similar to what um council member Turk stated that they thought that purchasing this property that we'd be raising this home and that we would be um expanding the channel, and that that was gonna bring down by a certain um estimation of inches, which a lot of these houses you know were trying to add this incremental set of inches to try to save some of those houses.

And so I just don't know if what they were sharing with me was correct.

Um, you know, that's from their recall and didn't see anything in the packet um that helped me to understand that.

Um, but I mean it sounded like there so far has been support that anything the city can do in that area that starts to help to mitigate and help them.

Their concern is just like they're starting to send me more information about what's continuing to happen at each of the events, so they are trying to understand what our timeline is and what our full solution is gonna be.

And I don't feel like I can um answer their questions intelligently at this point.

So that just gives me pause about the 200,000, just not being able to explain the rest of it.

But it seems like on first plush that that is a good first step, just wanting to understand what the rest of it looks like.

Okay, yeah, sure.

We can provide a little better picture of all the things that are happening out there.

Keith, um, does Minister Jones have a question on Zoom?

She does not.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Brenner.

I've just got one question.

Um, and that's on the paying above appraised value.

Seems odd that a home that's in the floodway and has multiple uh occurrences previous uh would be getting offers above uh appraised value.

So is there a way that we can verify that?

Or I mean it seems seems a little odd that you've got a situation like this and they're someone's willing to pay above appraised value.

I can I can ask about that, yes.

So um and you you know that you all may know this, but um the flood insurance uh obviously is a requirement um when you purchase a property with a mortgage, but there are some cash buyers who are out there that um don't don't worry about that.

So yeah.

Um Ms.

Bench.

Thank you.

Um Chris, I was wondering I maybe I didn't catch this, but what you may not be able to can you disclose what the appraised value was?

The appraisal is included in the packet.

I believe it was 217 or 275.

So it was it was very close to this amount.

Okay.

Well, and I'm very curious about that whole road because the gentleman that I spoke to too, I know there's variation of those houses, but their appraisal that they'd recently just had done was 305.

And I thought that seemed much more in line too, though, because when we were having conversations about what we thought over this last couple of years those houses might take to buy outright, I was honestly very surprised that this house was as low as it was.

And so I would anticipate this would maybe be the cheapest one we would see.

I don't think any of the others on that street potentially will be that that low.

So we're gonna add that to new business at the next meeting.

And sounds like we have some good questions to address.

Thank you, Chris.

Um, I believe that brings us it does to um what will be our public hearing next week, an ordinance to adopt the 2026 water and sewer rate and impact fee study.

It's an order order to amend 51.136 monthly water rates, 51.137 monthly sewer rates, and 159.02 water and wastewater impact fees to change water and sewer rates as recommended by the cost of service study conducted by Corolla Engineers.

And we have a group here to present, and we will start off with Corey Granderson.

Yes, good evening, mayor and council.

Um my name is Corey Granerson.

I'm our utilities engineer in our utility department.

Um back in April of last year, 2025, Corolla was formally selected to be the city's consultant for a water and sewer rate and impact fees study over the past year.

Um Corolla has worked closely with city staff on several key tasks, uh such as data collection, taking a deep dive into OM cost, capital costs, master plans, financial records, and a whole lot of billing data.

They have worked on demand analyses looking at future projections of our water usage.

They've worked on an impact fee analysis uh and also proposed updates to our impact fee codes.

They have worked on revenue requirement analyses to make sure we've got enough money to stay in business and do what we do.

Uh they took a look at cost of service as well as customer classes throughout our system, and finally they have worked through several iterations of rate designs.

And so all aspects of what they did with us and the report and findings you'll see tonight are in strict accordance with the American Waterworks Association methodologies.

And our original implementation target uh for these rate changes was going to be January 1st.

But as you all know, with the very impactful uh sales tax bond issues that were voted on recently, we wanted to wait on those results because the outcome of the sewer item specifically uh was going to impact how this analysis came out.

So we waited on that.

And this uh presentation has already been seen by the water and sewer committee meeting.

They did uh vote uh recommended to bring that to the full council with a recommendation of approval.

And we've also met uh with the local impacted area mayors, so other mayors that purchase water wholesale from us or represent their own constituents who are on our systems for water and sewers.

We've already had those meetings.

And tonight we do have representatives from Corolla.

We have Isola Barnes that will be giving our primary presentation.

She's also joined by Nick Batker, um, and I think Jennifer Ivey is also online.

So we have a whole team of people that can help answer questions.

Uh but with that, I just want to thank you in advance for your attention and for your consideration of what we're going to present tonight.

So, Isola, come on up.

And I assume somebody's got the slideshow.

I want to share it.

Okay, perfect.

Okay.

Hello, good evening.

Just a second.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

There we are.

All right.

So again, my name is Isola Barnes.

I'm with Corolla Engineers, and I am the project manager for this water and sewer rates and developer impact B study.

So first, we just want to get to the bottom line of what we're presenting today.

Um, Fayetteville serves um over 100,000 residents and provides safe and reliable water and sewer services to these residents.

And so what we're recommending is a phased rate adjustment approach and updated developer impact fees.

And some things to keep in mind is one that we are coming up on a July 1st um state compliance rate deadline.

Two, that um, it has been over 15 years since the um developer impact fees were updated, and then lastly, that we will be having three asks of you at the end of this presentation.

So, what we'll cover today is cover the current situation of the water and sewer systems, talk about the solution of the challenges that these systems face, and then talk about the customer impact um of those solutions that we are recommending tonight.

And then lastly, again, our ask of you all.

Okay.

So before we dive in to the current situation, we have some items that we want you to keep in mind.

Again, Fayetteville is growing, and the infrastructure must keep up.

So as Fayetteville continues to grow, we need to keep up those infrastructure demands.

So one, we are expecting over 12,000 additional water connections over the next 10 years and over 11,000 sewer connections.

And so with that, we looked at rates.

Those rates were last calibrated in 2023.

But since 2023, there are some updated assumptions that we have included.

And then secondly, there are the impact fees, which again have not been changed since 2009.

So that updated calculation was long overdue.

So these are the ways that the water and sewer system are funded.

So first we have the bond program.

And so with the bond program, you're looking at capital infrastructure investment.

So you're looking at wastewater treatment plant upgrades, legacy infrastructure renewal, and really those capital, that capital infrastructure that will have a community-wide benefit.

And then next, we have the utility rates, and this is really the crux of the funding, right?

Because these are enterprise funds.

So this is how you fund your operations and maintenance, ongoing repair and replacement, and then really how to keep these water and sewer systems financially sustainable.

And then lastly, you have developer impact fees.

And developer impact fees, they're not the monthly rates, but those they are those one-time fees that are paid for by developers, and they are only to cover growth or expansion related capital.

So we cannot use revenue from developer impact fees to pay for operations.

It is only or repair and replacement for that matter, it's only growth-related infrastructure.

So again, those fees haven't been updated since 2009, and then we are required by state compliance to have the water rates adjusted by July 1.

So now we want to talk about the situation.

So where we are today, where we're headed, and what happens if we don't act.

So if everyone turns on their tap at the exact same time, everyone expects safe, clean drinking water.

So protecting the environment, meeting those federal standards, and then we have pipe and repair replacement, so maintaining hundreds of miles of aging underground infrastructure, and then pump stations and emergency response.

So keeping the system pressurized and ready for any event, and if something unexpected happens, being able to repair that in the quickest way possible.

So rates fund all of this.

And when rates don't keep up with these costs, then the water and sewer system are absorbing those costs.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.

So for water, and this is just water, so not sewer and water and sewer combined.

This is the cost of doing nothing.

So without any rate adjustments, water reserves not only fall below the required minimum within one year, it starts going negative within two years.

So we risk um, we have compliance risks, so really those state financial reserve requirements.

We have the financing impact, so falling below that $7 million required minimum restricts access to favorable bond financing, and then your vulnerable depleted reserves limit the city's ability to respond to infrastructure failures, and again, those emergency situations that sometimes come up.

And for water, the single largest cost is purchase water.

So you purchase treated water from Beaver Water District, and during the last study, um, it was assumed that those costs will go up by 3%.

And shortly after that study, we saw double digit increases.

And so right now for fiscal year 26, that um purchase water costs is about $18.4 million.

So that is over 50% of total water expenses is that beaver um water district cost, and so we um estimate that is going to go up about 11% per year through 2030, and that is based on rates that Beaver Water District provided the city.

And then starting in 2031, that increase goes up to 5% annually.

So quite a bit of a jump from the assumed 3% that we thought earlier.

So what's the solution?

So what we're recommending and how we are aiming to keep that fair.

So first we're gonna talk about development impact fees.

So again, growth pays for growth, and that is saying if any infrastructure is required to pay for growth, then that should be included in that developer impact fee.

So that impact fee does not include any repair and replacement of equipment or of infrastructure that is used to serve existing customers.

So those last fees were updated in 2009, which you've heard probably three or four times now, but also in 2009, only one third of the calculated fee was implemented.

So for 15 plus years, developers have not been charged that full impact fee that was calculated in 2009.

And since then, costs have grown significantly, um, which is not a surprise.

So construction costs, land values, and infrastructure needs have all increased substantially.

And what we did with this calculation, we took a conservative approach and we only base the fee on a 10-year planning window.

So we didn't look at a master plan and go out 20, 30 years.

