Okay, I would now like to call to order the Tuesday, May 5th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council.

Welcome everyone.

Clerk Paxton, will you please start by calling our roll?

Mr.

Wiedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna?

Here.

Ms.

Bench.

Ms.

Turk?

Here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford?

Here.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Ms.

Moore?

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we pledge allegiance.

Okay.

The very first thing we have is a sales tax and monthly financial report from uh Stephen Dotson, our chief financial officer.

Stephen, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

This is the February sales tax report.

In February, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 272.9 million.

And that was an increase of around 7.3% or 18.6 million compared to February of 2025.

Retail trade was up 7% year over year, representing an increase of $8.3 million.

Accommodation and food services were up 11% or $4.1 million.

And wholesale trade was up $26% or $4.7 million.

We noted that building materials and supplies increased nearly $15%, or nearly $50 or $5.5 million.

And bookstores and news dealers increased $34% or nearly $1.3 million compared to 2025.

So we had a pretty good uh pretty good month for taxable sales in the city.

In total, we noted a 7.3 increase in taxable sales compared to 2025.

And then looking at the actual tax collection results in February of 2026 compared to 25.

The City 1 penny was up 7.27% or roughly $179,000 compared to last year.

The county portion to the city was up 4.47% or roughly 89,000, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 6.02%, or roughly 269,000 compared to February of 2025.

And then looking at the tax revenues compared to what we actually had budgeted in February of 2026, the City 1 penny was up 4.15% compared to budget.

The county portion was up 1.42% compared to budget.

For a combined total for the month of February up 2.93 compared to budget, or approximately 135,000.

And cumulatively, that's going to put the city on a year-to-date basis up approximately half a percent or 73,000 compared to budget.

And so basically we we kind of made up for some of the the earlier months of the year, which were a little bit weaker uh during this time period.

And as a reminder, all of the sales tax collection reports are posted on the city's website under the finance and administration link.

Can I uh answer any questions on the sales tax report?

Okay.

In that case, I will move on to the monthly financial report, and this report is for March of 2026.

Starting off in the general fund, our property tax was down around 2%, around 4,800.

Our sales tax was flat.

Franchise fees were flat.

Our alcoholic beverage fees, those were down around 2%, but that's only around $5700.

Our building permit fees were up quite a bit, around uh $1.1 million compared to budget through the month of March.

Our turnback was flat.

Um our charges for services were down around 2%, and and in total, that's gonna leave the general fund up approximately 5.1% or around $874,000 compared to budget through the month of March.

So once again, just like the tax report, we we kind of made up for some lost ground uh in in earlier months uh in this month.

And looking at the street fund, we are down around three percent, around sixty-three thousand dollars uh for the year through the month of March.

In the parking fund, we're down around four percent, but we are uh gaining back some ground.

Uh if you'll recall the last couple of months, I've reported uh weaker numbers than we would have expected in the parking fund, but we are making up some ground there.

Uh currently through the month of March, we are down around 4% or around $27,000.

In the parks development fund, uh we are up 1.4% compared to budget or around $18,000.

In our water and sewer fund, we're up 5%, or roughly $676,000 compared to budget through the month of March.

And what we're seeing is an increase in uh water and sewer sales and connection fees, and you know, obviously along with that, we're seeing corresponding increases in uh the expense for uh water and sewer as well.

So it does kind of balance out, but but this is positive news to see in the water and sewer fund.

In the stormwater fund, we're up five percent or roughly 42,000 through the month of March.

In recycling and trash, we are up 1.2 percent or roughly 58,000.

And in the airport, uh, compared to last year, our gasoline sales are up around 19% or around 130,000.

And our number of flight operations is up 15.6 percent, or roughly 930 more flight operations uh than the same time period last year.

With that, can I uh answer any questions on the monthly financial report?

Minister Jones has a question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, did you just say that we were up nineteen percent in sales of thirty thousand or a hundred and thirty thousand?

130,000 compared to last year uh in the airport fund for the same time period.

And then you also said that parking was down four percent.

Did you say 2700 or 27?

27,000.

Yes, uh that makes a difference.

If you recall, we uh mentioned during our last uh monthly financial report that we had brought on a new lot that we are managing.

And so we didn't really have any history to budget that.

And so you know, we we did our best in terms of budgeting, and that that lot is turning around.

It's just it started off a little bit weaker than we had expected uh throughout those first couple of months of the year.

And last you said that the turn back um turn back fees were flat.

Can you explain that a little more?

Yeah, we're only up around $500, so it's hitting exactly what we had budgeted for turn back.

And explain where we getting those turn back fees from uh from the state.

That is uh that's a state program, it provides uh around $14.50 per capita.

It's a state turn back.

Okay, thank you.

Steven, can you um clarify in the parking when you say um it's down?

Is it down compared to the same period last year, or is it down to what we projected to budget?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

That's down compared to budget through the month of March.

Okay, but we are uh once again, we are gaining background that we had lost for those first couple of months.

Um I think we're we're pretty much seeing that in all the funds that I'm reporting that we have been down on.

We are gaining background uh to kind of make up for those first couple of months that were a little slower than what we had anticipated.

Great.

Thank you.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thanks, Stephen.

I might have potentially missed this because I was trying to write fast.

Um, did you talk to us at all about did we see any um sales tax rebates of any sort that hit?

As far as our rebates were concerned, we saw uh $7.9 million dollars in rebates in February of 2026.

And that that's really not off the mark from what we had experienced in 2025.

Okay.

So the rebate issue that we you know were a little concerned with for the that first couple of months seems to have uh tapered off a bit.

And so that's something that we are still keeping an eye on, but they're not what we're seeing for rebates right now is not out of the ordinary.

Okay, and then I I believe we had had some conversation about seeing if potentially we could get a little more visibility into those going forward.

Is that anything that we've gotten additional clarity on?

Yeah, so what we're doing is reaching out to our partners.

We don't have any concrete information on that yet.

But basically what I had mentioned to council, I believe that was for the the January uh financial report, is I was hoping to kind of work with the school districts and the university to try to get some more information on when they expected those rebates to hit.

And once again, that would be voluntary information that they would provide to us.

They certainly under are under no obligation to do that.

So we've done the preliminary reach out, but it hasn't been something that we have uh necessarily needed to focus on because the rebates seem to have tapered back off to where where they were from where they were.

Okay, thank you, Stephen.

I mean, I know that the university in particular does a lot of their projects in the summertime when students are gone.

So anticipate those will increase.

So definitely want to encourage our community partners as much as they can give us visibility.

That definitely helps us to plan and be a better partner with them.

Appreciate that.

That is definitely on our radar, and you know, once we uh have some more information on that, we'll be happy to report that out to the council.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't think we have I don't think we have anything else.

Thank you, Stephen.

Um, and that will bring us to our consent agenda.

Mayor and make a motion to suspend the rules and pass the consent agenda as presented.

Second show.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to present the consent agenda as presented.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheater.

Yes.

Mr.

Barna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you.

We will now move on to section B of our agenda.

Oh.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Oh, um, yes, you're right.

I'm sorry.

Um the motion to yes.

Would uh Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Mr.

Wheatkirk.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

Before we move on to B1, I do want to mention that the final item of new business, which I believe is D7.

The resolution sponsor is going to make a request to table indefinitely.

So if you are here to speak about D7, that is likely not going to be heard tonight.

Moving on to B1.

This is now, yes, Mr.

Burner.

And also, weren't we talking about in old business C1 that was it was uh gonna be tabled as well.

Um Tim, as your recommendation to where we're tabling C1 as well.

Also C1, the sewer damage claim for 516 North Fallon Avenue is also um going we're going to be recommending to table.

So if you are here to speak about that one, that will likely not be heard tonight.

Is it going to be tabled indefinitely or just to a future meeting?

One meeting.

Okay.

We are now going on to the public hearing portion of the evening.

And the public hearing pertains to item B1, an ordinance to adopt 2026 water and sewer rate and impact fee study.

It's an ordinance to amend section 51.136 monthly water rates, section 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.

Um Mr.

Pennington.

Whereas the City of Fable's current water and sewer rates were adopted in 2023 based on a cost of service study conducted by Black and Beach Engineers, and whereas on May 6th, 2025, the City Council approved resolution 119-25 authorizing a contract with Corolla engineers for an updated cost of service study.

And whereas since the 2023 study, the city has experienced consistent growth in both population and water use and anticipates continued growth into the future.

And whereas the city's cost to deliver water from the Beaver Water District to our customers has increased and will continue to increase because of the construction and operation of the necessary $90 million large transmission line into Benton County to receive the water and many other transmission and storage costs.

And whereas the city's cost to purchase water from the Beaver Water District has and will continue to increase because of recent and impending water rate increases imposed by Beaver Water District.

And whereas the city's cost to efficiently operate over two wastewater treatment plants, numerous lift stations, and miles of sewer piping continue to rise, necessitating an increase of revenue to fund these operations, maintenance, and improvements.

And whereas the city council has determined after the public hearing required by Arkansas Code annotated section 14, 235-223, that the proposed rate changes reflecting the true cost of service should be adopted and that the new rates shall take effect on July 1st, 2026.

Now therefore be ordained by the City Council of the City of Fable, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by repeals, section 51.136 monthly water rates and enacts a replacement section 51.136 monthly water rates as shown in exhibit A attached here to Section 2 that the City Council of the City of Fable.

Arkansas here by repeals, section 51.137 monthly sewer rates and an acts of replacement.

Section 51.137 monthly sewer rates as shown in exhibit A attached here to Section 3 that the City Council of the City of Fable Arkansas here by repeals.

Section 159.02, water and wastewater impact fees and an acts of replacement.

Section 159.02 water and wastewater impact fees as shown in exhibit B attached here to.

Thank you.

And we have Jennifer Walker, our deputy CFO is here to present.

Um Corey Granderson, our um water and utilities engineer will also be here.

Um Steven is available.

Um, our CFO to answer questions, and we also have uh two representatives from Corolla who are here to answer your questions after Jennifer's brief presentation.

Please go ahead.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, I am here tonight presenting the 2026 water and sewer rate and impact fee study recommendations and asking council to adopt two ordinances.

So I want to start with the bottom line.

Our utility systems serve over 100,000 people every day.

And tonight we're recommending a phased rate adjustment and updated developer impact fees.

We have a state compliance deadline of July 1st, and we hope to allow adequate time to notify our customers and let our wholesale customers review their rate structures prior to that deadline.

Uh so there's two ordinances in your packet for consideration.

One is for water and sewer rates, and the other ordinance is for developer impact fees.

All right, before I walk through the specifics, I do want to set some context.

So we're projecting over 12,000 new water connections and 11,000 new sewer connections over the next 10 years.

And every connection adds demand to the system.

Uh rates were last calibrated in 2023, and we have had a few changes since then that necessitated a second look at our rate study.

Impact fees, however, haven't changed since 2009.

So you may remember this slide, but I it I think it warrants going over again.

We fund our water and sewer system in a variety of ways.

Um, the bond program is handling existing wastewater treatment plant upgrades.

That's voter approved and underway.

And then utility rates fund day-to-day operations, maintenance, and wholesale water purchases.

So these are rates, not taxes.

Um purchases for use by customers.

Then we have developer impact fees, and they fund planned capacity expansion projects that is required by growth.

All right, so what happens if we do nothing?

Water reserves in red if we don't make any changes, uh, fall below the minimum reserve target within one year.

So this restricts our access to financing, it leaves us vulnerable.

If we have a major main break or a system failure, depleted reserves means we can't respond effectively.

Um, and because we won't actually let our fund balance go negative, what that means in practice is that we will not uh perform capital improvement projects that are needed, um, and the system risks falling into disrepair.

Okay.

Here's our single biggest driver of the water rate adjustment.

Beaver water district sets the water sets the price that we pay for purchased water, and it's our largest operating expense.

It's over 50% of our operating costs, and it's at $18 million this year.

Beaver water's rates are increasing roughly 11% per year through 2030, and then about 5% per year after.

We don't control that cost, but our rates have to keep pace with it.

So that's the situation.

Now let me walk you through what we're recommending.

So this is the foundational principle behind developer impact fees.

Growth pays for growth.

New development creates new demand on the system, and the cost of expanding should be borne by the development that creates it, not by existing ratepayers.

Our impact fees were last updated in 2009, and at that time the city chose to implement only one-third of the recommended amount.

Developers have benefited from underpriced fees for over 15 years.

The recommended combined fee for a single family home is $5,670.

That's a one-time fee paid at connection.

It's based on the actual cost of expanding system capacity over the next 10 years, and that's calculated conservatively.

Interestingly, if the full original fees had been implemented in 2009 or shortly thereafter as planned, the current fee today would be somewhere around $5,700.

Um very close to what we're recommending now.

The impact fees cover the established CIP projects related to expanded capacity.

So that's like the backbone of expansion.

Um, and then other projects outside of that list are also covered with cost share agreements.

We're not addressing that tonight, but that is another way that we fund capacity.

And Fayetteville's proposed impact fees are competitive.

So this chart shows shows, I'm sorry, this chart shows where we fall among Northwest Arkansas utilities.

We currently have the lowest water and sewer impact fees in the region, and the proposed fees bring us right in in the middle.

We're still the lowest city amongst the four large cities in Northwest Arkansas and right in line with other cities.

This table breaks out the fees by dwelling unit type.

So single family, as I mentioned previously in the example is $5,670 combined.

A multifamily unit is $4,000 per dwelling unit.

And we also have full schedules for every meter size in the appendix.

I also want to note that all of our rate tables are in the appendix if we want to visit those in detail later.

Um this seems like a good time to also note that ADUs are exempt from these impact fees in the ordinance as presented tonight.

All right, now let's talk about what this means for existing customers, the water and sewer rate adjustments.

So water rates follow a two-phase approach.

The first three years are a correction phase.

So that's 14% overall, effective July 1st of this year, and then 16% in 2027 and 2028.

That 14% includes that's a blended rate, if you will.

That includes a recalibration of rates and usage tiers.

It doesn't impact every customer in the same way.

And we'll explore that more on the next slide.