We just looked at the next 10 years.

Um we are not asking for a dollar more than what growth actually requires.

And so that combined recommended impact fee is $5,670 versus the current fee of $1,843, and that's the combined water and sewer impact fee.

And how do those impact fees compare to your neighbors?

So right now you'll see that your current fee, you are the lowest combined impact fee here up at the top of the $1,843, and the recommended fee, you are still in line with your neighbors, your middle of the pack, and you're still the lowest of the other three largest cities with that $5,670.

And this slide is slightly outdated because now Tawny Town's impact fee is at the top, so they just increase their impact fees, their water is $4,640, and their sewer is um over $3,400, bringing their total to $8,128.

So in our next slide next week, that will be down at the bottom.

So you're still well within the middle of the pack of your neighbors, and this is just a little bit more of a breakdown of those impact fees.

So you'll see for um single family, you have the recommended fee for water of 2,672, and multifamily is slightly lower, and that's because multifamily per unit uses a little bit less than single family, and then you have your non residential meter charge of 2,672 for a three-quarter inch meter.

We are recommending that single family and multifamily be charged per unit, and that your non-residential development is charged per meter size.

And if at the end of the presentation, you want to see the full impact fee schedule, we have it here for you.

And then you have your sewer that's going up about 244% at $2,998 for a single family unit, and that brings that total to $5,670.

Okay, let's talk rates.

So here is the process we use to come up with our recommendations for rates.

It's a three-step process.

First, we um did and completed a financial analysis.

So this looks at how much revenue is required to cover all of your operations, all of your capital, um, any debt service that may be needed.

And so we look at how much revenue is needed over the next five years, and then next we say, okay, who's driving these costs?

So we allocated costs to customer classes based on their actual demand on the system.

And then lastly, rate design builds off of that, and it says how do we recover costs fairly?

And how do we also try to meet the city's um objectives, right?

And so we've structured rates to recover these costs through a combination of fixed charges and usage base tiers, which you had before, and um, this is um really a conservation rate structure, so this is rewards conservation.

So we'll start with water.

Water, we have a phased correction first, and then those rates stabilize.

So what we're proposing is a 14% revenue increase in July of 2026.

And I say revenue increase because in July, some customer classes will see rates that are lower than the 14%.

Some will see some that are higher.

So we have that 14% revenue increase, and then in 2027 and 2028, everyone will see a 16% increase in rates for those two years, and then after that, that correction is finished, and then we have just those inflationary increases of three percent a year in 2029 and 2030.

So for sewer, a lot less eventful, three percent annual rate adjustments, which is currently in your ordinance, those are sufficient to cover operations and capital expenditures, um, largely in part to the recently passed sales tax um bond.

These looked very different if that didn't happen, but we are seeing just that 3% status quo, um $5 million minimum reserve is maintained, and then we have $14.7 million dollars of projected reserves by 2030, and again, since the water and sewer system, so the utility fund, it is an enterprise fund, so every dollar goes back into that system.

So every dollar that the rates um generate goes into operations and maintenance, so wastewater treatment, testing, staffing, chemicals, equipment, pump stations, and um addressing those emergencies that come up, pipe and pear replacement, so repairing those aging mains, um service lines and distribution infrastructure, and then also meeting those required financial reserves that we talked about, so maintaining state-mandated cash reserves and any bond covenant requirements that you may have.

So, what's the impact on customers?

So, this is for that mid-year July 1, 2026 adjustment for residential customers in Fayetteville.

For those customers that use 2,000 gallons or below, they are not going to see an increase mid-year.

And then that second tier, so the 2,000 to 15,000 gallons per month usage, they will see a zero to 6% increase starting July 1.

So that mid-year increase.

And then for the users that are we consider high use, so over 15,000 gallons, it varies because you have that volumetric charge.

And so the more they use, the more they're charged.

And so here again for those inside city limit households, 2,000 gallons.

You'll see that there's no increase July 2026.

And then by 2030, it goes up roughly about 10 to 49.88 cents.

And then by 2030, that goes up to about 82.

And then you have your higher use households.

So 15,000 gallons, that goes up about in July 2026.

So this is inside city.

So then we have the outside city impact.

And for outside city, their rates are higher than inside city households.

Their rates are 1.5 times that of inside city rates.

And so you'll see that reflected here.

So for that low household usage, instead of having a zero dollar increase, they have about a $4 less than $5 increase.

And then for an average household of 4,000 gallons, you'll see that that's less than a nine dollar excuse me increase.

And then the higher usage, their bill goes from about 170 to 190.

And then we also did a comparison of an average bill for inside city customer.

Compare those to Bentonville, Rogers, and Springdale, and you will see that the purple line is the current bill under the current rates.

And then that green line is the recommended rates.

And you'll see that Fayetteville will still be aligned and within range of your neighbors.

And I also would like to point out that everyone is subject to updating their rates every five years.

And so while this remains true today, everyone's rates can change when they decide to do their rate studies.

So our ask.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Walker.

I'm the deputy CFO.

It's good to see you.

And first, I just want to say thank you to the council for hanging in there with us through a lot of data and to the members of the public who may be here or watching later on.

These are decisions that affect household budgets.

And it's really important to our team that we walk through them clearly.

I also want to recognize the team behind the work, our finance department and utilities department both worked really hard for a long time with the consultants and together with all of their expertise to put all of this information together, and then the communications team helped us clarify that message so that people can understand what is coming and have enough time to adjust.

So just quickly to recap where we are.

We then followed up, you know, I'm sorry.

We covered outside city rates in this presentation as well.

And so we met with area mayors to make sure that they understood what was being proposed.

And we did that on April 16th.

And then tonight is our first full city council presentation.

We will be back on May 5th for consideration for the three ordinances that establish these rates and impact fees.

So I think Islam mentioned earlier that this timeline is driven by that July 1st deadline to meet the state requirements.

And we also want to make sure that we give our customers and the regional customers, so outside the city, enough time to react to that July 1st deadline as well for their for their customers.

So at the end of the day, this comes down to three actions.

I know we've said this several times.

And together, those are the package of steps that are going to keep this utility financially sound.

They are going to ensure that growth pays for growth and protect the customers who are relying on the system every day.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much, Jennifer.

Okay, let's start with you, Miss Moore.

Thank you.

And I don't know who this will be directed to, so I'll just put it out there, and whoever it goes to.

I know this has taken a lot of work from so many folks that have been involved, and there's been a lot of moving parts.

Obviously, there's a lot of flux, right?

That things, especially cities might make movements.

In the assumption area, and if I got any of this wrong, please correct me.

Okay.

That's correct.

Okay.

So I did the math, and I'm thinking that that's an estimation of 880 to 1,000 units or households.

Would that be in the ballpark potentially?

Sure.

Okay, because I'm thinking we have 44,000 households.

Okay, I'm NATK and mathing right now.

Sorry, I'm trying to back into some of these numbers.

Thank you.

Follow follow my logic, and then we can tear it apart.

Um, one of the things that we're hearing in our region, because we don't operate in a vacuum in the city of and what's happening in the region has a lot of pressure on what happens here in the city of Fayette.

And I think this is where we had some struggles from our last impact study in 23.

I'm concerned whether or not those assumptions are aggressive enough.

Um because we know that other water systems in the region are really struggling.

And my concern is is there any conversation being had that there's already movement, and that assumption might potentially be a little lower than what might come.

And by that I mean today, I think we get about 11 folks of the 33 coming that we um are uh saying are coming to the city of Fable today.

If others in the region can't absorb those folks because of infrastructure um constraints, I'm wondering in some of the initial kind of conversations I'm hearing is that that number could go into the 20s coming to the city of Fayetteville, so that number could double coming into the city of Fayetteville.

I think you could quickly logically say that means additional units to the city.

I think you could quickly logically say that means additional units to the city and so that's where I know uh I think we had about a thousand units this last year and so I'm just kind of curious you know what happens if that number goes to two thousand with the assumptions um and I have not verified any of these numbers this has only been stated to me that there's potentially thousands of units in other cities that maybe while built may not be able to tap into the infrastructure um we do know that like the city of Bentonville you know has really struggled to be able to add on households and so as folks are still coming to the area I'm just wondering did we have any conversation since this kind of has been evolving of the study over time with some of the latest pressures we've known is that a consideration we need to think about as we're going to adopt these rates so I think that um so one if we doubled I guess just math wise if we doubled the amount of um new units that we're going to serve with the same amount of um capital it would essentially bring that fee down maybe but would you need more capital is that's what I think is the question and I think and I don't want to put and if I'm putting you on the spot this could be for next Tuesday.

It's it's good but um I think there are master plans coming right to that will so we're basing this off of what we know now but I know in the um in the near future I think there are plans for water and sewer master plans which then you'd update the fee and that's really what's important about not waiting 15 years is that you update it when some something like significant like that like growth is doubling and you may need more infrastructure so I think that's a very valid reason to revisit impact bees but this is just based on what we have today.

Okay.

Thank thank you for walking me through on that um and then uh my other uh question was um we on the wholesale customers I think um I voiced this and I don't know I'm not on water and sewer so I'm not sure what all the different conversations have been um but I think over time we've talked about whether or not the true all in cost have been in our wholesale number and I notice whenever we do the increases they're at the exact same intervals is what our in-city folks are doing as well.

And so I just didn't know if there were any additional considerations.

I did notice on the amount of volume that it looked like that we were going to service it was about two percent I think was what I was saying like for one of the outside so I know we set a limit of overall capacity um and it sounds like that seems quite conservative.

I think it's trying to maybe prevent just encouraging sprawl to happen to think to the our neighbors outside of us that then we're supporting with our infrastructure but I just don't know was there any conversations about our starting point was already maybe subdued a bit to then take them at those increments that are the same as every other customer that makes sense are you tracking I don't you haven't been in some of those conversations so I apologize.

It may not be for you it may for be for one of our staff I don't know it might be or it may be a water and sewer council member Corey's coming up to address that I think that does that does play into the when we talk about can you speak into the microphone please when we talk about the July first increases especially for water um they're 14% from a revenue bottom line perspective but some of the wholesale customers are seeing a different rate I don't remember what it is off the top of my head but we're trying to make sure that we do that cost of service reallocation in July this this first increase.

So we're trying to account for that I guess is what I'm saying.

And that was also a big in our last rate study it they had significant increases too so it's definitely was considered and I might be struggling to convey so I'll just kind of reframe it offline and send it to you separately.

Sure.

Okay.

And then also too with wholesale versus a retail outside city or even inside city for that um matter they don't share in all of the same types of costs because they have their own distribution system and so we can't include those types of costs in their rate we have to extract that out.

Yeah thank you you're welcome.

Okay Mr Stafford Thank you mayor I have three questions um the first one I think is from a fellow council members uh and I'm not quite 60 but I feel like I'm having a senior moment um it didn't we I I I just remember in 2024 didn't we address the impact fees in in we didn't we just did a rate did we just a rate study or uh okay so we we had the discussion but we we didn't actually act on it.

Did we just a rate study or a okay?

So we we had the discussion, but we we didn't actually act on it.

Okay.

It was only the rate study, Bob.

Okay, my bad.

My bad.

Uh the second question is is for Corey, I think.

Um where do you go?

There he is.

Yeah.

Corey, if you could stay up here, please.

That'd be helpful to answer questions.

Corey, how much how much water do we lose between beaver and then and my kitchen tap?

Like do we know that number?

Like Tim's been looking at it more recently than I 42% is the hand signal I'm getting.

So 42% just goes into the ether.

We have 42% of the water we pay for from the beaver watershed district that just goes back into the ground somewhere.

Uh that'd be an oversimplification of it, right?

Some of it is leaks, yes.

Uh some of it is unaccounted usage, theft, billing errors.

There's a whole slew of places and reasons that can go.

But certainly we acknowledge that leaks are very important, and that's something we've been having court press on.

Yeah, working to try to fix, but that's it.

That's quite a significant number.

And then and then my last question, I don't know who it's for, maybe Steven, maybe somebody else.

I'm I was never math was never my strong suit.

I'll admit that ahead.

But when I look at this number, and I was just taking the the middle number, the middle tier, and uh 6459 is what you know, say the average use is today, the cost of that use, and we're looking at uh a 14 percent increase and a three percent increase in sewer, and then the next year uh a 16 percent increase, three three in sewer.

So when I do the math, my numbers came up way higher than what I'm seeing here, and that could be a math error.

Um my side, but the like I come up with by 3030, that person is paying 6459 is now paying 1134.

But again, math is not my strong suit, and there might be part of the equation I'm missing.

You're good.

It is because that 14% is not 14% across the board.

So that like the so 14% is spread out differently over different customer classes.

So I just brought up um the rate schedule.

So you'll see that for the first two thousand gallons, the rate's not changing at all.

And so um that's that cost of service piece that happens for that 14%, and so and then for the second tier, it goes up.

I don't know what that percent is, but it goes up 46 cents um for the second tier.

And so you'll see that for residential, single family residential, the increase isn't going up by 14 percent.

That first iteration, so that July 1 2027, every rate aspect, every component will go up that 16%.

But regardless, we've been careful to incentivize water conservation, so you're really paying for what you use, and the people that use the most have the are paying more.

I might reach out for more clarification on the on the math, just because again, not my strong suit.

Um, but uh I could do that offline and and okay over the next week or so.

Okay, uh Minister Jones has a question.

Oh, she put her hand down.

Keith?

No, she has her oh, okay, got it.

Your light was off.

Okay, Minister Jones, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

I guess I had a question because my first meeting as a city council member a year ago was with the beaver water district, and the information she shared is that the anticipation was originally thought to be a three percent increase, and now we're looking at 175% increase.

When that change, I guess my question was how is that communicated to the city and who is I'm working with beaver water district when something that astronomical changes, so we are not informed to a point that we need to be making the decision by July 1st.

Certainly I can speak to that.

Uh Beaver Water District's uh CEO uh Lane Crider did come and give a presentation.

I believe was that to the full council or just the it was to the full committee.

And so the presentation he gave explained some of the the large capital expenses that resulted in those rate increases, and that was really what stirred us to start this next rate study were those increases.

So although there is a pending deadline in July, we have known about these beaver rate increases long enough to initiate this kind of year-long process.

Minister Jones, was that I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.

I apologize.

Okay.

It did.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Um Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I just want to have a footnote added on all your reports and slides for the future that had the city council in 2001 and 11 had implemented the impact fee increases that they should have, you would be looking at 200 or less increase in those impact fees charged to a single family residents.

Because if it was 1800, you know, now you're looking at you know 5400, and you're only proposing 5600.

And so that's a part of the story that my fellow city council members want to make sure that gets told is that when you defer the the day of reckoning eventually comes.

And so it's important that we periodically update these fees and rates, which is why the state passed legislation to obligate every water provider to do those five-year rate studies.

So I want to commend our chairperson, Councilmember Turk, and staff for pursuing this as quickly as you did.

I've lost sleep when we got the letter, the certified letter from Beaver informing us within six months of completing our own water rate study that in fact their rates were going to change radically.

And they're not the bad guys.

Beaver is creating a third water purification plant and pump station, and our own uh residents are helping to fund a $94 million 48-inch third water line from that brand spanking new beaver pump station to Fayetteville residents to maintain our service.

So their investment is also an investment in us, and they need us to be sure that they remain capable of delivering that water so that we're responsible for our own caregiving.

And so I want to commend everyone involved.

This particular rate study was so much more comprehendable.

So much more straightforward, and I cannot thank you enough for the labor that went into that because it makes so much sense.

Um, especially for those of us who can do math.

So thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm very, very proud of the team on um how hard they worked and our consultants as well to make this digestible and to explain it and lay it out.

I think they did a fantastic job.

Uh Councilmember Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Well, um, Councilmember Whitaker pretty much stole on my thumb thunder and said all this all this wonderful work that has been done.

So thank you all.

Uh it is so much easier to read to understand.

Um and I would um suggest to my other council members, especially the ones that have some outstanding questions, read the rate study.

It's not nearly as laborious as the one that we had a couple of years ago.

It's much more straightforward, and then you can see all the different classes of of service and and understand, I think maybe a little bit better why um the rates vary depend uh depending on the class of service.

It's in our packet.

I just wanted to also make sure that it was there, but it is there.

Um other thing.

Um, you know, as Councilmember Weedaker said, you know, we're having to help support that expansion of Beaver Water District for all these new people that are coming in.

Most of our water rate increases is are based on the increase that beaver water is charging us.

And I know that um Corey and Tim and the whole team have made significant inroads in reducing the amount of water that is leaking from our pipes.

So, you know, um you might want to also discuss that.

Um I know it's a it's a high number, but it's getting lower, and um we're not the only city that are having these same challenges with uh infiltration.

Uh other cities are too.

It's unfortunate that we're all having this problem, but we are, and I really think that the water department is doing a great job in trying to address that and and fix those um those leaky pipes that we have going on.

So thanks for all the hard work, everybody.

Thank you, Councilmember Turk.

Ms.

Moore.

Yeah, I just had one, you know, that came uh by a lot of residents as we kind of came out of the bond, you know, that we kind of recognize that our rates didn't keep pace with us being able to maintain our system, and so we are having to go to voters.

I got a lot of feedback saying, you know, hey, it'd be really nice to not have the city have to come back to us again and kind of have to do this kind of cleanup.

And so um I don't want to assume I want to go ahead and ask with knowing that our master study uh our master plan is coming forward of the system, and I believe I got to see some really smart information given to us that there are some huge investments that are coming at us for mid and mid- and long-term kind of plans that we're gonna have to invest in.

Um assumptions and did this study.

Go ahead and look at some of those initial findings we were seeing and some of that information to take some of those kind of capital improvements um into account for those rates, so that we anticipate in the next you know, 10, you know, 10, 5, 10, 15, 20 years, not having to do an outside bond project as well to supplement.

Well, that's a complicated question.

There's there's essentially always going to be uh a wagon wheel of of master plans that need to be occurring in a utility of our size.

So we need to be looking at both of our major facilities, our two wastewater treatment plants, which of course the master plan recently at the Nolan plant precipitated the large bond issue project that you're referencing.

You also need to have master plans related to your drinking water distribution system, uh, which the last one of those we did was in 2017.

So that is overdue.

But we're building a very large transmission main, and you don't want to do a master plan until that's online.

You also need sewer collection system master planning, which is actively going on right now.

We're recording these rain events and everything, uh, even tonight.

And so as those master plans are are constantly going through their cycle, you know, you probably need to best practice would be to touch and update those each five years.