But all things remaining equal, equal, we stabilize at 3% per year beginning in 2029.

Again, detailed rate tables in the appendix.

All right, here's the part I want to focus on.

Nearly one third of our customers, the lowest use households, will see no change on their bill when rates take effect July 1st.

Two-thirds of customers fall in that middle tier, and they'll see up to a 6% increase.

And when I say middle tier, I mean middle usage tier.

They'll see up to a 6% increase.

And only 2% of our customers, the highest users, see larger increases, and that's by design.

The inclining block rate structure intentionally prices high usage higher.

It rewards conservation.

I also want to point out this works just like an income tax table.

So everybody's first 2,000 uh gallons of usage are charged at that low tier.

And then the next uh what is it, 13,000 gallons are charged at that middle tier.

And then once you surpass that and get into that high usage, you're paying a premium.

All right, sewer is a much simpler picture.

The large project needs have been addressed with the sales and use tax bond issue.

And by the way, that spreads the burden of payment for those large projects to visitors as well as residents because it's repaid through sales taxes.

Um, and because of that, the sewer rates are a steady 3% per year increase.

If the bond issue had not passed, this would be a very different slide, but it did, so here we are.

Okay, this is the five-year picture for real households.

These are combined water and sewer bills inside the city limits using a standard meter.

That's what we're looking at, average household.

A low-use household paying $39 today still pays $39 in July.

By 2030, they're at $49.

The average use household goes from $64 to $65 in July and reaches $82 by 2030.

So year over year, after the initial July adjustment, increases run.

This is about 8 to 9% in 2027 and 2028, and then moderate, moderate to about 3% in those final two years.

So these are this is a combined bill.

You heard me say earlier 16%, 14%.

But when you combine that with the sewer rates at 3%, you get a much lower overall combined rate.

And those combined rates are about 8% to 9% per year for the next couple of years while we're recalibrating.

Outside city customers.

They see somewhat higher adjustments because the outside city rate factor applies.

We met with area mayors in late April to preview these rates.

So they wouldn't come as a surprise.

And the same phase structure applies here.

Larger correction up front, stabilization in years four and five.

And we always want to know how we're doing compared to our neighbors, even after the proposed adjustments.

Fayetteville remains competitive in the region.

This table is a comparison of single family residential combined bills at 4,000 gallons.

Fayetteville current rates are purple at the bottom.

And proposed rates are in green, the second line from the bottom.

So our recommended rates remain the lowest in the region.

So here's our ask.

And I think that's all I have to say.

We do have tables in the back if we want to visit those later through questions.

And Corey is here to help us field questions and discussion.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Corey, if you want to come on up.

And I know we also have consultants who can help answer questions as well, if you should have any.

Thank you all.

I know this has been a team effort, and I really, really appreciative of all the work everybody put in on this.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wiedaker.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Jones.

I saw I think you both at the same time.

Mayor, I was unclear there we would have a recommended amendment to the one ordinance.

And if you would prefer, we can wait later, or I could make that motion now.

Um I believe thank you for bringing that up.

Keith, would you like to address that, please?

Is now the appropriate time for that?

Correct.

Each one of your seats tonight, we put an amendment.

We have the updated language that staff worked with Bike Pennington on, and then we have a clean copy.

So staff identified some kind of legacy language in there that we wanted to clean up.

And in short, what it states is that if somebody has a permit, they have a permitted project that they'll be subject to the current impact fee rate.

And just for those who may be listening or maybe watching from home, the amendment that we're referring to in no way changes anything that you just saw in the presentation, it doesn't change the recommended rates or impact fees for either water or sewer.

It's a um small language that just adds that lessens ambiguity in terms of timeline.

So are you is that a motion?

Mayor I I would recommend waiting until after the public hearing to make that amendment.

Okay.

Okay, we will pause then and make that uh after the public hearing.

Thank you, Mr.

Pennington.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

So if July the first is what it has to be done, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

When do we is when is it supposed to be passed?

Is it a certain what's the deadline for it to be passed?

Is it by the city council?

Yes.

I think it would be tonight.

The key to passing it tonight is that it does give certainty to the other area mayors that are impacted so that they can adjust their rates, talk to their constituents, um, things of that nature.

Okay, so okay, so tonight is okay.

So it it is May.

Okay, wow, okay.

Thank you.

I know.

Surprised us too.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I sent this question, Corey.

I don't know how much we're gonna be able to talk on this, but just speaking to impact fees, I see builders in the room, I have a feeling they're gonna give us some feedback.

Um, I did see some faces being made.

Um, but one of the things um that was our strategic plans that we have, and I don't sit on water and sewer, so I'm not in every single conversation.

Um, but I thought a very valid question was brought forward um by a resident to say, and and there's all these you know, legal hurdles I know we have to do with impact fees as well, to keep bearing that in mind.

But we desire to have more in-fill development, and typically have said, you know, that's where and what we have executed has been.

And so would someone doing infill development close to where we've improved infrastructure?

I guess the question is would there potentially be any lesser um impacts versus someone who might go to somewhere we haven't done those improvements and maybe say they're in an area that might be more sprawler at our edges, if that's information we know today or potentially need to look into, you know, knowing that we want to try to think through incentivizing certain developments too over time and while we've rezoned like the 71 corridor and are starting to improve those infrastructures, that doesn't magically make those buildings appear.

So I kind of meandered all over, but really just trying to understand if there's any potential nuance of geography um to the impact fees in any way to think about um maybe where there's a lesser impact where someone would place a building versus another.

Sure.

Uh it is a great question.

We did discuss that we we had even staff had similar questions as we were learning more about this process because although several of us had been through a rate study, we had not been through an impact fee uh study since the the last one had been in 2009.

And so we did discuss that, and I for your specific question, I would like to pitch that to our consultant to explain a little bit more about Ms.

Barnes.

Are you able to address that for the why behind some of that methodology?

And I do just want to point out earlier, I know it doesn't apply to every form of development, but accessory dwelling units would be exempted as well.

So just so you know that okay.

So we looked at um the impact fee and we looked at the system as a whole, which um I would say majority of utilities do.

So while yes, we can look at geography, there are some reasons why we didn't in this situation.

One, um I'm just gonna talk about sewer only because I know you receive your um water already treated, but to treat sewer, it really doesn't matter where that sewer is coming from.

Like it's still you still need to have the capacity and it costs the same amount to treat that um sewer, but also just looking at it um as a whole, that is the best available data that we have where we could stand behind the numbers and the accuracy.

So when we start looking at um, I guess diving it out, whether it be by basin or watershed or or things like that, we'd have to gather a lot more data to get to that answer.

So it's like we have this much effort to get this much of the answer, whereas if we're diving it up by basin or by watershed, it's we are requiring this much effort for the remaining 10% to kind of nail that down.

So is it possible?

Yes, but we thought that this would be the best way for Fayetteville.

And in the past, other utilities I've worked for actually going from many basins to this one holistic one system, one water system, one sewer system.

Are there any cities that you've worked with that you can share that have broken it out across their geography?

Sure.

Um so San Antonio water system has broken it out by geography, so they've broken it out by pressure zone for water and for sewer by basin.

And so um it's really calculating maybe like I think six different fees for sewer, and I believe it was maybe three or four for water.

So that's one I can name off the top of my head.

And they've been doing it for a while.

So they have gathered their data and they've done their master plans in a way where um we can calculate that.

Okay, all right, thank you.

No problem.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mary.

And I just want to make sure are we in question period?

Because I I wasn't sure if Corey was gonna give you a no, we are in question period.

Corey can answer questions as can Ms.

Barnes or Steve or Tim or any anybody on the on the team, but we are in question period.

Okay, great.

I just want to make sure I was in order.

Uh and so I have two questions, and and one is uh probably a simple one.

Again, I'm probably trying to compare apples to oranges here, and math is not my strong suit, but we were talking about you know, doing the catch up increase and then going down to a 3% increase, uh, a stabilization increase.

But we are talking about, you know, doing the catch-up increase and then going down to a three percent increase, uh a stabilization increase.

Uh, but it was also mentioned that we're expecting the beaver watershed district to be increasing at five percent of the year, uh five percent a year.

So if we're only increasing at 3% a year at that stabilization rate, does that does that create a a mismatch or or are we gonna have to readdress that at 2030 or so our uh rate adjustments are are based on a a multi-year model?

That model includes the exact beaver adjustments that we know about.

So since they don't represent 100% of our budget, yeah.

That's why those numbers are.

Yeah, that's why I guess I was comparing apples to oranges, so thank you.

And then my other question is just procedural.

So uh this is for Blake.

Um are are we are we having to vote on three separate ordinances or are we just voting on B1 or are we voting on each separate ordinance this evening?

Uh you're just voting on a single ordinance.

It it was the one that I read, and it changes three separate sections of the city code.

Gotcha.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Um I am going to open it up to public comment on this time at this time.

And this is a little bit different.

Um, since it is a public hearing, we will have public comment.

We will take it back.

We will hear any amendments, vote on the amendments.

We will then have public comment again and then take it to a vote because of the way the public hearing language is written.

So does anybody have any public comment about this ordinance?

Please come on up, state your name.

You have three minutes.

And thank you.

Here we go.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

My name is Aaron Worth.

I'm the president of Northwest Arkansas Home Builders Association, uh here representing almost 400 members.

I'm also the owner of Cobblestone Homes, uh, Fayetteville uh builder and developer for 20 plus years.

Uh probably surprise you.

I'm not we're not necessarily against this.

Uh we understand water and sewer is critical infrastructure, and uh we need it.

Uh city needs it, the the developers need it, the uh the end users need it.

So uh we feel like uh we're on the same team there and working towards the goal of houses.

Uh so I'm gonna say a couple things we're for.

We are for uh the correct infrastructure at the correct time.

Um easy said, a little harder executed.

We are for uh the correct cost share.

Uh we understand this uh uh involves the end user at utility fees, the city.

Uh they're in the business of utilities.

Uh that's the bond, the sales tax, uh, and then the developer builder.

We understand that there is a cost for what we do, and uh we want to pay our portion of that in the form of uh impact fees.

Now the exact dollar amount, well, also a little trickier and rely on lots of folks doing studies and trying to get it right.

We do want to seat at the table to try to work with you to do this and make sure it's is is right.

We're also for good management and accountability on this money.

Okay, I've heard several things to tonight that uh I think are good, but I think it needs to go you know beyond that.

Need to spend the right amount of uh at the right time.

And again, easy to say, hard to to execute.

So we need to keep uh working on that.

Um not to disappoint you, I am against some things.

We are against some things.

So let me quickly express those in the last minute and 16 seconds.

Paying for things two times.

We're okay for paying on-site work, we're okay for paying work that gets it to our site.

Sometimes bring it to our site, helps other folks.

We would like to consider that.

But I want to be clear here.

We do not want to pay for downstream work, extra off-site capital improvements and impact fees.

That's paying for it twice.

That's a big deal.

And that is uh potentially going to happen, and I'll talk about that here at the very end.

We don't want to pay for more and not get anything.

Okay.

There should be infrastructure and service, okay.

I don't want to dog on the utility folks.

They're got a lot on their plate.

They're struggling right now.

We're struggling.

It's tough.

Very tough.

Okay, very tough.

Want to make that very clear.

There's a service component to this that we're not getting.

The third, 30 seconds.

Uh the transition, okay.

We have projects going right now that we've paid for off-site work.

Already happened.

So I think it's a little misnomer to say that we're underpaying for certain things.

We're paying for off-site work that's happening right now.

That when this goes in effect, we're gonna pay for a second time.

I have a project that I'm paying roughly five thousand dollars a lot for.

And we're gonna give you some more time.

So it's okay.

I think can you put two more?

Is it two more?

Um two more minutes on the clock, please.

Thank you.

Um talk fast, but I'll uh slow down for the last bit here.

But because these are the most important things.

We don't in the transition, we don't want to pay for things twice.

Again, I have a project that I'm working on that's that I've spent roughly five thousand dollars a lot on off-site work, and I'm talking downstream that doesn't touch my project at all.

Uh and it's I've had to do the work on top of that.

And um, if this goes in effect, we're gonna have to pay for it again.

So we want to be clear.

We we want to pay our part.

We want to work together, we want to work with the city, but we don't want to pay for it twice.

We'll make sure it's implemented correctly.

Um in conclusion, the city's in the business of service and utilities.

Uh, we're in the business of homes.

Let's both you know, stay on our lines, let's work together and uh hit the target of uh putting the roofs over people's heads.

So thank you so much.

Mayor, I have a question.

Oh, yes.

Um, could you please define for us what you mean by off-site work?

I'm uh I'm a little confused by that term.

Yeah, okay.

So we have the infrastructure that we put in on our actual project.

So we do that and we're expecting to pay for that.

Usually we also we connect.

Let's say we got a piece of property that we've got a extended sewer, maybe a or water, a hundred thousand feet, whatever.

Usually we pay for that.

What we're dealing with right now is going off site.

I've got uh we've got projects that may be a mile down the road that does not touch our project, but our project feeds into that.

A collector, um, I think Mary may speak to it a little bit more here in a second, but projects that uh do not touch our our our site directly.

And for instance, mine, I'm in I've increased an eight-inch pipe to a 12 inch pipe.

Okay, we had to pay for the studies by third party.

We presented those.

They said that uh my 44 lots was going to increase the need of that eight inch pipe, so they increased it to a 12.

That 12 will carry way more than my 50 lots will.

So somebody's gonna get the benefit of that.

Yes, I'm going to use it, but I we believe that is infrastructure that should be in the bond side of things.

You know, that's that's a major piece of infrastructure downstream.

And uh we also have to do the work.

There's no free lunch here.

Yeah, a lot of times private can do it quicker and more cost effective, but um I can't be two places at once.

So we had to pull our people off our development to work on that what I'd call city infrastructure.

So does that clarify?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any other questions from members of the public?

Good afternoon, evening.

Um, my name is Mary McGettrick, and do I give you my address?

I don't remember how this works.

Okay, I'm at 3238 West Essex Drive in Fayetteville, and I have a little bit to say about sewer.

So I wrote it down and I may go over three minutes, but I'll do my best.