Uh it is an aging, growing it's it's growing with new stuff, it's aging with old stuff, and so I don't want to make promises that there's a way to set it and forget it.

I I think uh 10 years ago I probably would have thought there was a way to set it and forget it.

Um, and there's just not.

It's it's the more I learn about it, the more complicated it gets.

As I like to say, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.

And uh that being said, I think what we've put together here, we all feel very comfortable standing behind us behind it, that it's going to set us up very well uh for the next five years.

And then we just as needs arise.

We have a Tim and I have certainly taken the posture in the past few years of don't wait on something to be a problem, right?

Because a lot of water and sewer issues, nobody knows about them.

Uh we just deal with it, keep the pipes working.

Uh, but as soon as we see an issue with be it water loss or financial needs, we're taking those straight to our financial team, straight to the mayor.

We want to have that out there in the open so that we don't have as many surprises.

So, yes, are we course correcting now?

I think so.

Uh hopefully, if the conversation is open and we're transparent, then in the future the course correcting isn't so unexpected.

I no, I appreciate that explanation, but it feels like I kind of heard in there a little bit.

That's maybe why it's gonna be important to really look at a rate study on a regular interval as well, because that will take some of that into account to then try to build that rate over time.

Exactly.

So do you want to address that too, Keith?

I know you've been waiting for that.

Yeah, and I would say that's been a huge part of our conversations over the last 16, 18 months is how we fund these large expenditures.

When you look at the 48-inch water line we have, our 36-inch water line that we're working on.

Yes, we have a master plan on our Nolan plant that we're funding through the bond, but then we know that there's gonna be pending work on our west side treatment plan.

So I think it was very strategic for us to look at the bond uh to be able to give an injection and funding for that, because if not, our ratepayers would be significantly impacted compared to what they are today, and I think that we'll continue to use that um kind of strategically trying to determine which is the best way to fund that with the least amount of impact on our ratepayers.

Okay, I think that's it.

Thank you all so very much.

Thank you.

That brings us to what will be section C of the agenda, unfinished business.

We have one item of unfinished business, and it is the uh 516 North Fallon Avenue sewer claim sewer damage claim.

And I believe Tim is going to request that we push that one more week so that we get more finalized information back from the adjuster.

Is that correct, Tim?

That's correct, Mayor.

So the adjuster is still working on the numbers.

Uh we've we've got to get some more data from the claimant.

We've got to present what we find to the claimant, and we haven't been able to do any of that yet.

So we we did talk last week about maybe we could push it off, you know, to the to the May 5th meeting.

It's still a walk on item anyway that you look at it, so there's a possibility.

But I would say my preference is probably going to be hold it until the till the May 19th.

Got it.

But we're working as fast as we can, correct?

Yes.

And the claimant is aware that we need more time.

He's not expecting that we're here that he's here next week, right?

Well, we will inform them of that this week.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

That brings us to new business.

The first item of new business, D1, an ordinance to approve vacation 26-2 for property located at 600 West Meadow Street in Ward 2 to vacate 0.06 acres of general utility easement.

So uh Mr.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh staff is recommending in favor of this utility easement request.

Uh this is in downtown Fayetteville at the westernmost end of Meadow.

Uh for those who have not been aware of seeing the developments in that area, they include uh a number of uh sewer capacity uh expansions that you can find on the north side of this property uh closer to spring, uh, but also the development of a large multifamily building, uh a purpose-built student housing project south of this specific easement.

Uh this request is to vacate 0.06 acres of an easement to accommodate uh some of that infrastructure work.

Uh and uh staff again is recommending in favor of the request, and we've received consent from all the associated uh franchise utilities, and I can take any questions that the council might have on this one.

Do we have any questions from Mr.

Kurth?

Okay.

Seeing none, um looks like Jonathan, it looks like you have the next several items.

Is that I do, Vice Mayor?

Would you like to introduce them or would you like me to roll through them?

So we have a vacation.

Our next item is vacation 2026-001 West Kwood Lane.

Thank you.

This is a right-away vacation request that both staff and the planning commission are supporting.

Uh, it is uh towards Southwest Fayetteville, but still on this side of Interstate 49.

Uh specifically, it's on the east side of Kwood, uh, which is a short segment of East West Street just north of MLK, um, north of uh about where Brahms is located, if you're familiar with that location.

Uh when that area was platted in the 1960s, a portion of right-away was dedicated for the potential to develop out a partial cul-de-sac uh if if a connection was never made in the intervening 60 plus years, um it was identified, it was determined that there's not been a need for that, and that cul de sac right away was never utilized.

Uh as a result, the adjoining property owner has asked to vacate this portion of right-of-way, which totals uh 0.5 acres.

Uh this was reviewed uh as always with right-away request by our recycling and trash and transportation groups, so they are aware that this will be vacated and uh is not found to be impactful to their services.

So again, staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of this item.

And I can uh go to any more detail if council has any questions.

Anyone have any questions for Jonathan?

Okay, seeing none.

Our next item is um rezone 2026 009 West Palmer Place.

Jonathan.

Thank you.

This is not too far northeast of the right-of-way request we were just looking at.

That's a little bit closer to the University of Arkansas campus, uh, between Graham Avenue and Hartman to the east and west, and between center and middleship to the north and south, respectively.

Uh those on the council that were uh a part of this body in 2022 may recall there was a rezoning request uh on the property to the west uh at that time.

Uh that was ultimately denied by city council.

Uh that request was to rezone from RSF4 to RIU.

Uh what's before the council tonight, or excuse me, next Tuesday is to rezone uh this piece of property which is just east of the 2022 request from RSF4 to RSF 8.

Uh staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of this request, and to date we've not received uh any public comment other than a neighbor that did have uh some concerns that expressed about runoff uh given that this property is uphill to the west of of where they live.

And I can answer questions if the council has any.

Uh council member Turk, you have your light on.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um could you include in the packet that this is also in that stormwater area that's been identified by the city?

So I think that's really kind of important.

And then I think it would be helpful for everybody to if we wanted to take a tour.

So maybe on Monday, uh, maybe there could be an opportunity provided for uh for a tour of this location.

I think on the surface it looks pretty um innocuous, but I I think it would be helpful to see some of the issues that they're uh facing right now currently and also the slope of that.

Um I've had many neighbors reach out about the concern about this location and rezoning.

Certainly, if there's interest general interest from the council, we can uh get that scheduled.

Otherwise, uh we can uh you all have the opportunity to visit the property individually as well.

So I don't know if the council has any input on whether they would like to do it as a formal tour or visit in the individually.

I'm okay to just visit it on my own.

I'm wondering about the next one if we might potentially want to tour.

So if you wanted to schedule it on the same day, potentially, I'm thinking, and then those that want to be at that tour could do that one.

And I have a feeling the garland property, I know I've gotten a lot of feedback about those on Monday.

So Jonathan, does that work for you?

Yes, we can uh I'll talk about it more coherently after this next item if it sounds like we're doing a tour on that one as well.

Okay.

So that brings me to the next item.

An ordinance you were on D4, correct?

We had just finished talking about D3, yes.

Okay.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-8 for approximately 2.1 acres located at 1705 North Garland and Ward 2 from RSF4 residential, single family, four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh this request is uh being supported by staff.

Um since it is before you on appeal, uh hopefully it's clear that the planning commission uh denied it.

Uh there was a vote of two to six at their March 23rd meeting to turn down this request.

Uh where it is located specifically is the former tricycle farms location, uh, which is due west of Sycamore and Garland.

If you're familiar with uh where that or intersection is located, uh the property includes uh just over two acres of land that is currently zoned RSF4 residential single family four units breaker, and the applicant is proposing to rezone it to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh the other notable uh possibly orienting or way to orient themselves to this council.

Uh if you've been on the midtown trail, this is the section that runs due west of that intersection as well that goes uh uh immediately south of this property uh in the area.

Uh but I believe I heard uh interest in scheduling a tour potentially on Monday for this.

Um if the council is amenable, I think we can plan on scheduling that for about three o'clock to afford time to go to the Palmer property, um, spend 30 to 45 minutes there, transition to the uh the Garland property and spend 30 to 45 minutes there.

Uh if that is generally if the council is generally amenable to that, I'll work on scheduling that with both of the applicants.

That that would that would be great, Jonathan.

And they're not that far away from each other.

So um at least that's a convenience, somewhat of a convenience.

And I didn't mean to gloss over as well.

If the council has any questions on this one, please let me know.

I I did want to ask one question because this is the tricycle farm's current location.

Is that correct?

They they own it.

Correct.

I do not believe they're operating there currently.

Right, correct.

Um, one of the things whenever the trail was being developed, I thought that because that property existed kind of in its uniqueness there, kind of nestled in the community, that there was some thought that was taken with the trail and potentially potentially like with like fencing and how um the trail interacted with that property.

And so it would just be helpful to understand with RIU with that trail and the way it interacts with the property, what kind of impacts might occur, and if we would have had different considerations for the trail if we were going to change it to this.

I know staff is in favor and then planning's not, so it's confusing me a little bit on that.

I'm gonna go back and watch exactly what the deliberations were.

But okay, I don't know offhand what the what went into the fence design along that corridor.

I do know that the city tries to work with any property owners that we impact with our trail projects to install fencing to their preference.

Oftentimes it's privacy fencing.

If you've been on this section, you do know it's more of a a um transparent hog wire fencing.

It's not a privacy woodboard fence.

Uh but I'll see if I can find details on that and the rationale behind that.

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

Uh Mr.

Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan, do you um have in your notes or know offhand what the planning commission vote was?

It was two to six.

I believe it was Commissioners Caston and Cabe were the two voting in favor of the resources.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh and um it seemed like the other uh planning commission members were suggesting that maybe this is better for a uh PCD.

Is that correct?

That is uh a PCD or under the RSF4 zoning district, there's an opportunity to request a conditional use permit for cluster housing, which would afford the opportunity to build at a higher density, but uh a cap on the size of the units that can be on there.

Uh so yes, that's correct.

That was a piece of the planning commission's conversation given the RIU zoning district does not have a specified density limitation.

It's it's limited based on other requirements like stormwater parking, tree preservation, and things of that nature.

Is that a decision that would have to be made by the planning commission, or would could the city council say we want to like how does that work, or would it have to come from the applicant?

I that could go a few ways.

Uh I think if the council turns down the appeal, meaning denying this request, I think that could represent the council's preference to also see different zoning entitlement.

I think it would be beneficial for the council to clarify that if that is what the the direction you're voting why that would be the case.

Um conversely, the applicant could uh amend the request from RIU to a PCD.

That would be very unusual, and I don't believe that we've seen somebody do that at the council level because council frankly benefits from the planning commission and staff's input and a PCD is much more technical and can benefit from a review.

Um then the other avenue is of course if if this zoning is not approved and the applicant chooses not to bring back a PCD, they can go that conditional use permit route, which is uh reviewed just by the planning commission typically.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith.

Minister Jones has a question.

Minister Jones.

Um I think um Councilmember Stafford asked the same exact question.

I was trying to get an answer to.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Jonathan, I just want to clarify one thing because I think there was a change in policy in terms of the trail.

The shy, right?

Width from the trail.

So even though the trail is already built, um they're coming up here here for a rezoning.

It's it's five feet now and not three feet as it was previously.

Is that accurate?

That is, and and for the rest of the council's benefit, we have several engineering specifications that we have adopted by policy or whether through our master or our minimum street standards, uh, and those dictate how far structures need to be from public infrastructure like streets, trails, and things of that nature.

And that was recently updated from three to five feet in response to some best practices as it relates to trail usage and allowing cyclists and other users to be able to be on the edge of a trail without being impacted by a structure that's right up against the back of it.

Okay.

Jonathan, are you referring to a fence?

A fence would be uh that's a good question.

Um I believe it typically is for immovable structures like walls and whatnot.

If I may lean on our city engineer if he's listening to the conversation, Mr.

Bland, do you happen to have an answer whether we uh that standard is applied to fencing as well as walls and structures.

That may be something that we need to answer at the meeting, Minister J.

Oh, here he comes.

Thank you.

Yes, uh I can verify this at the meeting, but uh, I do believe it applies to any uh vertical phase higher than 32 inches is a circle with that.

I'm having a hard time hearing you said higher than 32 inches?

Yes, for for the for the trail section, anything taller than 32 inches, any vertical face, we want to have that set back.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we will then move on to our um final item, which is not our final item, but our final item of new business, which is a resolution to express gratitude for academic projects to explore and provide considerations for crisis response systems.

Councilmember Moore, I believe this is your item.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um I'll I'll let the members come up while I make my remarks.

Um, but I want to say um thank you.

You know, we talk a lot about you know collaborating with university.

I know that happens with departments and city staff, and so it doesn't always happen with council, but I was so lucky to get approached by these PhD policy students at the University of Arkansas for this semester um who had um the ask about you know what kind of uh things might be being looked at the city.

Um you know I shared that we had the CIT team and that you know we'd love to explore, you know, what else is out there, and so uh they use their academic study this semester and present on just other crisis responses that exist um just to create you know that awareness um and really just getting some considerations as we look at things in our city and we grow and look at infrastructure.

Um they just wanted um to add uh this this perspective and this flavor.

I do want to thank them um individually.

I do want to thank them individually, and they're listed um in the memo, but uh Dola Flake, Erica Enix, Travis Wagger, Larissa Roca are all here, and I think their professor might still be here too.

So I want to thank thank her advisement as well.

So in the partnership from the university.

I'll turn it over to them.

They'll have a 15-minute presentation, they've got five minutes for QA.

They know that we sit here a long time, so they're gonna try to be as brief as possible, and they've got a one-pager.

I appreciate it.

Yes, thank you, Sarah.

And thank you to the council members and to the mayor for taking a time and giving attention to our presentation.

Um, as our capstone project, we get to apply some of the skills that we've learned to invest in community that we um educate ourselves in.

So uh the reason that we want to be here today and talk about a crisis response opportunities in Fayetteville is to shift away from punitive outcomes and really embrace um access to care when it's related to mental health.

And so, what we know is that there are alternatives to traditional policing when it comes to mental health response that improves outcomes for both community and those who they serve, that um is more compassionate and also fiscally more responsible.

So, we'll talk about some of that today by doing so, and we will do so by comparing some different models that are considered very good models in other communities, and again, these are just suggestions and um to really continue conversations on how to improve our mental health system and not always recruit create the will but identify ways that other communities are doing things that could be applied here.

So the national problem.

Next slide, please.

So up to 15% of police patrol calls involve mental health crisis, yet many officers lack behavioral health training that would equip them well to respond to that.

So that means up to 15% of calls could be diverted from police patrol into other alternative solutions.

Umicers may miss mental health illness, signs of mental health illness resulted in arrest instead of psychiatric care.

So, with the limited training that a patrol officer will have, they may not be equipped to recognize the need or the have the um information on how to access the care rather than um treating crisis as they may treat crime as well.

Um people with mental illness are 16 times more likely to be killed during police encounters and open overrepresented in our prison and jail systems, and so there this is a life or death issue that we're talking about, and it is also something that has significant cost as we have mental health people dealing with mental health incorporated into that system as well.

Um, traditional law enforcement response has been criticized for escalation risk, limited training, and fatal outcomes.

Often we put so much demand on our officers to be a patrol officer as well as step into that role of mental health professional or an understanding how to deal with mental health, and it can end with escalation that, as we know, um results in death of people with mental health issues more often, up to 16 times more often.

So nationally, this is an issue.

This is not something that we're only dealing with in Fayetteville.

However, in Fayetteville, we are also seeing a rise in mental health crisis calls over the past decade.

Um, COVID-19 really exacerbated this and gave us evidence of the need to address mental health more directly.

Um Fayetteville did respond to that, and a program CERT was shown has shown early success, improved outcomes, officer buy-in, reduced patrol workload, and positive community reception.

However, a more comprehensive system is needed.

Though CERT has these great early successes, um there are some gaps that we've identified that we'll talk about today.

Um, some of those include limited hours of operation and low community awareness, and then there are just some systemic barriers outside of the program itself that we've identified as well.

So just to tell you a little bit more.

Next slide, thank you.

To tell you a little bit more about CERT, the crisis intervention response team.

Next, these are just some pictures, some images of that team.

Um next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so what is CERT?

CERT is a co-response program that pairs mental health professionals with police officers to respond to patrol calls.

Launched in 2021 in partnership with the University of Arkansas.

The university has been able to provide support such as research support, intellectual insights, and also just practical guidance as development of the program has moved forward.

Did begin with grant funding, a matching program that now is sustained under the general budget.

So that acceptance into the budget is really because we've seen a lot of success by investing in alternatives to mental health response.

Some of the goals of the program include decriminalizing vulnerable populations, connecting victims to support, building community trust, and data-driven evaluation.

Now we've had some successes, as I mentioned, and we've got some research done primarily at the University of Arkansas.

That gives us hope for what it can look like when we continue with this type of investment.

So CERT did not begin with the most acceptance from officers.

However, over time, the buy-in really began to build.

So increased officer engagement with the program shows that officers are using case management solutions and that alternative policing method when it's appropriate.

We've seen that investing in a CERT has also reduced the workload on officers and other city workers.

We've seen a reduction in those frequent people that are repeatedly engaged and experiencing mental illness.

We've seen those being those people require less engagement and reduced calls in specific areas such as intoxicated persons, welfare concerns, and suicide threat.

Specifically with suicide threat, we saw differences between day and night, which made it very clear that there were there were better outcomes and different engagement when CERT was available versus when it wasn't.

Again, because it has limited hours.

Participants also of the program reported feeling safer, more supported, and more willing to seek help.

So we're seeing better relationship between patrol, law enforcement, and the communities that we serve.

I do want to also mention there were some officers who reported higher satisfaction in the job, having the support that CERT provides, and also feeling like being able to appropriately address these mental health issues and direct people into access to care was very satisfying for them as well.

However, there were some challenges identified, such as limited program availability.

Though it is still limited, we have seen an increase over time.

It started with one student social worker and working with law enforcement that then increased to two teams, a team being a social worker and a mental health advocate, and we are now at four complete teams and extended hours.

So we're continuing to see investment in this.

However, there is some need for a little more of that.

Low community awareness was one of the things that was identified in the research done at the U of A.

Just people don't know that this is an opportunity for them.

Also, no mobile crisis unit, no mental health services outside of traditional emergency room settings, so no crisis stabilization unit.