Um, I've built houses for 20 years.

I've spent the last two years of my life learning every possible thing that a person can learn about the sewer crisis in northwest Arkansas.

I've worked with the state legislature, I've worked with experts from all over the country to try to figure out how to fix this, not just for Fayetteville, but for every municipality in this region.

It's a problem everywhere, everyone's facing the same issues that we're facing.

I'm happy to see the rate increases.

I'm happy to see the increases to impact fees.

I think they're all needed, and I'm not against it.

I think in conjunction with our recently passed bond fund, it puts us in a good place to get back on track utility-wise and catch up to the explosive growth that we've seen in Fayetteville.

However, the current reality is that our water and sewer lines are crumbling all over the city.

I think you have a couple of agenda items tonight that are because of that.

Um currently, water and sewer line upgrades and new lines and lifting lift station upgrades are primarily funded by developers.

I build both infill and greenfield development in Fayetteville.

And as we've watched other municipalities attempt to tackle the infrastructure issues our region faces, the development community has urged those municipalities to remember that using the above mentioned funds to upgrade and add new infrastructure will take time.

In the end term, the builders who build your homes will still be paying the full cost of upgrades and new line as well as increased impact fees.

This will further increase housing costs for both infill and new development.

Like I said, I'm a developer.

I agree that we should pay impact fees, and I agree that they should be commensurate to the usage that we're gonna have for our development.

But developers have not only been benefiting for from low impact fees.

We've been fully subsidizing municipal line upgrades and line extensions and lift station upgrades for the last decade.

In Fayetteville, the average cost of line upgrade and lift station upgrades and new line is going to be at least a million dollars on a 15 to 20 acre property.

I'm developing 20 acres in the middle of town.

It is literally uh you couldn't get more infill than what we're developing.

And I'm gonna pay 1.3 million dollars just in off-site line upgrade costs.

That's 26,000 a lot just to be able to develop the site and build houses in the middle of town.

Um, and if that capacity gets used before I'm able to connect to it, I may have to upgrade the line again.

And ultimately, it won't just be the houses that I'm building that'll benefit from that upgrade.

It'll be people all over the city, future developments, anybody in that basin will benefit from those upgrades.

So, you know, we desperately need that.

Um, it has to be done.

I agree that we should do it, but I I'm trying to point out that that impact fee that we'll be paying for that.

And that's sorry, that's time unless somebody from the council would like to give you more.

Mr.

Berna.

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Bernard, could you please uh Mr.

Brenner's giving me more time if you could add two more minutes to the clock?

Go ahead, Mary.

Okay, thank you.

Or someone did.

Sorry.

Um, so you know, that's 26.

26,000 in an impact fee that we're going to be paying not just for our usage, for anybody in that basin's usage.

Um gotta find where it was.

Um, so my point is that you know, there's gonna be an in-term period where the new impact fees are coming online and where the bond fees are are being used to upgrade the infrastructure that we desperately need, but it growth doesn't slow down.

We don't stop building houses, we don't stop building schools, we don't stop building commercial buildings, restaurants, and grocery stores.

And so, in the meantime, we're still gonna be funding that and subsidizing it as a developer.

Developers are not boogeymen.

We provide jobs for thousands of people and we build the houses that everyone in this room lives in.

We have partnered, and I think we've been good partners with the city for the last decade to build out water and sewer infrastructure.

We have more than paid our fair share, and all I'm asking you to do is consider options like buyback fees and cost share agreements as we make the adjustments to get to where we need to be in the future.

That's all.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Do we have any more members of the public that would like to comment?

Hello.

My name is Kat Anderson, 4040 Glenstone Terrace.

I'm in Springdale.

Um, I am here in front of you today to tell you to listen to the two people who just spoke to you, um, which is a little redundant, but I think it's worth repeating.

Developers, as you guys mentioned in your financial review, the cost of building materials for the city alone is up 15%.

It's up for builders too.

Cost of labor is significantly higher, harder to find.

So we're not against wastewater development fees.

We know sewage is necessary and it's imminent.

But what we want is a more collaborative approach to how we increase and fund these projects because the builders are doing a significant portion that has gone unlooked, underlooked for quite a while.

And we would like, as we look at increasing fees in certain areas, understanding how we can work together to maybe offset them in other areas, like communities you want to develop, because if you keep raising prices, this will become a pay-to-play community.

And you will get things you don't want.

Not missing middle, not workforce housing, because those are expensive and they have to come from someone who wants to put in the investment.

But if we're deincentivizing people's investment, then we're not gonna get the things we want.

We're gonna get a community that doesn't look like what we intended when you made this vote.

So I do understand the need and we do support it.

But our ask today is to look at how we can be more collaborative in our approach and look at what the builders are already expensing for the city for its residents and for the rest of the you know, buildings and everyone benefiting around it.

And we incorporate that into whatever situation we enter into.

That's all I gotta say.

Thank you.

Okay.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

Yes, we have an Aaron Caldwell on Zoom.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Caldwell.

Oh, thank you.

Uh, my name's Aaron Caldwell.

I currently live at 4261 Northeast Meadow Creek Circle.

Um, I just wanted to comment tonight because of my own personal family story.

Uh, my wife and I bought a small lot at 275 East Rock Street about three years ago to build a modest family home.

And uh it's taken us about three years to just get ready to build.

Um, and according to the city's GIS, the sewer line on our block has been in service since 1908.

Um, and the means we are about to connect to are not new infrastructure.

Um, to be clear, I generally support and uh and increase to the impact fee.

And council should eventually pass this ordinance.

However, I'm caught I'm commenting because the structure of the fee deserves a closer look under the proposed schedule.

Our connection to uh 1908 sewer line and decades old water line will be $5600, roughly.

A new home on a greenfield lot at the edge of town requiring new transmission, new lift stations, and miles of new pipes that the city will have to continually maintain will be assessed at the exact same impact fee.

Um, the study uh flags projects like the Elkins water line and the Goose Creek Interceptor as 100% extension related.

Um, our project would trigger, and like many other info projects would trigger none of them.

A greenfield home triggers all of them.

Yet we pay the same fee.

Infill does not just cost uh does not just cost the system less.

Infill when done incrementally stabilizes the system.

Every new rate payer on an existing line spreads the cost of what already exists across more shoulders.

More homes per linear foot of Maine is a structural case for infill, and the current fee structure misses that entirely.

Another question I want to flag uh worth considering.

If growth and fail stop tomorrow, would the existing rates cover the full life cycle cost of the system the city already owns?

The study of models five years of growth and rate creases together.

It does not answer that question.

With the city already issuing debt to fund repairs to the existing infrastructure, I am not convinced we have a resilient system for maintaining our utilities.

Um I wanna be clear, I'm not asking the council to slow an increase.

I am asking council to amend the structure.

Um specifically, I would suggest service fee areas so that infill and edge connections each pay for the infrastructure they actually require and the burden that they would uh create on the system.

I would also suggest recalibrating the multifamily fee to reflect actual per unit demand.

And I would also want to ask city staff one question question.

What does sustainability look like without the growth?

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone else?

Uh that's all we have.

Okay.

I'm going to um end the public hearing, bring it back to council.

And at this time, there will be another public comment period and another opportunity to vote.

But at this time, we're going to welcome any amendments and we'll be voting just on the amendment, not on the actual adoption of the ordinance.

And if you have questions about why it's done that way, you can ask Mr.

Pennington.

Mayor, can I just ask a procedural question?

Or for your first play.

Yes, yes.

Um, if we have follow-up questions pertaining to, we just had some pretty robust public comments and wanted to do some follow-up to see about getting some clarity.

Do we need to hold those till we get through this process on the hearing?

Or would this be an appropriate time for that?

I think it's up to the mayor, but it may make sense to make your amendments, have the discussion on those, take public comment, and then it would come back to the council for further discussion, debate, and then ultimately a vote.

Yeah.

I think that'll be less confusing.

Yeah, of the all of the confusing options.

I think that's the least confusing.

Got it.

So I would welcome any amendments at this time if we have any.

I would move to make an amendment, Mayor, if I may.

Please.

To um code section 159.02 C2 that would now read as proposed development projects which have obtained building permits prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall pay impact fees in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.

I'll second that.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, can you please call the enroll just for the amendment?

Mr.

Wheedekirk.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

So now we are going to, I think strangely, open it back up for public comment and then take it back to the council for follow-up questions as we usually do.

So is there anybody, any member of the public who did not comment during the public hearing comment period that would like to comment now?

Okay.

Do we have anyone new on Zoom?

Keith.

We do not.

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the council.

And Mr.

Stafford, your light is on.

So we'll start with you.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I guess maybe Corey or maybe Corey might be able to field the question of somebody else.

It seems we have four, you know, commenters from the development community and uh homeowner community.

Uh that seemed like they had some some I feel like good reasonable questions.

Uh can you address any of those concerns that were brought up?

I might request a little more specific question if you don't mind.

Well, uh, it seemed like there were questions about how uh well uh from the homeowners association, it seems like they were concerned about kind of uh paying twice or paying for downstream services.

Um I don't know how to summarize uh Ms.

McGutrick's uh comments per per se, but it it seemed to be um similar uh you know, paying for more than uh what you know more than their share, basically.

Sure.

I can help you.

Sounds like Keith is asking to answer.

Yeah, I have a couple quick things on that.

Just one thing I know since day one that I've started this, the mayor and city councils focused on infrastructure.

I mean, that's been ever since I've been here, it's been a huge thing, and I've had a conversations with a lot of the development community on how we can improve that.

I know there's been multiple things.

I know Aaron talked about doing his own HERS testing.

That's one of the things that he could he came and talked to us about.

But um, we 100% of staff realize that we need to update kind of our standard operation operating procedure or policy related to cost shares, and I think that's something that we've had a lot of conversations on.

And I know that we need to we're in the process of updating our uh sewer master plan, and that's part of the cost share is to make sure that we're paying for you know, those impact fees are paying for growth, but then we're also working with that development community to make sure that we're implementing what's needed in water sewer infrastructure in our growth areas.

So, do you feel that if we pass this tonight, that doesn't end the conversation then that we will continue to have these conversations with our development community and make adjustments where needed?

That's correct.

And I will add one more to small thing.

I know that the development community is brought to us is the how complicated it can be to get a sewer study and just the con just the process of going to our sewer uh modeling vendor and get an agreement and paying for that in time is money, and that's something we've talked about internally.

How we're going to uh during our sewer master plan that we're working on right now, have the ability for the developers to pay the city directly uh for those studies because that just streamlines the process of getting that sewer study done in a more timely fashion.

So I think that we definitely agree that there's a lot of things that we can improve uh on the efficiency with the development community.

And and Corey, is there anything else you wanted to follow up on on kind of those questions?

No, those are great points, uh Keith.

The sewer collection master plan that is ongoing, that was a major focus that we scoped into that was by the end of this study, there needs to be measurable improvement with how developers get the information they need so that there are less surprises as they're going through their process.

That is a high priority for us as well.

Staff doesn't like that either, right?

Nobody likes that.

And I think I think council member more brought up a uh good points about making sure that you know, maybe we want somebody that's build that's sprawling to pay for their sprawl more than someone that's doing concentrating on infill.

Um so but those are things we could continue continue to look at going forward.

It's like what we're doing here tonight, is it gonna preclude us from making those changes in the future?

As far as impact fees changing where you're at in the city.

Um I think to the and Miss Moore might be able to do that.

That's kind of this better than I can earlier.

Uh maybe you could speak to that better than I can.

And I'll I'll just pass this on to you.

So um well, Mike is next, and then and then to Miss Moore.

It's okay, but you're finished, and then and we will get to then Sarah.

So Mr.

Wheedaker, Miss Moore, and then I don't see any lights over here yet, but I'm trying to keep both ways.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so I heard two issues from our development friends.

One is the issue of fairness and the issue of impact fees versus off site.

And I want to address both of those from just my perspective, uh having a little bit of experience with these things.

So impact versus off-site.

The issue there really is fairness, and what the development community is saying is not we don't want to pay impact fees.

They see the value and the use of those.

The fairness issue comes when someone else backbones on the work the developer paid for.

And so my comment to staff is, and I'm gonna probably ask to be moved off of the water and sewer committee when we do this, Mayor, is I've worked in other places where in fact there was an escrow means for developer A to pay the upfront costs and implement.

And then every other subsequent user who makes use of the infrastructure pipes that they put in place, then pays into escrow to reimburse those individuals.

That's the fairness issue.

I don't know if the Arkansas State Constitution allows that.

We've got two different kinds of state constitutions in this country, and so that's just what I hear people saying.

They don't mind putting in their pipe, but when someone else uses their pipe, hey, wait a second, I should be renting a portion of that pipe capacity to them.

And so that'll be a big issue to swallow, but I've been advocating that we go that direction.

The second issue is the off-site versus impact.

And the question there is if not for, in other words, if not for this development, would we be upsizing infrastructure?

And when the answer is no, then there is in fact an equity answer for existing people in the system who are paying their fair share of maintenance to not pay for the expansion, if not for someone else developing.

So that's just a social fairness comment in the other direction.

The final comment I want to make is one of those, as my mother told me, be careful what you ask for.

The most fair, and let's just talk sewer.

The most fair way to bill for sewer is that each customer pays for the linear pipe they use in each lift station between their home and the wastewater treatment plant.

Makes perfect sense, right?

I'm using the pipe, I pay for each mile of pipe, I pay for each lift station.

If you build in a place you don't need any lift stations, you don't pay for someone else's lift station.

You don't pay for someone else's pipe.

The problem with the in fill model is that where are your wastewater treatment plants located?

They're not in the heart in the center of the city.

They're far to the east and far to the west.

So I want to be careful about that model because in fairness, in field should be paying for every mile of pipe to get to the outskirts of town where those are.

It's doable, it's a math model.

It can be done.

It's hideously expensive to pay our consultant to prepare that kind of wastewater fee study.

And therefore, we have chosen the model that says all customers of a class in the city of Fayetteville pay this rate, and growth pays for growth.

And that's not an unfair model.

I just want to be careful when people insinuate that in fill should pay less, maybe for water.

How close are you to the water tank and the electricity to pump water to it?

But for sewer, the infill model does not work in the fairness model.

And I think in fill would benefit from maintaining the current system that says everyone pays regardless of how many miles of pipe they use or lift stations that they use.

New development that requires the lift station should pay for that lift station.

The second customer that comes on and uses that lift station should, in my opinion, if legally possible in the state of Arkansas, be paying a fee in escrow to the city so that the original developer A can be reimbursed their fair share.

And that's more than enough, Mayor.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Sorry, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Councilmember Stafford, well, you remind me, I apologize.

You were passing something over to me.

Will you um refresh my mind on that?

Um Lord.

Um I let it go.

No.

Your point earlier about um, I believe it was about like info versus about the geography.

Okay, and EJ, if you'll start the clock again for Ms.

Moore, please.

Thank you.

Sorry, I just want to make sure I answered Councilmember Stafford, so thank you.

Um and I I don't I don't know, you know, who this would go to.

And it sounds like Councilmember Whitaker, I appreciate talking about that.

You know, I have a we have a variety of ways that we can potentially um address and look at um the way that we would address this, be it that it could be a more uh geographic study, um, that potentially might not have the outcomes like you just mentioned that we would think um or treating everyone the same.

Um I guess my my concern is I not knowing at this time uh you know what was looked at, I guess, and and I'm curious about uh what came into considerations potentially for you know, is that you know a more expensive study potentially, or would there potentially be some benefit to how that would um go across?

The way that I understand impact studies is that they have to be legally defensible, there has to be a formal study, and so they're very light cost prohibitive.

There's a reason we didn't do one recently, and so as we're talking about well, we can like revisit things, that becomes my question too, is that it is important and it's timely to address this, but it's also um important, you know, to try to answer and get these questions done too.

So I feel this need that we want to give people notice and that we want to um be able to meet our deadline.

I just feel like in the last several days in particular, you know, this has just come to the public realm, and there have been very valid um questions that have been raised.

And so I know that there have been lots of um meetings that have been had.

I mean, our water and sewer folks, the staff, you know, and and the finance department, et cetera, have all worked on this.

I just know that we're looking at trying to do things differently in the city of Fayetteville.

I'm not an expert in this realm, but one of the things that we really have talked about is um you know trying to really think about what our strategic plans say as well and trying to think through um what those direct impacts and you know Mr um uh Caldwell was talking about you know trying to develop his individual property and that he's going to be connecting you know into you know old lines and he will be you know paying at the same rate right as you know somebody that might be you know over at the edge of town and so I'm just trying to think through some of those kind of like logical um arguments that have have come forward and trying to understand you know we have this before us today we have the consultants with us you know do we need to be you know considering some of these things that have been brought up and then so sorry it's like the longest question ever secondarily I guess my question is you know they brought up about the buybacks and the um cost shares and I hear as a city we're working to address that I don't know what our timeline is for that and so a lot of these folks that had progress uh projects and process or they're even looking at the possibility of projects and trying to pencil them out with our proforms you know how are we how do we have those conversations or add certainty to that I know we're feeling this uncertainty and I think that's part of it too right I mean all everybody's got rising inputs and a lot of uncertainty with some of the projects they're working on and so I'm trying to think through that we have a deadline kind of coming at us for one thing in particular we're so far behind on where we're at on the impact fees we do need to create movement but we also have this moment where we've paid for the study and we're spending the time now do we need to ask a few additional questions do we need to look at you know I'm very intrigued about San Antonio and I'm gonna apologize profusely at being here at what feels like the 11th hour but I'm taking in the information as fast as I can and hearing it back from the community.

Is on timing of hearing you know we want to pass this tonight and this has been out just for a little bit in the public realm and I've already had you know several really engaging conversations and valid points brought up that it gives me uneasiness about passing tonight and really wonder if it sits for another two weeks and we you know try to work towards something what else potentially gets bubble up now that this is in the public realm that gets into the media it's you know in additional conversations over coffee um you know we've seen a number of builders that are represented tonight and so I'll try to sum up my three because I don't know who those need to go to um but is the timing whether or not adjustments to the study or additional kind of addendums might need to be considered or looked at and then just want to go back to the potential of um could we hypothesize about going back to the homeowners you know talking about hitting the same cost you know in town with the pie versus you know someone that might be kind of in the green fill and this might again go back to what council member Whitaker said that we may we may not know till we model it.

So I'll just let those I don't know who those get to Keith I'll let you start and then if Jennifer or Steve have follow-ups that'd be great.

Go ahead.

Well first thing on the cost shares is probably the easiest of the three uh that's something that it's very important to me.

One of my I know my first meetings in this role was talking about a lift station on the west side of town and how it's going to support five different developments and how that was on our our master plan and that was something that we wanted to bring to the top.

So I think that's something staff will make that a priority and I think that's something that we could get done in the very near future.

Talking about kind of infill I think as most people on the council know my background's in technology and I you know I think it's a technology problem that I could sit there and look at can we do that?

Yes but is it is it something that's um would be a huge job we just went through our stormwater utility and you could look at what it took for us to calculate the impervious surface and the amount of head count that it took for us to bring that up and it's not a one and done it's something that we're working on every single day to make sure that's updated.

And then when you look at uh when you look at in field development which I think that we're a shining star in the area uh that does in field development and with that state law you know that doesn't allow us to do anything with ADUs that is a positive that you know people don't have to pay impact fees when they're doing an ADU.

But if you look at you still have to get the water from Beaver Lake to the faucet and you still have to get the effluent from the house to the sewage treatment plant.

And if as Mike Wiedaker very eloquently stated, you know, there's a lot between point A and point B.

So that person you know even though they have an infill we have to pay for that entire infrastructure we have to treat that we have to pay for the chemicals we have to pay for the wear and tear of those wastewater treatment plans.

And if you look at our bond that we just put 120 million dollars you know allocated to our Nolan plant that is a significant cost that if we didn't have that in our bond we'd be talking about that tonight.

That if we didn't have that in our bond, we'd be talking about that tonight.

So I think uh could it be done?

Yes, but I also think that you have to look at being efficient use of you know our resources.

And as you as you mentioned, you know, we hired experts with corolla, and I think they've done an outstanding job, and it's what they've brought to us is a defensible uh method uh before each night.

And then I think the last thing is on timing.

It is something that we would like to be done ASAP, uh, just because we would love to work with our wholesale customers uh to be able to give them a little additional information or time to get this information out to their pay ratepayers.

Jennifer, do you have um answers to add to Ms.

Moore's questions?

Sure.

Um, so I just want to address two things that I heard in your comments.

Um first, excellent feedback from the developer community, and I think that city staff is very interested in exploring this, but I want to talk about the scope of the project.

What we're talking the feedback from developers, what we're talking about is far outside the scope of the impact fee study that we have performed.

Um we looked at it and considered it, but it is way beyond the scope of the study that we've performed.

And so there's not a possibility of amending the process to consider these things.

This would be a new process, and I think that's a worthy cause that we can explore.

Um the second point I will make is the impact fees.

I want to say this very carefully.

Financially speaking, the impact fees and the rates are tied together.

They work together to cover total costs of the system.

And we have outlined many differences to who pays for what we've segregated our costs so that some are covered by impact fees and some are covered by rates, and that's very intentional.

But we have total work that has to be done.

If we delay or change the impact fees, we then must go back and change the rates to cover our total costs.

So if we were to, as an example, say we want to take a different approach with impact fees.

We want to do a new study that's you know, spend spend another year looking at this and get it right the first time.

Um we could do that, but we would also need to adjust the rates to cover all of the impact fees that we were going to collect in 2026 to 2027 while that study is happening to recoup those costs.

Because if we had not presented impact fees tonight alongside the rates, the rates would have been higher.

I hope that makes sense.

It actually that's very helpful, and yes, it made sense, or at least to me.

I don't know.

Yes, please go ahead.

Um thank you.

No, that's very helpful.

I have two follow-up questions.

Um, could you give us an idea of a ballpark if they were pulled apart, especially like for the rates that payers you know would have looked at when you were looking at those?

What's the ballpark of the percentage swing that they potentially did to the tiers moving?

Are you asking if we were to hypothetically speaking, if we were to not implement impact fees, what would the rate be on, I'm sorry, what would the change be to the rates, like how critical would it be?

I do not know the answer to that question.

I think that's something that would bear quite a bit of calculation to determine what that would be.

And you know, I would I would echo the comments that Jennifer made, and these are some of the comments that I made at the water and sewer committee meeting.

Now, this was a scientifically calculated and legally defensible rate study, both in terms of the impact fees as well as the water and sewer rates that we are assessing.

And you know, like Jennifer said, it would be likely borne by a number of customers in that initial zero to 2000 gallon class.

If we were to adjust impact fees to reduce them, we would have to therefore increase the rates that we're charging to customers.

And so I think you know, that's kind of what what we've been experiencing for the last 17 or so years.

The fees um that we have been charging have not nearly been enough to cover it.

And we went over that earlier.

Basically, what we're doing is we're bringing those fees to what we had calculated in 2009.

Uh, we're just essentially adding on the rest of what was not implemented.

If we don't do that, we're gonna see some some pretty large increases from from my initial calculations in the rest of the rates.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Berna, then Miss Turk.

Excuse me, thank you, Mayor.

Um if I could have the consultant come up.

Uh I've got one question for her and then some comments.

Is that okay, Mayor?

Oh, yes, of course.

Yes, Ms.

Barnes, go ahead.

Yes, sorry.

Oh, you're fine.

Didn't know you were waiting on me.

Yes.

When you were asked about uh study options and you kind of pulled uh uh just off the top of your head, San Antonio.

Yeah, uh wouldn't the size of San Antonio make a dramatic difference, a shift uh considering we're talking about San Antonio is more than double our size, and that's not taken in the metro.

Uh wouldn't that make it significantly different than I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm trying to make sure I understand that it it is significantly larger and they serve um not just San Antonio but some of the the outer areas, I guess the metro area of San Antonio.

Okay, that is correct.

So it would skew the numbers dramatically.

Yes, correct.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, and then uh that's fine, thank you.

Okay.

Um I don't like the numbers.

Uh, but I think we have to look at it realistically that uh the study does reflect realistic numbers.

I think um in in regards to impact fees, um, I think it's dramatic.

Um had we implemented the fees as they were scheduled to be implemented, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Why they weren't adjusted, I I'm not privy to that information.

Um, what I want to stress is one of the comments that one of the developers said uh hit me because there's been many times that people have come to the the microphone or made comments that uh vilified a developer.

And uh I think that's unfair, and I want to make sure because this increase is going to affect home prices.

There's just no way around it because they can't absorb it.

They have to pass it on.

So when we have a situation where this discussion comes back up and the developers are starting to be vilified, I hope this body comes to their defense because uh uh I I think without developers, we really will have a housing crisis.

They have to build, but they can't go in the hole every time they build.

They've got to make a profit to be able to continue.

So I think it's important that we as a body remember that and acknowledge what they do for our community.

I would challenge staff.

You guys want us to pass this tonight, and I will support that, but I want to challenge staff to be just as aggressive to identify where we can help the developers because if we help the developers, it's gonna help our housing uh supplies because uh they make some valid points.

The the length of time I've been on council, some of the the comments that I've heard from developers is you know, it's just a struggle.

It's a moving target.

We gotta we gotta be able to see what the target is and go to the target.

We can't go to the target and in a week before we get to the target, they move the target left or right.

We gotta get to the target.

We gotta know what the target is and get to it and be able to go directly to it.

That cuts their cost, and if that cuts their cost, then that should be able to be passed on to the to the consumer.

So I just want to make sure we don't um allow them to be vilified just because they have serious valid questions and desires to get things streamlined.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I I set through the last rate study, the one prior to this.

This rate study is so much easier to understand, is so much more direct.

They've done a great job with looking at all the information, the data.

Um, I understand I about wanting to not pay for off site or downstream development if you upsize an eight-inch line to a 12-inch line.

I'd really like to make sure that we get that figured out legally if we're allowed to do that in Arkansas or if state law prevents us.

So I'd really like to ask that legal help us out with that in the very near future, because Councilmember Weedaker expressed um this challenge very eloquently, and we've talked about it before.

We've talked about it in the water sewer, and we really kind of need to know the answer to that question.

So that would be helpful, Blake.

Sure.

And just briefly responding, if we have impact fees that are uh sufficient to fund our uh account, I guess, you can use the cost share ordinance that says that we'll pay the excess cost of upsizing something.

So if the developer has to provide a some additional amount of capacity to their development, but we say instead of you know an eight-inch, you need to go to a 12-inch, and this is gonna serve other developments in the area.

Hopefully, our impact fee fund has the money for us to pay for that portion of the cost share.

We we've often done that, but it's I think it gets complicated, and I think it's really inconsistent.

So it would be nice if we had if we had the escrow model that council member Weedaker um mentioned, if that's even possible within the state.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Mike.

My second set of comments are um, you know, we've been trying to write size in it because we're growing so quickly, and then we kind of got I would say blindsided a little bit just slightly by the increase in water cost from Beaver Water District.

So I think it's really important that we implement this, that we pass this, if not tonight, within two weeks.

I'd prefer that we pass it tonight.

Um we're still we've got all the cost comparisons between the other cities in our area.

We are the lowest, or we're really close to the lowest of the of I would call the bigs, and so keeping that in mind, even though we're hearing some concerns from the development community, I think we're still cheaper to build overall than the other cities, and so um, and we've been very cheap with our impact fees since 2009.

So again, I think the team has done an excellent job of looking at this, and uh, I would just ask that we pass this tonight.

Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I think my question lends to you, mayor, either Keith.

Um, at what point can we start communicating with um Winslow and Greenland and the other entities that are purchasing water from us?

I don't want to wait until we pass it to let them know this is coming.

And my question is how can we be more proactive and share this data or share this information until putting the pressure on the city council, and we're not gonna do anything until you pass it.

Why can't we share what's coming?

That's a that's a really good question, and I I hope I have an answer at least a distinction.