And we just need a more comprehensive and expanded mental health services system in Fayetteville.

Next slide, please.

So that leads us to talk about what options are available out there whenever we are thinking about adding to CERT.

And these are some alternative response models.

These are some images for what that can look like out in the field.

Next slide, please.

As calls have increased across the nation, communities have been looking for ways to supplement their police force to provide a comprehensive model that can support the community in better ways.

And so we're gonna go through each one of those models with you and explain kind of what each of those look like for different communities.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

Really quick, co-responder models are basically partnerships between police and mental health workers, and that can be licensed clinical, social workers, um, family therapists, or uh licensed professional counselors, mental health nurses, psychiatrists, and so on.

And these pairs are trained and sent to get calls together that might be mental health uh related calls.

And this will give a reduces the burden on law enforcement, and there's also generally positive community reception of these programs.

A challenge in correspondent model corresponder models is there's a lack of standardized prerequisite and educational um standards for who can participate and provide these services.

Next slide, please.

The second model is a civilian-led intervention.

Um and what makes this one kind of unique is that these teams do not respond with police at all.

Um, they respond with a mental health professional and an EMT.

Um the mental health professional that responds to these calls is kind of dependent upon the community that they're in.

So each community defines that for themselves.

So that can look like a social worker with an MSW or a BSW.

Um that can look like a licensed counselor, a therapist, um, or just someone who has had experience with their own mental health issues to go out on these calls.

The EMT is there in case there's a medical need whenever they get there that they don't know about, um, that they need to be stabilized before they can be connected to um resources.

Civilian civilian-led initiatives have um shown to have really good trust with um the public and better outcomes with um crisis resolution.

They do follow-ups after the initial call with um when they respond.

Um, kind of the dependent or catch for this program is that the dis it relies on the dispatcher to correctly divert the call to the right place, um, which means they need to determine when that call is made, if it has a safety threat or not, and if there is no safety threat, they divert it to that civil civilian-led team.

Um, it also depends on sound infrastructure and funding to support paying individuals to go out on these calls to have enough of them to respond to these calls.

Um, and in communities where they have implemented this without a sound infrastructure and plan, they have not been as successful.

Um, and yeah, because they need adequate staff to send out to those calls.

They can call a law enforcement official if they respond to the call and find out that there's more need, um, but it's intended to be with no law enforcement.

Next slide, please.

Then we have the third one is crisis intervention teams.

Uh this started in Memphis in 1988 after a fatal police shooting of a person that was going through a mental health crisis.

And it's also called a Memphis model.

It was intended to deal with people in going through mental health crisis, but it has since expanded to also deal with substance use and developmental disabilities.

Uh in crisis intervention teams, police officers are trained for 40 hours on de-escalation skills and conflict resolution and and so on, with the goal to mediate this emergency response by connecting neighbors in need to mental health resources rather than the carceral system.

Um this again, research has shown consistently positive outcomes from all sides.

The officers feel more prepared on the job, and there have been lower rates of arrests, uh less use of force, and uh less injuries on both sides as well.

Um important to note that community partnerships are really important for these services.

Not only is it important to redirect these calls that are mental health related, but also to have somewhere to send uh the neighbors that need this connection.

Next slide, please.

So now that we've gone through the different models, uh we can start looking at some of the programs we use for comparative analysis.

Uh, the first one being STAR, next one being Heart and Core.

Um the reason we chose these was uh for multiple different reasons, such as CORE being or Longmont being similar in population size, in fact, it's a college town like Fayetteville.

Uh Hart was chosen because it's considered a benchmark uh program for co-responder models, and then STAR was chosen because of its long history.

Um just for more information on it, STAR is a civilian-led intervention team while Hart and Core are both co-responder models.

Next slide, please.

So giving you a little bit more information on STAR, we can see that it started in 2020 as a pilot program and expanded into citywide uh starting in 2022.

Uh, from 2022 to now, they average about 4,000 calls a year, uh, 3,000 of which are answered by the uh the civilian intervention team itself, and then an additional thousand are responded with um with law enforcement or another non-police agency.

Um, in terms of the improved safety outcomes that we highlight here, there is a report done by the Urban Institute that notes that when there is a STAR uh team intervention, uh individuals that experience intervention had an 8% reduction in police contact in the following year, as well as a 2% reduction in arrests.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

One more.

So HART in Denham, Durham, North Carolina, sorry.

Um, is come uh was launched in 2022, and it's composed of they have four crisis response units, crisis call diversion, community response teams, co-response teams, and they also have an involuntary commitment response team.

Uh, there have been since 2022, 31,000 neighbors served in counting.

They have an automated dispatch system that does not rely on the discretion of the 911 uh dispatcher.

And they also offer stabilization services through the care navigation teams and funding for it started with grants and now it is in the city of Durham's budget.

Um crisis call diversion embeds mental health clinicians in all centers and they triage calls and avoid unnecessary um police contact community response teams, provide fast trauma-informed care for nonviolent calls involving mental health and quality of life concerns and co-response sends a licensed clinician and a CAT trained officer to the scene, and like I said, care navigation provides this follow-up care.

Next slide, please.

Um, Longmont, Colorado is the city that is most similar to Fayetteville in population size.

Um, one thing to note about the differences is that Fayetteville is significantly larger geographically.

So whenever you're considering the response times for that, it's gonna take longer to respond to calls in Fayetteville than it does in Longmont.

Um Fayetteville is experiences a significantly higher poverty poverty rate than Longmont, but those are the two main differences between those two communities.

Um but CORE is a crisis outreach response and engagement team.

They respond with a three-person team that includes one law enforcement official, a behavioral health clinician, and a paramedic.

Um they respond to 911 calls that include a behavioral health component, and they define a behavioral health component as a as mental health issue, a substance use issue, someone experiencing suicidality, um psychosis, family disturbances that are not um extreme domestic violence situations, um, and uh situations involving members of the unhoused community.

Um their idea was to expand what public safety actually means for their community instead of always defaulting to a traditional police response.

Um, what makes their program different is that they don't just show up to the scene and then leave, they respond twice after that initial call with the individual to ensure that they were connected with an appropriate service and that they attended that service.

And if they did not attend that service, what the barrier was to attendance, and then they try to mitigate that barrier so that they can receive appropriate service.

Um it's also recognized as a national best practice and has helped 13 other communities replicate their model.

Um next slide, please.

These are just some images of those responders with individuals in their community, and their main goal is to connect people with the right level of care, not simply a response and to move on to ensure that that individual's um needs are met.

And this has improved outcomes for individuals who have contact with the core team.

Um, and they are actually meeting people's needs that do not require police response or are not needed for police response.

Next slide, please.

Yeah, so in our report, which we're hoping to get you all if you would like it uh by next week.

Uh, but in there we did a financial analysis just to go over the costs related per response to the programs that we looked at.

Uh up here you can see the cost per response as well as what we calculated based on the 2026 phase me uh budget for traditional police response.

Um, this accounts for two days of jail time, which you know uh it can be different, and we kind of provide a range within our report uh to show you what the cost could be, um, but it it could also be very high or much higher or much lower.

Uh but even here we can see that this average is about a hundred dollars more uh per response in comparison to the other models that we reviewed.

Next slide.

Okay, so we just want to emphasize that we're here just to continue conversations about how to improve the mental health system here in Fayetteville.

There has been success in investing in alternative methods outside of traditional policing, and we um have collected from our literature review as well as the research that was done on the CERT program some possibilities that we could explore on how to pull from what is already working and apply that here in Fayetteville for a more comprehensive system.

So um program expansion and staffing.

So pilot a civilian-led crisis response team in Fayetteville to improve outcomes and reduce per incident cost.

Um expand CERT with extended hour coverage and recruit additional social service advocates through the U of A partnership.

Um operations and dispatch improvements, train disappearers to improve call triage and diversion, and develop standardized protocols and operational guidelines.

Number three, community access and crisis services, add dedicated mental health crisis units for post crisis stabilization, something outside of the traditional hospital setting that saves money and is a more appropriate level of care.

And also a mobile crisis unit.

Um, this was something that was highly utilized in other models, and um, though our CERT does do some going into the community, um, they there is a gap as far as needing a mobile crisis unit as well.

And launch community awareness and communication campaigns.

Um, some of the research even suggested that the officers want to hear more about the successes that have happened when they're pairing with those alternative methods, and so um awareness and communicating out our wins.

Accountability and evaluation, establish data benchmarks, and evaluate program effectiveness.

Again, our goal of this is just to explore ways to minimize police contact to take the workload off of some of our officers, and this does so in a way that that potentially um improves community outcomes as well as individual outcomes.

It also can save money and it can move us into a more compassionate, more appropriate way to deal with mental health crisis.

Again, the reminder that all crisis is not crime.

Um I do want to just mention quickly the bilateral relationship or the bi-directional relationship between unhoused communities and those with mental health issues.

Addressing our mental health system here in Fayetteville absolutely helps to address our housing issues as well.

And so we we've given you um these suggestions, and we just would like to thank you again for your time and a special thank you to um Miss Moore, who has given a lot of time this semester to help guide us through this process and help us uh collect information as we completed our project.

And we're ready for questions.

Great, thank you so much.

We'll start with Councilmember Wheedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, and thank you all.

Well, do you have faculty members here with you to cheerlead and take notes and grade you?

Is this a graded assignment?

I hope.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is, part of their capstones.