So we have as a staff, myself, Tim, Corey, the finance team, Keith, I believe Gracie was there, met with the area mayors, so West Fork, Greenland, Elkins, Farmington, Mount Olive.

Where am I forgetting?

Johnson.

Yes, and Goshen.

So and Goshen.

And so we had a meeting with those mayors who are purchasing water, either passing it through, and their their residents are buying it directly or they're buying it wholesale to prepare them.

So they have seen this slideshow that you have seen, and they have seen all these numbers.

It's not our um, I don't want to say it's not our job.

I don't feel like it would be appropriate for us to communicate directly to their residents.

One, because we don't have that communication pathway, and so I think that we are not waiting to communicate that to the mayors.

I think those mayors are waiting on us to communicate to their residents because they don't want to say, oh, hey, your water's going up X percent in July, and then have to go back and say, just kidding, it's going up more, or just kidding, now it's able.

I think they're waiting so that they can have a clear commiss uh consistent message, is my understanding of it.

And Keith, is that fair?

Yeah, I think that the mayor's local mayors were very happy with with our engagement and just how we explained it compared as councilmember Turk said the last time that we did this study.

I think it was we learned a lot of lessons from that and how we needed to reach out to them earlier in the process, and they were very appreciative of that.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I I want to say I appreciate all the the great comments from my fellow council members and the input from the development community.

I I think we can't continue to you know work through these issues.

Um but with that said, I'd like to motion that we move forward and suspend the rules and uh go to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second from Ms.

Turk.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll to take it to the third and final reading?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

No.

An ordinance to amend Section 51.136 monthly water rates, 51.137 monthly sewer rates and 15902 water and wastewater impact fees to change water and sewer rates as recommended by the cost of service study conducted by Corolla Engineers.

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

Unless Dr.

Jones, did you have a final comment?

Oh, okay.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Oh, yes.

And so that passes.

Thank you.

Thank you all so much for everybody that that worked on this.

Thank you, Nick and Isla as well for being here and Corey and Tim and everybody.

So that passed.

And we will now move on to Section C unfinished business.

First up is C 1 516 North Fallon Avenue sewer damage claim.

And I would welcome a motion to table Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, I'll motion we table to the next meeting.

Second.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion.

Tim, is the next meeting sufficient?

Yes.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second to table it to the next reading.

Clerk Paxton.

And I don't think we need to.

Oh, you're coming up for the next thing.

I see.

You're ahead.

You're getting ahead of it.

I like that.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

That brings us to new business.

The first item of new business is D1, 2825 North Humeunt Road.

It's a sewer connection.

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.

Tim, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

So the sewer service for an existing home in Washington County with a failing septic tank has been requested at 2825 North Hume Road.

A sewer service line across North Hume Road would be required to serve this property with a simple sewer tap.

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

System is no longer dispersing wastewater into the soil as designed, causing sewers to back up into the home.

Per city of co per code 51.113, city council approval is necessary for any sewer connections outside the corporate city limits of Fayeville, Farm Trinity Grinning or Johnson.

Additionally, this sewer connection will not negatively impact system capacities in the vicinity.

Additionally, the residences surrounded on three sides by the Fayetteville city limits, and annexation is a condition of the sewer service connection.

The connection request was not channeled through the water and sewer committee prior to this meeting due to its ongoing health, safety, and property damage risk.

City staff felt this was an emergency situation, and we'll be able to answer any questions at the city council meeting.

Be happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so Tim, we've had a lot of really good ongoing dialogue in the last week.

So just to clarify, um, the city will bear no cost.

This is just uh uh a line from the house to the existing city tap, correct?

That's correct.

Uh besides the annexation that the homeowner must do uh the the homeowner must pay for the sewer tap and uh that that is a cost that that they pay, and then the city does the tap.

And and just to clarify, since we've had a lot of discussion about impact fees, do they pay an impact fee under this situation or not?

Going from septic to being on our sewer system.

Well, the unified development code does say that any uh user, future user of the system if they do get rid of a on-site private uh wastewater treatment system and connect to the city sewer, they do not have to pay the sewer impact fee.

And and I I just want to be on the record that I really support that because it being um going off septic into our sewer system is really uh a much better environmental situation and better sewer management.

Uh, but I found it to be real really interesting.

I didn't I didn't know that until we had these conversations.

So um part of my big discussion here uh or pulling off a consent was to have the this discussion and conversation.

And then um, you know, because we do have um city residents right now that don't have access to a sewer system, especially way over on the west side.

And I and so um eliminating the tap tapping fee, um, the impact fee is great, but I also want to be really cognizant of how we get sewer lines to them without them having to bear the whole cost.

So I hope in in some of our future conversations with water and sewer, we can talk about how we might be able to um help that happen.

We'd be happy to have those conversations, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um Teresa asked a question that covered uh my concerns.

So I'm good.

All right, great.

If we don't have other questions, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Thank you, Tim.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak about item D one?

Keith, I'm not seeing anyone on Zoom.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the council and remind you that it is a resolution, so to move forward, it requires a motion.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to pass the resolution as presented.

I had a comment.

Okay, it will um I I rushed past that.

So Ms.

Moore has a comment, then we'll go back to your to your motion and second.

So I just wanted I mean, thank you for opening up this question, Councilmember Turk.

I I was honestly surprised when I joined the city.

I had seen the counties project where they mapped all the septic, and so I understood our rural community had an extensive network of septic, you know, and the challenges close to our waterways in particular with those felled systems, especially if they would look at larger scale developments that would go close to our waterways.

And so I was really surprised at how many septic actually exist in the city of Fayetteville.

That was something new that I learned coming on to council.

And so my only balancing act, I guess, is in some of those areas, you know, it is you know pretty cost prohibitive and it's um smaller volume of customers, and so as we're looking and you're speaking specifically to the West Side, I think it probably would behoove us to look across the entire city for evaluation and understanding you know what might be involved in that, and would hope to be able to kind of bring those neighbors into the conversation.

Um my only hesitation at our edges is just continu that continued conversation we have about sprawl and whether or not you know we're potentially incentivizing people to go to our very edges, but I also hear that challenge that you know these are our current residents too, right?

And they you know potentially would benefit by being a part of the system.

So just trying to balance all those different needs that exist to uh create you know safe, accessible, you know, way into our system and to help to clean up, especially so many septic systems eventually do fail.

Mayor, may I respond to that?

Sure.

Um so one of the one of the reasons again why I pulled this off of consent is that about six months ago we had a resident that um is on the edge of town, but this is these are older homes that are that are on septic, so it's not a new development, it's an older home.

And so, how do we balance that?

They're within the city, but they don't have the funds to extend the pipe, whereas we're gonna annex a portion uh and and waive impact fees for somebody that's outside of our city.

So it's it's how do we align our policies and and support for those kinds of situations?

Well stated on all counts.

And I believe we have a motion from Mr.

Berna and a second from Dr.

Jones.

Is that correct?

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you and this is to approve?

Um Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wiedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item D2, a resolution to approve the purchase of property located at 2400 West Valley Drive in the amount of 225,000 to approve a contingency in the amount of $7,500 and to authorize the mayor to sign all closing documents.

Chris, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I distributed a memo this afternoon.

Hopefully, the council's had a chance to read that that we we attempted to summarize and answer uh the questions that we received last week.

Say you know, the the question that I heard is why are we purchasing this property and not elevating structures, not working on some of the other drainage improvements, et cetera.

And uh the answer to that is we're we're doing all of that.

Uh this is the opportunity that that we have in front of us because this property was for sale.

We are working on uh the the project along West End, intend to bid that as soon as we can, as soon as the plans are ready, uh we're working with the property owners to to raise some of the houses uh where the property owners are are uh participating in that program.

We plan to continue that program uh as long as we have applicants and and folks interested in that.

So uh we're really doing all of that.

We've what we found is there's no one strategy um on in this area that really solves the problem, and so we're trying to look at all of the different solutions, and this is one of them.

So can answer any further questions.

Okay, Miss Tark.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Chris, for um providing a lot of extra information.

Um so I guess my question is when did you all start reaching out to the people that are in that neighborhood that you know have had repeated flood events, and then how did you decide to purchase the house instead of elevating some of the other houses that uh from property owners that had requested that?

Right.

So uh we reached out uh I I don't remember exactly when it was, but we when we saw the uh availability of this uh the FEMA grant that we participated in, we reached out to to find out who was interested in participating and we listed those in the grant application.

Uh that grant application um we we never heard anything.

We've recently actually just today uh found out that they've asked us to reapply for the for the next um application period.

So we are going to reapply.

Um but then as we as we continue to discuss that, you know, how we could fund the the elevation increases, then we budgeted that those additional funds in the stormwater fund and then reached out to those property owners and uh verified that they were still interested, and then we're moving forward with those interested parties.

So we're gonna spend theoretically 225,000.

We've only for this house, this one house, we've budgeted 200,000 a year, but why are the I guess my question is why aren't the people that wanted their houses elevated first in line?

Why isn't that money going to them instead of buying the house?

Understood.

And it's it's really just the fact that this house is for sale, and if we uh don't take this opportunity, then it will sell to a private uh you know, another owner, uh, and then we'll still have a house in the floodway.

So uh again, those are the the elevation strategies are something that we are working on, uh, but we really feel like this is a strategy that we need to take action on as well.

So will there be enough money to elevate a couple of these neighbors this year instead of waiting to next year.

I mean, um, you know, I know we've been waiting on FEMA funds for a long time, and and um we all got the uh the email about how long this has been and how frustrated these folks are, and so I just I would rather them get um uh compensated or or uh reparations made now rather than if it's an either-or than purchasing this house because there could be the new homeowner or the because they they actually had uh in the packet it said that they had offers that were the same as the cities.

So those offers could actually be a developer that maybe wants to tear that down.

Um all of the in the um uh in the uh oh what's the name of it in real estate, the disclosure document, they will know that they've had repeated flooding events, so the buyer would already know that.

So I again I'm hoping that these other folks get relief and are not um it's not taken away because of the purchase of this house.

Yes, and I I would say that's not the case.

The the elevation um project is uh proving to be um I I won't say complicated, but there are some steps that we have to take.

We have to get specifications together and um get bids from contractors.

Uh we'll know a lot more once we get the the first one done about what that cost is going to be.

Um we've estimated it pretty high at 100,000.

We think it might come in a little bit lower than that, um, but we'll we'll know better.

Um, and each house will be different, of course, with different materials and that sort of thing.

Well, um there's significant development going on down there where there's just a slight elevation gain, and so hopefully there's been some um learning that's gone on with watching these projects develop.

And so hopefully there's been some learning that's gone on with watching these projects develop.

Sure.

Yeah.

So the current current drainage requirements for developments are much more stringent than they have been in the past.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think Bob turned his light off.

So we'll go, Sarah Butch.

Sarah Moore.

Yep.

Ms.

Butch.

Thank you.

Chris, any are there any of the other houses that were applicable?

The elevation strategies would have applied to, or any of those located right on a drainage ditch the way this one was right next to a culvert.

We we would not recommend leaving these houses in place.

If if we were going to do anything with this house, we would want to see it removed from the floodway.

I think it's important to distinguish between floodplain and floodway.

The floodway is much more restrictive.

So that's that's an area that where we have existing structures and floodways.

Okay.

And is this is the entirety of this house in the floodway, or is it a portion of the yard that's in the floodway?

The entire structures and the floodplain.

Yes.

But someone could still buy it if they could provide flood insurance.

Yes, that the structure could remain in place as long as they don't uh there's no substantial improvement, or if if the house burned or something like that, they would not be able to rebuild it.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, Chris, for the packet that your team put together.

I've had a busy day, so I haven't been able to fully digest it.

Um I've gotten to know these neighbors um down there in this area of Ward 2, and unfortunately, no, um, you know, they've dealt with us since 2017, so they've been so patient.

Um, and I pre appreciate I know staff has really been looking over the years at so many different ways to address this.

And so I'll start by saying I'm supportive of purchasing this home.

I may, but but what does it look like for the timeline and what's the outlook for everyone in this area?

Um I spent time talking to some of the neighbors and they were uncertain about where they're at in process.

And so I wanted to better understand also too this particular house.

It sounds like we've talked about if we purchase it, we will scrape and we will work on um additional diversion, creating a widening of the channel.

But when I set an agenda session, you couldn't quite confirm.

I just want to make sure that we're saying that yes, this is going to potentially try to take away some of the pressure on this neighborhood to um clear some of this water that they get on these big rain events.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Well, the the idea is to remove the structure.

Um I think only having one lot and and trying to make uh a drainage improvement that's really gonna make a huge difference.

Um it's probably not our best approach.

We're gonna have to um do a little bit more up and down this drainage way.

Um, but this is again a start, it's an opportunity to um take care of one issue that we have here.

Yeah, and then um I know that different neighbors have been talked to at different times.

Is there anything that's been talked about internally about?

I know Alan is kind of the person who oftentimes has a lot on his plate, but some of these folks maybe haven't talked to the city in a year plus that I was talking to neighbors.

Is there a way that they can you know talk to the city or have us a neighborhood um conversation because several of the ones that are kind of in line, I believe, with this house, you know, they do take on water, they're probably gonna be full loss where you know that we would have to purchase those homes potentially, but I don't know that they feel like they're in the know of that, and I've heard some different things back and forth with them.

And so I just didn't know what our communication was gonna be ongoing with these neighbors in this neighborhood.

Right.

Um again, I I know we we had reached out to um all of the neighborhood um when we were putting the grant together, and we had some positive responses.

So those are the ones that we've been talking to you know in more detail about what that's gonna look like.

We have one house that we're essentially uh piloting uh this process and and getting the specs together right now uh to get bids for that particular house.

We'll we'll have a better understanding of really how the how the process is gonna work.

So we're we're just kind of working through that.

We do have the the difference between now and and in previous years is really funding.

We we didn't have funding before uh to do this, and now we have a funding source and the ability to um do a lot more for for you know anybody who's experiencing drainage issues, but um and we we intend to continue uh budgeting for these elevation um or purchases, whatever the case may be, um as long as we have um interested parties.

So are you able and thank thank you for that answer, Chris?

Um are you able, I know you can't tell us specific properties, although I I know some of them.

Um are you able to tell us at this time in the mix of that neighborhood, how many potentially look to be full purchases the way we've looked at them, and how many potentially look to need to be raised in the way we've looked at models?

I I think we've got we've got one other along um Valley Drive that um is is in the floodway, so that would be a purchase.

I think we have maybe one or two other houses that are um slab on grade uh that would be difficult to um raise the elevation on.

Um and then we've got I mean there's there's probably seven or eight, maybe ten houses that that could benefit from elevation increases.

And then it sounds like as we talked about the elevation, it sounds like that number has kind of been changing over time.

And so when you're talking about budgeting over time, what I'm trying to understand, because we're almost at 10 years that some of these folks, you know, I was talking um one of the properties, I think how to put $15,000 up front with an HVAC, you know, it's becoming like pretty catastrophic for some of the folks.

Um family, she their youngest is a three-year-old, and they called during the flooding that recently happened and water was rising and almost getting to their outlets, and they were trying to say like they're already their house was gonna catch fire, and they were you know kind of diverted different ways.

So I mean they were pr in pretty peril.

So I'm just trying to figure out, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot except for I'm trying to understand what our timeline looks like because if we're looking at the CIP and I'm doing the math of each of these structures is to raise it's at least 100,000 plus to purchase its 200 or 300,000, and we're only going to be putting into like our CIP or looking at whatever budgetary um, you know, uh two or three hundred thousand dollars.

It sounds like with the numbers that you told me that this could go 10 plus years down the road.

And I don't know if if that is the outlook or if we think that we've got like a different timeline potentially to be telling them.

So if that family, he only moved in three years ago and at their closing, that's when they found it, it was in the floodplain.

They didn't, they had extra insurance, et cetera, that that that detail had been missed, and they're potentially needing to leave.

I just I don't know what their outlook is on how their house potentially is a part of that.

So is it five years that we're looking to solve in this area?

Or I mean realistically, is it potentially 10 years?

I'm just not sure.

Yeah, it's my understanding that um we have a smaller number of of uh property owners that have indicated their interest in raising the elevation of their house.

So uh maybe maybe three to five.

Um so that's one answer.

And then the second thing is with this, if we can um get some of this funding, we certainly can leverage the the city funds and and greatly increase the pace of uh of any of those elevation increases.

But if we wanted to look at like bond monies, do we have the potential to escalate?

That's yeah, that that's certainly um an option as well, other revenue sources to um increase the pace of that.

But again, based on the number of requests that we had uh we have so far, um, and maybe there's some uh property owners that have talked to you that maybe we haven't talked to.

So we'd we'd love to get in touch with those as well and and uh get them on the list for sure.

All right, thank you, Chris.

Thank you.

Um Minister Jones.

Thank you.

Hi, Chris, how are you today?

I'm I'm probably gonna repeat a couple of things, but I'm just want to summarize to make sure I heard you say something correctly.

So what I heard you say is we're willing to purchase and elevate houses that are currently in the floodway, correct?

Well, so the the floodway, if we're if we're gonna be specific, there's a difference between the floodway and the floodplain.

The floodway is the most restrictive zone uh closest to the to the stream.

Uh we generally uh will want to, if we have if we have structures in the floodway, we generally want to take the opportunity to remove those where we can.

So those would be purchase and removal.

Okay.

So I guess my question, I think Councilmember Turk said that some houses are listed at 200 um 300,000, and that is already in the documents that says that houses in a floodplain, but what keeps an owner from increasing the price of their house knowing that the city is just gonna buy it.

Well, so we we did we do get appraisals and um we we are gonna uh generally pay market value.

Uh so that that really kind of sets the upper limit of of what we would be paying.

And ultimately, it's the city council's decision as to whether you want to purchase these.

Okay.

And then my last question is there any um FEMA funding to support um the work that we're doing around the elevation.

Yes, and that that's uh I mentioned that earlier that we had applied previously.

Uh we did not receive we we just we didn't receive any response really, but recently uh again today we got an email from uh our FEMA representative that uh asked us to reapply uh for that particular grant on the next funding cycle.

Okay, thank you.

Keith, I see your light on.

Do you have an additional answer?

I just want comment.

When Chris first brought this to our attention, to me, this is I think he the what he started off with is just this one.

This is one piece of the pie.

I think he brought to us and said there was two structures that were completely in the floodway, and he's like, we have an opportunity to purchase one of these.

And I'll be the first one to say, man, that's a great idea because it's there was two structures that were very high priority.

We are studying that area.

We get a lot of calls.

We'd already removed the structures on the West Avenue apartments in that area, and it was like these two properties are high priority.

Uh somebody came and says, Hey, we're selling these.

It seemed like hey, there's an easy button.

And if anybody knows, sometimes I use the easy button in good ways and bad ways.

So, but this is one when Chris came to me and I thought this was a great idea that we could move forward on something and improve something that we get a lot of complaints on.

And if you look at this house of the two houses that are out there, I actually went out and looked at it myself Sunday afternoon.

It is right at the confluence of two creeks, and it is in a you know, it's in a bad location, and it did seem like it was the best use of our funds to recommend uh to council to purchase his property.

Okay, and just to we hope to get FEMA, but we've been kind of struggling with some of the stuff we're getting out of them.

We hopefully can get some grant uh money for this project.

Okay, Miss Turk.

I I have two last uh questions.

Um, where's the funding source for the house to be purchased?

That is uh bond funds, I believe.

Let me verify that.

Steve, would you like to answer that question, please?

That's correct.

It's the the bond, the stormwater bond funds.

Okay, excellent.

And then um, I'm hoping that that we're gonna start the elevation process on these properties like ASAP Yes, and okay, and we're not gonna be prevented because we have the bond funding, right?

We're not gonna wait on FEMA, I guess is really the question.

Right.

We're gonna we're gonna continue with with all of the projects that we have in the area.

Um the the FEMA funding will uh supplement and help us, you know, leverage funds and or not use city as much city funds to do it.

Okay, thanks so much, Chris, and really appreciate all of the information that you provided to us.

Sure.

Thank you.

I'm gonna open it up for public comment.

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

I am not seeing anyone, and I know we do not have anyone on Zoom.

So I will bring it back to the council, reminding you that it is a resolution.

So to move forward, it requires a motion.

I motion we vote to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the resolution as presented.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

That brings us to item D3, an ordinance to approve vacation 26-02 for property located at 600 West Meadow Street and Ward 2 to vacate 0.06 acres of general utility easement.

Mr.

Pennington.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under Arkansas Code annotated section 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

And whereas the city council has determined that the following described portion of general utility easement is not required for corporate purposes.

Now there are four be it ordained by the city council of the city of Faiville, Arkansas, Section One, that the City Council of the City of Fable, Arkansas, hereby vacates the portion of general utility easement as described in exhibit B attached to the planning department's memo.

Section two, a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the city clerk along with the map attached as exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

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

One, any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner slash developer's expense.

Two, any and all water or sewer lines within the vacated easement shall be granted a 20-foot utility easement centered on the existing utility.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Kirth Development Services Department.

Staff is recommending in favor of this easement vacation request.

It is in downtown Fayetteville at the westernmost end of Meadows Street.

What is specifically before council is a request to vacate roughly 2700 square feet of general utility easement.

As some additional background on the property, and with this request in mind, that the city previously operated three parallel sewer lines and the Greg Avenue Rideaway, some of which serve duplicative purposes, some of which were built to add additional capacity and increments.

Following the vacation of the Greg Avenue right-of-way, the and a subsequent development proposal, the developer designed, installed, and installed a new line proposed to run around their building and reconnect with the existing sewer line along Gregg Avenue before proceeding southwards.

In evaluating this request, uh staff confirmed that all franchise utilities uh have consented, leading to our recommendation of approval.

That includes the two conditions that Mr.

Pennington noted, most prominently of which is that uh 20-foot easements uh may be required to be dedicated where an existing water and sewer lines uh are remaining or are uh being associated with the project that I described uh earlier in the presentation.

With that, I'm happy to take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe Eric Bartles is the representative for the applicant.

I'm not sure if he has anything to say though.

Okay, great.

Um Mr.

Bartles, do you have a presentation you'd like to make, or you can also just choose to be available for questions?

And did I pronounce that correctly, Bartles?

I usually don't.

Uh correct people, but it's Bartels.

Bartels, okay, thank you.

No, I asked to be corrected.

Mr.

Bartels, please go ahead.

Um I think it was covered very well.

I don't have anything to add.

Uh that's just kind of the last piece to close out the development in this area.

And let me know if you have any questions.

Okay, great.

We sure will.

I am not seeing any questions right now from council, and so I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

And Keith just left, so I'm going to pardon allow me to check Zoom.

No, I think you're hold on.

Mayor, I don't see anybody raising their hand.

I don't see anybody on Zoom either.

No.

Okay, so I'm gonna take it back to the city council, starting with Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

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

I second it.

Okay.

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

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

An ordinance to approve VAC 2602 for property located at 600 West Meadow Street in Ward 2 to vacate 0.06 acres of general utility easement.

Okay.

Not seeing any other comments from Council Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you.

That brings us on to, I believe we are at D4.

An ordinance to approve vacation 26-01 for property located at 1834 West Kwood Lane in Ward 1 to vacate.05 acres of ride of way.

Mr.

Pennington.

Whereas the City Council has the authority under Arkansas Code annotated section 1454-104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof which are not required for corporate purposes.

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

Now therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby vacates the portion of ride of way as described in Exhibit B attached to the Planning Department's memo.

Section two, a copy of this ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk along with the map attached as exhibit A to the planning department's memo shall be filed in the office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk.

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

One, any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner slash developer's expense.

Any existing water or sewer line within the vacated ride of way shall be granted a 20-foot utility easement centered on the location of the existing line, and any easements required for future development shall be dedicated as necessary.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to Southwest Fayetteville, uh, roughly between Interstate 49 to the west and Razorback Road to the east.

Uh to orient you a little bit more closely.

This is in the Valley Vista subdivision, uh, which is immediately north of the Brahms and Whataburger that are found along Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Uh getting more specific, uh, this item is with regards to a portion of right-of-way that was dedicated in 1964 with the intent to establish a potential cul de sac if the if Kwood Lane was never to be extended through.

Uh to date, Kwood Lane has not been extended, and the city has not found a need to uh finish out that cul-de-sac, and the applicant or the adjoining property owner has accordingly come to city council asking to uh vacate this right-of-understanding that it's use is uh never been it has not been used as a cul-de-sac and doesn't intend to be.

Uh in reviewing this right-of-way request, uh staff's primary charges are twofold.

Uh the first is to confirm that all the concerned or relevant franchise utilities and city departments are uh consenting to the request.

In this case, they are, and that does include our recycling and trash and transportation groups who uh would most likely be the ones who would be interested in seeing a cul-de-sac developed here.

And also it's a question of uh whether it serves whether the cul de sac would serve the public interest.

Having seen it not be developed in over 60 years, it's hard for staff to make an assertion that it is necessary for that end, and we are accordingly recommending in favor of the request with the conditions that Mr.

Pennington read.

Uh the planning commission, when they heard this item forwarded it to city council by a vote of eight to zero.

I'm available if there are any questions that the council has on this item, and mayor, I'm not certain who is representing this item.

I apologize.

On the elimination of the cul de sac, I was just trying to think through Jonathan on some of the changes that we've made so that some of the developments can do, like backing up to like alley or fronting to alleyways or to the trail to cul-de-sac.

I mean, add any elements substantially by the elimination of this.

This gets rid of something in our flexibility with development code with some of those changes we've made.

I'm just trying to think through that.

That's a good question.

Not in my estimation.

Kwood Lane will remain there as the primary street along that frontage.

There are no associate alleys or parks or or trails in that area.

Uh it is possible that if somebody wanted to subdivide the full property with which this uh right-of-way is associated, they may have to extend Kwood Lane, make improvements to it, uh, actually pave it out to its full extent.

Uh, but otherwise I can't envision any of the impacts you described.

Mr.

Wheediger.

Thank you, Mayor.

And and fire doesn't want a hammerhead to be able to turn their trucks around.

I mean reviewing this with the potential development on the property, that's typically where that would be accommodated.

Uh the streets, interestingly, uh, Gabbard and Kwood somewhat act in that regard today.

If there was to be development on the end of Kwood and extended beyond the typical 150 feet that our state fire code requires for a turnaround, that would have to be incorporated into the development of this site.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Okay.

I'm gonna open this up for public comment.

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

And I don't see that anybody has called in, so I'll bring it back to the council, starting with Mr.

Bernard.

Mayor and make a motion to spend the rules go to third final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

An ordinance to approve vacation 2601 for property located at 1834 West Kwood Lane in Ward 1 to vacate 0.05 acres of ride-of-way.

Okay.

Uh Minister Jones.

Oh, okay.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to D5, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-09 for approximately 0.38.

Sorry.

For approximately 0.38 acres located at 1660 West Palmer Place in Ward 1 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8, residential single family eight units per acre.

Blake.

Both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to residential single family eight units per acre.

Section two, that the city council of the city of Faitville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteable to reflect the zoning change provided in Section One.

Mr.

Kirth.

Thank you, Mayor.

This rezoning request is west of the University of Arkansas campus.

It is about a quarter of a mile west of Bud Walton Arena between Hartman Avenue to the west and uh excuse me, Graham Avenue to the east.

As you can see on the map here, it is the next East West Street north of Nettleship Street.

It includes about 0.38 acres on the south side of Palmer Place.

The request before council is to rezone it from its existing RSF4 residential single family four units per acre zoning designation to RSF 8 residential single family eight units per acre.

Staff and the planning commission are in support of this request.

First and foremost, in evaluating it from a land use compatibility standpoint, staff finds that the proposal to go from RSF4, which allows single family uses by right to RSF 8, which also allows single family uses by right, but with an incremental uh potential additional uh density allowance uh is compatible with what is a largely single family area.

Uh in effect, going from RSF4 to RSF eight would allow for the potential for one or two additional houses on the property where there is one house today.