Um, I look forward to the philosophy department's presentation on Kierkegaard, my favorite, because this is highly unusual for us to have this kind of advocacy educational presentation from the university.

So I know that our town and gown committee would like to explore our relationship with the university because we have some requests that we would like to make as well too, as they are our 800-pound gorilla in this community.

Um, did you interview the chief or the mayor?

Uh we did talk to uh the chief as well as uh the per we did talk to the chief as well as several people within CERT as well.

Okay, did you interview any police officers?

We uh one of them is the police officer, so that would uh be uh Lieutenant.

I'm so sorry.

That's okay.

I'm horrible with the we engaged with police officers, the chief, as well as um reached out to mental health advocates as well.

Okay.

Strange, thank you.

Sergeant Strange, thank you.

Okay, he's a good guy.

Um did your cost figures assume two-day incarceration for every interaction?

Yes, that's correct.

Do you know what percent of the total cert interactions resulted in arrest?

No, I am I'm not sure off that number, but this is just based on the idea of traditional response instead of just cert itself.

Just for your capstone for your faculty, that'd be a really good follow-up piece of information to have as you you know, once you present it here, it's public and you don't really know what the media or someone will use with that number, they'll take it at face value.

So that's why I ask that uh people sometimes get confused.

Um you're a land grant university, which means under President Lincoln when the land grant system was created for the benefit of the entire state.

I kind of heard Fayetteville mentioned many many times, but the individual across the border in Springdale with the mental health crisis, I didn't hear anything for them.

And so I offer that to your faculty members that as a land grant university, we're looking to you to propose things that benefit all residents in the state of Arkansas.

And so sometimes I look at Fayetteville and I want to make sure that we're not just a convenience for the university because they're in our backyard.

And we have had other programs pitched to us and presented to us that caused me pause simply because hey, we're here and uh you want us to allocate and spend funding on this.

Uh are there grants to the university that you've applied for?

You know what I mean?

It's that whole notion on concerns I have about Fayetteville resources being diluted and spread thin.

You also want us to pave your streets.

You also want clean water in your dorms.

You also want us to, you know, uh provide fire service on campus because the university doesn't do that.

So I just want to be sure that we did not say, hey, come to us, we want to give you uh funding to do this research.

You approached us voluntarily, and so it's a little bit of that buyer bewares.

Wait a second, and this is caustic and obnoxious and just shows you the black heart that I have.

Well, what's the real agenda here?

Send me a report, which is how normally we get things.

Hey, let me send you an email.

Staff are tired of getting emails from me.

Hey, here's the research in such and such a community.

I send it to Marley to say do with it as you see fit.

I send it to not council members because that would be against the law.

I send it, however, to economic development staff, park staff, hey, they're doing this.

So that would be the normal way that this kind of education would take place in the organization.

So I just need you to know that I'm not completely jaded.

I highly recognize the need.

I've got a uh mother, the youngest of five, two of whom were diagnosed schizophrenics.

And so you just end up saying mental health is a real challenge for all families, including my own.

But this kind of an unsolicited, and it's no knock on you as PhD students.

I hope you get passing grades.

But if you're going to present this as a statistician, obviously I'm going to ask you all of those data questions that say, wait a second, wait a second.

Is this an academic report and presentation you want to pitch to me to justify an investment in resources?

Have you identified dollar amounts?

Are you proposing the body count to provide 24-7 services?

How many staff would that be?

Uh it could be some of you yourselves.

You don't enter your career field to get rich.

I can assure you of that.

You're good people, and I'm going to push back on this because of concerns I have, not about the four of you as individuals, but the concerns I have about the land grant institution of which you're a part.

And I don't want to be taken advantage of either as an institution, a governmental entity, just as the university is a governmental entity.

So mayor, I think that that's more than I ought to say.

It's just kind of a buyer-beware situation for me, and I I apologize if that offends anyone.

I'll talk with you afterwards.

Thank you.

Uh Dr.

Jones.

Yes, um, thank you for sharing.

Um I am a licensed social worker.

Um I work in the mental health field, and I've been involved in this process with the police department since I believe 2020.

I want to draw your attention to some very valuable information.

And um I'll give this to council member more, and she can share it with the group.

Um there are, I believe, four published studies uh that are relevant to the work that the uh FPD has done.

And um listed in the Journal of Forensic Social Work uh 2023, 2024.

Uh that particular article outlined the development of the team and internal and external stakeholder attitudes toward the program, embedding social work into a police department in the South.

There's another one.

We need to not fear your essential factors, identify by sworn officers and civilian staff for implementation and expansion of a co-response program published in the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology recently as December 2024.

This study evaluates how perspectives at the FPD shifted toward higher optimism as the program expanded.

And I was able to like kind of breathe, published in the Journal of Evidence-Bay Social Work, March 2025, a study analyzing participant perspectives, finding that individuals in crisis had positive experiences with the CIRT team, and the effects of a co-response program on patrol call volume for mental health crisis related calls published in the Journal of Forensic Social Work, September 2025.

Research indicating that the CI the CIRT program significantly reduced patrol call volume for suicide threats, intoxicated persons, and welfare checks.

So we have we have referenced those articles, I believe all of them.

Okay.

And they did not have a lot of data as far as numbers.

But they they shared most many of the things that you discussed.

That over time it's the buy-in has significantly increased, as well as the investment, that the outcomes are looking good.

This is still a new program, so there is definitely room to continue analyzing the impact of the program.

And they did acknowledge that there were some concerns as well, such as safety, which was mentioned in some of the literature outside of those four articles that you mentioned.

But overall satisfaction and success with the program.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And you mentioned alternative models.

And I know that you all are familiar with uh Dr.

Strauss, Dr.

Plasmeyer, and Whitney Payne.

And I do believe that, as I mentioned earlier in the initial uh process, they have done some research as it relates to alternative models.

So they are aware of those models.

And uh I spoke to Chief, and uh his plan, of course, is to your point is expanding the CIRT department because they are full, fully aware of the challenges that you mentioned as it relates to around the clock services.

I do know this that uh I've spent four years working at Northwest Medical in Springdale and the Fayetteville Police Department did an amazing job as it relates to making sure that uh any patients that were brought in from the FAIVAL community that they were brought to the hospital.

I do know that the social workers that they have two two uh one licensed counselor and one licensed social worker and two individuals, if I'm not mistaken, have uh behavioral health degrees, and I do believe that the officers, some of the officers have mental health background.

So I said all of that to say this that um many communities um are looking up to Fayetteville.

Uh they uh Fayetteville has become the model department as it relates to the social services response.

And so I do believe that um, of course, uh there's no perfect process.

And um, but and since you spoke to Chief and he pointed out that there are some challenges, I know that uh that there is also uh that you all also see that our community that we can't deny that the community is safer because of what we have implemented in Fayetteville.

As a matter of fact, Springdale has instituting the very uh the very same process, and so uh Benville and Rogers, of course, we're hoping that they will.

And so um, as a social worker uh and uh one who I'm aware of policy, this is important, this collaboration is important, but I would encourage you to, of course, spend some more time with our mayor as it relates to policy, our attorney, the council members, and definitely the chief to learn to learn more and to also see how you can be involved and engaged in to see how you can make a difference.

And I would also encourage you guys to do a ride-along.

That field experience in doing this type of work, there's nothing better than field experience, getting out there uh uh doing your ride along, uh seeing what they do.

I know that working on your PhD, trust me, can be a very taxing experience, but this field experience is definitely going to help you as it relates to public policy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones, for those suggestions.

And um, we did speak with Dr.

Plasmeyer as well, and um lots of success with CERT, and we think that it should be expanded and that it's doing wonderful things.

But there was still a lot of conversation around gaps and concerns that if we expand some mental health services without filling those gaps, that we begin to overwhelm some pieces in our system.

Also, a social worker who worked in the hospital for seven years, um, placing someone in a mental health facility who comes off um comes out of crisis into the hospital is often a long process that costs the hospital a lot of money.

And so absolutely we think CERT should be expended extended, but we do want to also emphasize that there are gaps that CERT does not meet that would need to be addressed to for a more comprehensive mental health system.

And yes, we are um being looked up to by many communities, and we hope that we as a community can look up to others who are doing it um really well.

Um Mr.

Berna and then Ms.

Bunch, and then I think we have Minister Jones on Zoom as well.

So we'll go this way.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I also want to recognize the fact that y'all put a lot of hard work in this, but uh I do want to push back a little bit uh in the fact that Fayetteville is widely known as uh the department in the state for this type of services, uh probably in a couple state area.

They're very, very well respected.

Uh and I was a little surprised um that number one, you didn't do any right, you hadn't done any ride-alongs to to be in there in the in the trenches with that those uh officers with those counselors uh to see what they go through on uh almost daily basis to see the pros, the cons.

Uh that's where you really get your research done, not in looking at numbers that anybody can make any numbers to say whatever number they want.

I mean, they can they can do that.

But in listening to you talking about uh talking to the chief and talking to different uh Sergeant Strange from my understanding, because when I saw this coming, I started asking questions, and the only communication they have had is with someone asking about stats, not about the nuts and bolts of here's what we do.

Uh and second the other item is did you ever ask when this department or this program was developed, did we look at the other models to determine what works best for Fayetteville because we're not Longmont Colorado, we're Fayetteville.

So what works there may not work here.