In long-range planning uh terms, uh we find that this request is also consistent with our future land use map.

Uh it calls out this area as a residential neighborhood area, uh, which uh as its name suggests is intended to support a variety of residential uses.

Uh given some of the infrastructure constraints that I'm about to go into shortly.

We do feel that this small amount of incremental uh additional entitlement is appropriate, particularly given the infill attributes uh associated with the property.

Uh this brings me to some additional considerations, uh, some of which uh were uh prominent at the city council tour we took of the property yesterday, uh others perhaps not as much so.

So I'll touch on these each one at a time.

Uh the first and foremost is that the tree preservation requirement will change, going from RSF four to RSF eight from a 25% tree canopy requirement to 20%.

As a reminder, RSF four and RA are agricultural zoning, have the highest tree preservation canopy standards in the city.

Uh a second item uh that staff considered and which was also uh prominently discussed at the city council tour yesterday was uh a question of parking and street width.

Uh as a way of just demonstrating this, Councilmember Turk asked to diagram out what the parking opportunities, especially on street look like in this uh particular area.

Uh I've indicated on the map with the bold square, uh, roughly where the property being proposed for rezoning is, uh, with the adjacent streets color-coded based on whether they allow on-street parking, uh, which the only example is uh Hartman to the west, where it's allowed on one side of the street, uh, and red for no on-street parking allowed at all, which is the remainder of the streets in this neighborhood.

So uh that is Hartman, that portion south of Palmer is the only uh section that does allow parking, and that's on street on the east side of that street.

Uh notably, uh it is worth uh considering that we do remain having uh residential parking requirements in the city of Fayetteville.

Uh if this property were to be redeveloped, it would be required to provide two minimum parking spaces uh per single family dwelling, which again is the only allowed uh uh housing type in either the existing or the proposed zoning district.

Uh another item that was considered, and again, uh uh visualized at the the tour yesterday was a question of drainage.

Uh one question that came up at agenda session specifically was whether this property or its immediately surrounding properties were a part of any existing uh stormwater utility projects or consideration.

Uh I pulled this from our online stormwater utility dashboard, so it may look familiar to some of you who have navigated that.

Uh the property being considered with this item is there in bold, uh, and it is between two areas that are being considered for stormwater utility projects.

It is not currently within one of those areas.

Uh the one to the north, uh called the West Hotes project, uh, has a or West Hot Drive project, uh has a planned uh project totaling about 450,000.

Uh there have been previous expenditures in that area of about 280,000 uh addressing drainage issues or in an attempt to address drainage issues.

And for the south uh on Southeastern Avenue, uh there's a second project being considered uh valued at about 676,000.

Uh focusing back in on this property and the drainage patterns around it.

Uh this is a largely or this area does have a largely informal uh drainage infrastructure.

Uh that's I guess a cute way of describing it's mostly ditches or culverts that go under driveways.

Um the property in question uh is largely open ditch in front of it.

Um it does drain to the northeast before going eastward and back south.

Uh some of the comment for those that weren't able to join for the tour is that a uphill property uh or a gravel driveway on an uphill property that you can see with the red oval uh had been deteriorating and going into the drainage system downstream and into what you see is the blue dotted line uh going back behind uh 48 Palmer, uh, where is filling in a uh a drainage ditch in that area.

Uh in discussing this with our stormwater group today, uh the feedback I received is for the portion outside of the public right-of-way, meaning that that's going on private property uh near 48 Palmer and those adjoining properties.

For that to be uh taken care of by the city, the typical process that we go through is to acquire drainage easements on the property that allows us to enter the property and and perform active maintenance and ongoing maintenance and and be able to clear or open those those uh ditches back up.

Uh at the tour, there was some curiosity of whether they where there's a paper right-of-way uh to the east of 48 Palmer, whether the drainage ditch appeared to be in that, and it does in fact appear to be just outside of that on the private property owner's uh land at 48 Palmer.

Um and then speaking more broadly back to this rezoning in particular, uh, there are questions of how this may impact uh drainage in the area.

Uh that depends on the scope of the development.

Uh it's my understanding that the developer has contemplating uh keeping the house and maybe adding a house, potentially removing the existing house, or adding one or two houses depending on uh whether this is approved tonight or otherwise.

Uh that could trigger uh different tiers of requirements within our drainage criteria manual, depending how much impervious area they add to the property as a part of that.

Uh finally, uh touching on public comment.

Uh in advance of the uh planning commission meeting, we did receive uh concerns with runoff issues uh and uh downhill from the subject property uh that's being considered on Palmer.

Uh at the tour yesterday we heard a much more extensive list of concerns.

Uh these range from uh uh the the need to prioritize maintaining the the homogenous zoning that exists largely between nettleship to the south and Cleveland to the north, which is uh almost singularly RSF4 in nature today.

Uh there's also concerns expressed about uh the parking or the lack of availability of on-street parking and the uh increasing presence of student housing in the neighborhood and the difficulty with which it is or the difficulty it takes to enforce um occupancy requirements in those units given the uh family definition that the city of Fayetteville currently has on the books.

All that said, again, uh and considering the the land use issues in particular uh at this location, staff is recommending approval of the request when the planning commission heard it, they uh felt similarly and forwarded it to city council by unanimous eight to zero vote.

I can take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe.

I believe Noah Jones is available online as the applicant for this item.

Okay, great.

All right, Mr.

Stafford, do we have questions for the applicant or for Mr.

Kirth?

I I think for Mr.

Kerr, uh, you know, uh as it's zoned now, they could they could put an ADU on the property or tear down the house and do a house and ADU.

Like they're they're fully within their rights to do that.

That's correct.

And and with this rezoning, um they could potentially put up to three houses and three ADUs.

Would that be a correct statement?

Or do you think that I I think I'm confident that it could be split at least once to create two lots with two houses and two ADUs.

Uh, I've not seen a survey of the property to be certain whether it could be split into three lots, which would allow that three house, three ADU scenario you described.

But even two houses and two ADWs would potentially be four large structures on that property.

Uh our local codes do not allow ADUs to be larger than $1,200 square feet.

So I'm not sure how you characterize large or not.

Large enough.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Uh and tree preservation be going down five percent.

Is that correct?

From 25 to 20?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes, uh, this question is for Jonathan.

Uh Jonathan, I received um some information about this, and I've got some questions.

Um, and I think it's going back to what uh council member Stafford said.

And um help me with this.

Each unit can have three residents and an ADH and an ADU, I'm sorry, and two more residents.

So three unit, so three units is five people per unit.

That's 15 people living on a small on a small lot, correct?

I I think I understand your math.

If they were able to build three houses and three ADUs, uh our family definition favourable allows up to three unrelated people in each house and then two in the ADUs.

Uh so if that's the 15 you're talking about, yes, absolutely.

A family could be larger, but they would all have to be related.

Okay.

So to my point, 15 cars without a guest.

Uh and I live close by in that area, and that's a narrow street.

And so from what I understand, and I'm not wearing my glasses, but it's like uh 18 feet wide.

And wouldn't they be challenged challenging for both fire and ambulance, right?

To to use the street, yes.

That that's possible, yes.

Okay.

And um as as been the storm water runoff that's been mentioned.

So and from what I understand, uh concrete parking would not work, correct?

I I don't understand what you mean it wouldn't work.

Um so and I'm not wearing my glasses, and I'm having a hard time with this, but anyway, uh it's part of stormwater runoff, so concrete parking would not work.

So I think he's referring to the encouragement to have more impervious or pervious surfaces for parking as opposed to impervious or impervious pervious to mitigate stormwater impact.

Yes, uh pervious pavers or or or or concrete that allows water to permeate through it is allowed as an option.

Thank you for that.

So and from what I understand, safety alone is the problem because one car makes residents feel unsafe, and that is correct because I live very close to that area and I see that that almost daily.

So was that that was a statement or is that a question?

That's a statement that I'm making.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Mr.

Burnout.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan.

You said when you were talking about uh the responsibility of or who was responsible for cleaning out the clearly um nearly full drainage ditch behind uh what is it 48 Palmer?

That's correct.

I thought I in talking to the neighbor, I mean talking to the property owner yesterday, he was under the impression that his property line stopped at the fence.

Is that not accurate?

I don't have a survey of that property from what I'm able to review today with our stormwater group that juxtaposes property lines over our aerial aerial imagery.

It appears that that ditch is on their property.

So having experienced that uh someone came on my property off an aerial photo that was clearly not accurate in the past, if we determine that it is not uh on his property, then who's responsibility to to keep that?

If it's or to improve that.

If it's within the public right-away, we have the ability our typical transportation department to enter that right-of-way and and clear that ditch on the north-south portion of it, the east-west portion is clearly either between one of two private property owners, though.

Right, right.

So do we have an obligation to do that or just the right to do that if we're having a property develop uphill from that area?

I think that's a question with a nuanced answer.

Uh if we receive a work order and understand that that it's an issue, that's something that the city can or incorporate into the transportation departments, uh cycle through the city cleaning out those those pieces of infrastructure infrastructure.

Uh so I think in that sense, you could say it's it's an obligation for us to maintain that.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

I'm gonna follow up on council member Berna's question.

Um, so if if uh the property owner would like to sell that area, that right-of-way to the city, especially since they're having such big water issues and and they're in close proximity to other other water drainage issues.

Would the city be willing to purchase that so that they could maintain and clean it out?

I think that is getting to an even bigger question at this point that I don't have the information in front of me to answer.

Uh, the there are several components that go into our city's stormwater utility decisions.

Um the most preliminary one is how much water is draining to that area.

That's been established as a baseline standard to try to understand at what point the city's responsibility should begin.

To my knowledge, none of that work has been done to date, so I don't I can't answer that question in an informed way.

But the property owner could uh approach the city and say, hey, I would really like to have that conversation, that discussion, and get on your list.

I yes, certainly.

Okay.

I encourage them to do so yesterday when I spoke to them.

Oh good.

Okay.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, and I think I'm just continuing to follow up, but I I I probably don't need to ask, I could probably just kind of sum up basically what you're saying is the the city you can't give us a wood, you can only give us a can, right?

Like in your answer about the, you know, can the city take on the drainage and maintain the drainage?

I can maybe help answer that.

Yeah, there's several other situations that we're recently looked at.

And it's generally when you have situations like this, we work with the property owner to ask them if they will give us a drainage easement.

Because there's a lot of this stuff that's been put on private property.

But it because I'm looking at it right now and I'm not 100% sure whether this is in the right-of-way or on personal property.

So if it's personal property, we'd have to most likely obtain an easement in order for us to get in there and do perform a work.

In a in a way, like if we were to allow more development, which may facilitate the need for more drainage solutions, that the city would say, you know, we're gonna get one extra house, so but we're gonna now we're gonna buy the land, we're gonna uh pay use taxpayer dollars to uh dig the drainage and maintain the drainage.

Is that just to fit an extra house in or two?

Is that what is that do you understand?

I I I think the the question is in if if the city council were to rezone this property in an effort to allow at least one more house, would that have an inadvertent cost of us having to go buy property in order to do drainage work?

Yeah, I don't think I have enough information to answer that question right now.

That is not those are not inherently tied together.

Okay.

Uh yes.

So see, otherwise you can't give us a solid, you can just say we could or maybe I think, right?

I I think that's accurate.

Okay, thank you.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, I just wanted to confirm it.

Uh I know that this area of town has been kind of evolving and changing over time because it abuts so closely to the university.

Um, do I see within about a block that the university basically has P1?

And do we have any information too?

Because I know the university's been continuing to look at their edges.

Um, are they looking at any of the properties or do we have information?

Because I I know we're looking at at this one potentially rezoning with one individual, but I also know the university has kind of over time been going towards this this neighborhood.

Is your question what the university's plans are for their existing properties or acquiring additional properties within the state?

Yeah, first I just wanted to confirm it looks like within like a block, we have P1 and the university is just kind of right there by the by the um neighborhood.

Is that correct?

What I said.

That's correct, yes, to the southeast and further east.

Um I know as we've continued to try to plan and collaborate with the university, they are seemingly continuing to kind of look for additional land.

Do we?

And oftentimes it is at these boundaries.

Do we know if they potentially are looking at any properties?

Because I do have some that's very close by to this.

I'm not aware of any property acquisition efforts.

Uh the most often when we interact with the university on those is when they have infrastructure impacts, or if they are city property themselves that they're looking to acquire.

Okay.

Uh so no, I don't know if they have to do that.

And then it looks like just to the east of this property is RMF um 24.

Is that correct?

Uh yes, one lot to the east and immediately to the south.

Okay.

And then not too far north, it looks like it's RMF 24 as well.

Is that correct?

To the north, no.

There's it's it's largely single family zoning until you get closer to Weddington, I believe.

Was that not north?

1500, and is that mapping correct?

That's north, isn't it?

No.

Oh, east?

Okay, east.

I'm I'm disoriented.

I apologize.

I'm reorienting myself.

Sorry about that.

Um, and so um then my follow-up question was with your map that you had, um, because I've been in this neighborhood area quite a bit.

Um, I'm I know that this strait is definitely narrow, like was stated, and is not allowing for on-street parking.

I have not witnessed it, and I'm sure we're gonna hear from the neighbors to let us know about what happens, but um, do we currently have um ordinances and regulations in place to try to monitor if folks are incorrectly parking on the roadways in that neighborhood?

question was with your map that you had um because I've been in this neighborhood area quite a bit um I'm I know that this street is definitely narrow like was stated and is not allowing for on street parking I have not witnessed it and I'm sure we're gonna hear from the neighbors to let us know about what happens but um do we currently have um ordinances and regulations in place to try to monitor if folks are incorrectly parking on their roadways in that neighborhood the the street system in that area is signed where you're allowed to park and not park and as far as ordinances are in place we we do have standards that would you're assigned for no parking somebody could be ticketed or even towed yes okay all right thank you Jonathan okay I'm not seeing any more questions from the council so I'm gonna open it up to public comment do any members of the public have any comments about this item D5 if so please come up to the mic and state your name and you'll have three minutes hi my name is uh Tom Pierce I live at 1634 West Hots uh which is in ward four uh about three blocks from the property I'm gonna ask you to deny this rezoning and I'm gonna use really one phrase uh one car so if you'll remember that part of my discussion I want to make a point I'm gonna uh step away from my normal accounting mind and share a personal story if you don't mind several years ago I got a phone call from my mother and I picked it up and there was chaos at the other end of the phone and come to find out she was talking to other people and talking to me and come to find out she was going through a heart attack and she was talking to the emergency folks and they arrived on time because they were unimpeded in any way so she lived many years from that point on I just want you to remember the the one car on Palmer creates a does a delay that's it and if you're laying on the floor with a heart attack a delay is important.