So did you communicate with anyone to see if those models were uh looked at and reviewed to see if they were best for Fayetteville or they went with what they felt was best for Fayetteville.

So I think we should clarify that the point of this report was just to gather information on the types of models and then discuss what each of these programs that we did for comparative analysis looks like.

Um we are in no way trying to say that CERT is not doing its job and that we're recommending that they switch anything.

We're just trying to provide more information that could be useful down the road when we talk about trying to expand CERT, perhaps.

I appreciate that, but when you show numbers that in this department, this program it's X number of dollars, in this program it's this X number of dollars, and then what's Fayetteville's doing is is a hundred dollars more, it gives the impression that you you are pushing those other programs over what what we're doing locally, right?

And I don't if you're going to do that, I think you have to dig deeper into what Fayeville is doing and why they are doing it.

Right, and and just to clarify with that as well, that number that we showed that is just for traditional that is that is not anything to do with CERT's costs, because we we didn't we didn't use that information.

And going forward, if if we wanted to, or if you all would be interested in that record sort of report, we can add in for more information about CERT if that'd be something that everyone would be interested in.

I think the general consensus or question that I'm hearing so far, and I know there are others that have yet to speak, is um that this is a tremendous uh report with a lot of value, and I think there's a curiosity as to why it wasn't presented to staff or to the police department before being taken right to an agenda item at council.

So Ms.

Bunch.

Absolutely.

That was one of the things I was going to bring up.

This is this is um the presentation.

I really appreciate all your hard work and your effort.

And I know I was a grad student and it's not easy.

So um, but this is highly irregular to bring something to us like this, because usually when something is presented at council like this, you're asking us for something or you're expecting something from us.

And it sets the it sets the uh standard that when it comes to council, it's been researched, and we've had an out opportunity to engage with it before it before it hits our faces.

And I don't um you know I I I mean I've been really busy lately, and I I may have overlooked that this presentation was in our packet, was it?

So we okay, so we we it was just provided, it was provided to some of the staff team beforehand, but not in our packet.

So usually we would as a council would have something to look at like this.

And I'm not trying to beat you up or anything, but I just want to let you know where we are coming from when something is brought before us this way.

It usually has passed through a lot more hands than just you showing up and making your presentation.

And and I'd say that very respectfully.

I don't want them to answer for that.

I mean, that was was mine on trying to get them scheduled in a short window of time that they have for a capstone.

And so yes, that's on me.

So I'll take that is on you.

I will take.

Yeah, so thank you.

Thank you very much.

And thank you as learners.

We do appreciate the feedback.

Um to hearing you talk, I can clearly identify where we've missed some steps and would do better in the future.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate I appreciate everything you've done.

I really do.

But I just want you to know where I'm coming from with my perspective on this.

And I I think I I'd maybe represent some of the other council members' views, but maybe not.

So I I speak for myself.

Thank you.

We do have a full report that will be available after next Tuesday.

Um that's about 35 pages of a wonderful reading.

Um, and I also want to say that our team is not without any experience.

I have 15 years of child welfare experience.

I have been a foster care caseworker and a supervisor.

I am now a foster care trainer in the Benton County DHS office.

Um I work for the University of Arkansas and I've done lots of police ride-alongs.

I have also done um sheriff citizens academies to learn what they do, and I've been on firing ranges with police officers.

So I just want to say that our team is not without any experience.

Although this is an academic presentation, we do have a practical side to that as well.

I appreciate that.

I think Minister Jones, and then can we do Minister Jones and then back to you?

Okay, Minister Jones.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um I appreciate the presentation.

I didn't see it come from a place of requesting anything.

I appreciate the information.

I also want to note that after COVID that the city of Fayetteville lost our C issue.

And being boots on the ground dealing with individuals with medical health issues as well as individuals with disability, they are arrested and jailed at a higher rate than anyone else.

So I want to I'm glad that they presented this information, but I did not hear it come with any request.

I I'm kind of I feel sorry that we are kind of attacking them just for bringing the data, but the data is talking about national best practices, and I think our goal is to connect people with the the right amount of care.

I do want to talk about the fact that we want to reduce the numbers of individuals interacting with the police department that can end up being incarcerated, that there are higher numbers for individuals that are unhoused, mental health issues, and with in the disability community that can end up being jailed.

I just want us to consider this information and also ask them to include the sheriff's department in their information about how many people are being incarcerated after they are coming in contact with any police department, especially in the city of Fayetteville.

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Jones.

Um, since you had a turn, can we let Mr.

Stafford go?

Because he has or no, you were on you go ahead and go first.

Okay.

I'm trying to follow the rules of order, and I always I always uh I just turned my mic on.

Okay, yeah.

DeAndre or Dr.

Jones and then Mr.

Steffer.

I was just going to say this.

Um if I can get your information, the professor.

Yes.

And if there is an opportunity for connecting you with someone from the department to do like a more in-depth uh I guess look and ride along and talk more into the department with some of these suggestions.

I think that they would be great.

Public policy is something that I, as a council member and a social worker, you can see the correlation, and we need that.

So that hands on experience, that's going to be very helpful.

And something that council member um Minister Jones said county.

A lot of I uh I feel as if that you'll get a lot of information, a lot of valuable information if you uh talk with members of the county.

But uh I'm here to help and guide in any way.

Uh I'm definitely not coming from a perspective of thinking that you're asking for something.

I just want to make sure that you get what you need and that we can collaborate and do great work together.

Uh, because public policy is that's what we're here for.

And you have a mayor who I know that she'll do everything that she can to help you because that's what she does.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, and I just want to follow up with one thing.

And I think some of my other uh council members mentioned it, but you said you are gonna be putting out a full report.

I would I would just suggest in that full report that in your comparison to compare apples to apples that you do uh find the numbers for cert specifically, not for kind of because that was confusing to me.

I thought you were showing me that 686 number was the the cert number.

And and and I think it would behoove you to show you know more apples to apples and to make sure that that other number is kind of like more of a general traditional uh number, just kind of separate those out so that so that the information is clear.

Uh and I do uh uh I think council member uh minister jones mentioned uh uh maybe reaching out to the sheriff's department too.

I don't think they have a program right now.

Um and our CRU unit, which was run by the county, I believe was was shut down, and we know that.

Um, and that's a gap we have right now as well.

Uh but otherwise that that was my only thing, just uh to to make sure you have like an apples to apples number there.

Yes, and um after talking with uh cert um and the chief, that was not available information, and um also very much um within the recommendations of reports and being able to report out exactly what CERT is doing.

Um so we agree, yes.

Okay, um I don't think we have anything else.

Oh, Miss just close close the item out.

Um I want to thank you guys for the time that you took and the presentation that and materials and it is just for informational.

I understand that this was a non-traditional pathway, but I know we're all open to getting um new information.

You know, in the state of Arkansas, we are in mental health crisis, and Fayel unfortunately, you know, it's at our door more often than some of the other areas of the region.

Um and we do have less solutions for it.

And so I'm just always appreciative to get to hear um of additional possibilities of things that we consider, especially as we're going into the 27 budget process and we're looking at what grants.

One of the things University of Arkansas did with CERT, and that's where they talked to Dr.

Plasmeyer, was we had a partnership where that was a grant fund to begin with.

And so just thinking about those additional collaborations that can happen to fill gaps, um, especially as we continue to talk about um there are a lot of challenges at the state and the federal level.

There's been a lot of talk about what we can do at the local level.

So thank you so much for the time you like you guys gave to us.

Um and as you uh finish out your semester, I wish you the best of luck at finishing out um your semester here and for um investing time in this project.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Um okay, so we have the um that was D6, the resolution.

Um go ahead.

I also want to go ahead, just like we did for the youth council to just move that to consent, obviously, so then we're not reading that item, we're looking at it or talking about it again.

Is that I have a problem putting it on consent because I I don't know that I can I don't want this to come back to us saying later that we're supporting exactly what they're saying.

Um I can thank them all day long, but I don't I don't see it necessary to be a resolution on city council uh agenda in my opinion, but uh I'll I'll let everybody else talk.

But I I can't support that because I don't want anything to be construed that what they're saying is reflective of I just I just don't I I want our uh officers and our cert members to understand we support them wholeheartedly and know that what they are doing uh is great.

So I I just I sorry I can't uh allow it to go on a gym uh I mean it's an academic project that was not a tacking or accusing.

I mean they were just literally presenting information and the resolution reads with all the just thank them for putting a presentation together.

That's right.

With all due respect, it came across to me as a political platform that we've never done this before, and I I can't recall in my time having it done, and I've spoken to many people that said the same thing that it's never been done.

Okay and so I I just I can't speak to the okay.

So either way, the rules of order and procedure that if one council member doesn't want it on consent, it can't go on consent.

So it will not go on consent, it will stay as item D5.

Um that's just the rules that we follow for every that's for everything.

Um we are going to wait and move F2 to another night.

I think we had some of our um Devin, thank you.

Thank you for being prepared.

I'm sorry you've done tremendous work on your economic development report, and I know our partners were here, and I think they will be here soon to um staff can give you all that report at a later date.

Do we have any comments, Keith, from you?

Yes, we have a transportation committee directly after this meeting on a separate Zoom link in room 101 downstairs.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Ramirez.

Do you have any r announcements from the clerk?

No, no, great.

Thank you so much.

We're adjourned.