If you're standing in the street and your house is on fire a delay is important.

Right now you have a house that has five residents and a big giant parking lot.

So residents and overnight visitors and visitors can visit easily without parking a car on the street what you're asking to do and I I agree with your math I'll return to my accounting mind if you have three three houses three lots there you're gonna have three people living in the house and two people living in an ADU so you'll have five times three which is 15.

So on the low end new people and on the on the higher end 15 people plus guests plus guests they're gonna park on the street now one of the questions you might say is they could park up on Hartman and walk down the only problem is history works against it.

That's that simply doesn't happen.

You might say enforcement well if you're laying on the floor with a heart attack calling enforcement I'm sure that sure works.

The fundamental problem in this entire equation is really simple one car delays fine firefighters and fine ambulance service getting to your house so it's real easy you can leave the leave the property as it is and it's working fine or you can know knowingly expect one car to delay help um it is a safety concern it is a code that requires 20 feet and I ask you to deny it based on a safety concern.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item Keith yes please go ahead and come up yes 35 years in the Army and I always find this hard to do I don't know why.

But my name is Alan Baker I live at 19 North Palmers just uh north of the property that's uh we're talking about um and I'm asking the council to deny uh this rezoning one of the things I learned in 35 years in the army is I would change tradition often as a commander but every time I'd always have that that I thought I wanted to change tradition I'd always have the sergeant majors or somebody say you can do that but you do that at some risk.

Doesn't mean tradition can't be changed but you do so at some risk.

It's kind of like rezoning an established neighborhood so that you can put fill ins I may not be wording that correctly but you're looking at changing the tradition of an established neighborhood that's been around since the 1940s the only neighborhood that borders the University of Arkansas now what do I mean by neighborhood I'm talking about kids playing uh on the sidewalks riding their bicycles playing basketball in the driveways building tree forts in my front yard uh you've got neighbors that have keys to everybody's homes it's an established neighborhood's been around for 80 plus years I'm not saying this one rezoning is going to change it but it's just one and another and another and another one of the reasons why I'm asking to deny this change of potential changing of tradition and believe me I can speak from uh some authority on this developers and builders by and large do not care about tradition that's not what they're that's not their job that's where you all come in you're the last line that that communities have to deny or prove uh rezoning of established neighborhoods 15 cars possibly added here's all here's what I would say to you about that will they park on Palmer?

That's not what they're that's not their job.

That's where you all come in.

You're the last line that communities have to deny or prove uh rezoning of established neighborhoods.

15 cars, possibly added.

Here's all here's what I would say to you about that.

Will they park on Palmer?

The only reason why Palmer is probably the only road in University Heights uh that doesn't have cars parking on the road is because of the diligence of the neighborhood.

We always go up to the students, it's usually students, so you can't park there.

The the I've heard from this council several times that you don't have money for enforcement.

As a result, the following roads, Nettleship, Hartman, Lewis, Eastern, Hanson, Hill, Cross, Maine, South Sang, are all effectively at some point in time during a day are one way roads.

Because nobody is enforcing parking.

And again, I've been told by this council that there's no money for enforcement.

Again, the issue is safety.

And it's interesting.

The or y'all, I can't ask you a question, but South Sain, excuse me, uh, North Sang is a brand new road.

Just been built by a developer.

It's just short of 20 feet wide.

Okay, I guess 20 feet standard.

But they're developing Markham.

So if you've got two commercial dump trucks with the window with the mirrors, are about 11 feet wide.

That means that they cannot pass on this windy saying road that this council approved as a 20-foot road.

Why wouldn't we just say 22 feet?

That's time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for your service.

Um, oh, yes.

And if you all want to go ahead and just come one right up after the other, that helps us, that helps us keep it going.

Good evening to you all.

My name is Karen Pierce.

My address is on Hotz Drive in the University Heights neighborhood.

And Miss Pierce, can you pull the microphone a little bit closer to you?

Thank you.

Start over.

Thank you.

No, you're good.

Okay.

A concern I would like to bring to your attention for those of us living closer to the university and lower on Markham Hill is the storm water runoff problem.

With all of the development at the top of Markham Hill, the clearing of trees, and all of the concrete that was laid, the rainwater now is so heavy and deep as it's going, it's going into many of our neighbors' homes.

Before the development came to our area, there was not this intrusive nightmare.

We have neighbors who have actually spent over $5,000 and up and are just trying to redirect the water that's coming off of this hill.

Now with the property at 1660 West Palmer, more concrete will be covering land that is already designated a stormwater runoff zone.

Rezoning this property to allow more tenants to live on the property, meaning building more homes.

I believe the owner has mentioned to others that he's going to have three houses there.

There's only one there at the moment.

This means more concrete.

Just where is all of this water gonna go?

Yeah, I say rainwater, but it's it's a storm water because without the absorption process that used to be there, now a simple rain can come off that mountain gushing as though it's a severe storm.

But it's more frequently happening now with just a simple rain.

Please, we ask that you vote no for rezoning 1660 Palmer.

We're certainly don't need more flooding, swampy yards, or irrigation costs to occur.

Because this property is designated a store water, storm water runoff zone, it will only create greater problems due to development.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

I see I have a little bit of time, so I'd like to make a comment.

We were speaking with the planning who did approve when we were when we were explaining our neighborhood, there is an apartment complex on the back side.

They thought that was part of the neighborhood.

When we showed them, once you get on to now I'm going blank of the name of the Hartman, you're it's not the same area.

And they were surprised.

So I wasn't at that meeting to help them, and I apologize for that.

But please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom for after we're through in the room?

We do.

Okay.

Do you want to take them first?

No, no, no, no.

You please go ahead.

Good evening.

My name is Carol Lester, and I reside at 34 South Palmer Avenue, Fayetteville.

I'm one house removed from the property that we are talking about at 1660 West Palmer Place.

I just want you all to know that I do agree with the points that have been made to deny the rezoning of this property.

And I'm gonna re-emphasize some points that have been made on safety, because that's my major concern for all residents on South and North Palmer, old and young, retired and students, just all of us, with the possibility of 15 to 18 more residents on this property.

There is a very high probability that cars will be parked on the street.

And I know that's already been addressed, but it's just almost a given.

Our streets, as you know, are extremely narrow, 18 to 19 feet wide.

So if a health concern occurs, it's going to be difficult for emergency vehicles to respond in a timely fashion.

This only one car issue could delay an emergency vehicle five to seven minutes in a dire situation for a resident on North or South Palmer.

This would be true for older or younger residents alike.

So as an older widow living alone, this makes me very concerned and afraid of what could happen.

A development such as the one we're discussing would make university heights less safe for all residents.

On safety alone, I believe that you all should decline the request to rezone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Keith, do you want to go?

Oh, yes.

Come on up.

Good evening.

My name is Beth Lewis, and I live at 185 North Hartman Avenue in a University Heights neighborhood.

The city's unified development code states that it sets forth procedures, requirements, and standards to appropriate mix of land uses in an orderly manner, enhance us that equality, moderate street congestion, secure safety, prevent overcrowding of land.

And it also states that it provides for development which protects established neighborhoods.

University Heights is one of those neighborhoods with its mature trees and generous yards where children play and can walk to neighboring Hot's Park.

The beauty of this traditional and historically relevant neighborhood is what attracted me there 23 years ago.

And the wonderful people that live there is why I have stayed.

The proposed rezoning is along one of our neighborhood streets, and it is not on the fringe, but in the neighborhood.

It would mean more people and more strain on our rainwater and sewer systems.

Water, uh water situations are a problem for many of us on Markham Hill.

Last year, we spent $25,000 on water abatement and mold remediation in our home.

More development like this will just add to our problems.

The UDC also states its primary purpose is to protect the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of Fayetteville residents by reasonable regulations upon development.

But is it reasonable to rezone a property in the middle of a street in a RSF for single-family residents neighborhood with additional safety and water concerns mentioned and the precedent that this would set for the slow demise property by property of our neighborhood?

I urge the city council to deny this rezoning of this property at West Palmer.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm not seeing anybody else, so we'll go to those that are on Zoom.

Keith, you want to go ahead and Noah Jones on Zoom.

I'm sorry, that can you say the name again?

Noah Jones.

Okay, Noah.

Hi, Council.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Awesome.

I am the representative for uh Mr.

Cloy Perrier, the owner of the uh said property.

Um, in I guess in discussion.

Um, I'm also planning to be the general contractor for said project.

Um, assuming, you know, we'll see how this goes.

Is uh Jonathan presented greatly earlier is currently zone RSF4.

The main purpose to change it to RSF eight is really just because of the very small street with requirements.

Talking to is Mr.

Uh Purrier has noted to everyone.

There's no set plan yet on what the actual you know result of a zoning or non rezoning or non-rezoning would be.

Um we he is considering just keeping the property and adding a house, which I believe, you know, not to speak out of hand, I could think be done by right.

There is, I know that no one can really hold anyone to this.

There's no plan to do ADUs with said new construction or new development.

Um also with the drainage easement concerns, which I see there's a lot of those.

Um, as we go through the processes, I'm sure I know everyone on the council knows uh to get building permits.

We'll have an engineer for uh provide a GSP study that would hopefully actually make the current drainage problems along, you know, our little corridor here better by you know, maybe retaining walls, some different kinds of you know, culverts, ETC, obviously, depending on what the city will allow and what the engineer recommends.

In regards to the parking, um each house will have a two-car garage, a long driveway.

So hopefully increasing the amount of off-street parking that is currently available.

Um, and yes, I know there is a large yard which people you know can park at.

I am not currently aware if they are using that or not to park.

Um, if they are parking on the streets, and I do see why that would be a concern.

But at the same time, I would argue that denying the rezone as far as you know, I think that house that's currently sits there is a five-bedroom house.

I believe I'm not a hundred percent sure.

Um, of course, with that, they have friends, family over all the exact concerns you're bringing up now.

But there is still potentially, as I'm hearing, I'm assuming there's currently on-street parking that you know, obviously none of us can control that comes into play with you know, city enforcements and stuff like that.

So I can't really I would like to think that the new garage spaces, the longer concrete driveways would give more opportunity to people to not park on the street, but of course, I can't predict what people will do.

Um and yeah, I would ask that the council take that into consideration.

Thank you all for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

And I apologize earlier.

I did not realize you were on Zoom.

And as the representative for the applicant, you are allowed um more time.

So if there was something that you um did not get to say in your allotted time, you you do have more.

You certainly don't have to, Noah, but it's please.

No, I think I think that covers it, but you know, I know everyone's already kind of went up, and I, you know, which is good because I think I addressed most of you know most of the concerns, hopefully.

Um, but no, I think I think I'm good.

Thank you though for the opportunity.

I appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Umthers commenters on Zoom.

Okay, I'm gonna bring it back to the city council and we'll begin with.

Ooh, saw you at the same time.

And we'll begin with you, Miss Mr.

Burner.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, I just I've got a question for Jonathan, and I'll make my statement.

Uh, the developer just said that they would have two-car garage and a long driveway.

But if I recall our discussions yesterday, it was they would be brought up to the property or not towards the front of the property.

That the building would be roughly 18 feet off the road.

Is that am I remembering that conversation correctly?

We were getting a bit into the development requirements.

Yes.

So, yeah, single family homes are required to have two parking spaces, and then there was a question of how close could they build to the street.

The RSF 8 zoning district has the same setback requirement in the front as the RSF 4 zoning district, which is 15 feet.

So that'd be 15 feet off the street by setbacks.

But we have a development requirement that says your driveway has to be at least 18 feet long, and that's intended to prevent vehicles from overhanging in the sidewalks that are just outside of it in the right-of-way.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, I just wanted to clarify that.

Um this is a perfect example of um you look at something on paper and you're looking at a 0.38 uh part uh acre parcel of land and you think, oh, this is a no-brainer.

Um but I very seldom have ever gone against staff and planning commission when uh when it was uh staff was uh supporting it and planning commission came out as strong as they did.

Uh I had every intention of supporting it until I went went out and looked at the property yesterday.

Um you can look at that piece of property and the existing home that sits there.

Um as we were sitting there talking, there were four cars, one in the driveway and three out on a side yard that has been utilized, uh clearly utilized for parking for you know a long period of time.

Uh so uh it really highlighted a concern I had with if we're adding potential structures um with also adding potential ADUs.

Uh not to say they would, but they if we go to this zoning, they could.

Um it would really exacerbate what I think would be a potential parking issue there.

The road itself is extremely narrow.

Um, and it really causes me great pause.

Um then you look at the water, the drainage issue.

Uh you can't look at this piece of property and not be concerned about the drainage issue.

Uh east and west drainage um has a culvert that's coming from strictly east and west down the hill.

Then it has a culvert that's going uh uh what would that be uh south west to northeast that empties into that uh uh culvert or that ditch, and then they've got two smaller pipes that are draining from the the properties on either side.

So it's got four uh drainage points into that uh drainage.

Then you go to the back of the what was it, 48 Palmer, and the gentleman had put created a ditch and put um uh telephone poles into the area to create a ditch to try to help with water, and I'm not sure how many years ago he put that in, but it literally is to the top of with gravel and dirt, so clearly evident of evidence of uh runoff concerns.

So I look at that and say, okay, who's that responsibility?

And I couldn't, we can't get an answer really right now.

So if we know we've got runoff, we know we're gonna add uh density to to that lot, we have to figure out we're gonna have some increase in potential runoff.

Where is it gonna go?

Uh if it runs off to the back of that property, then the way I see it, the way I look at it, that water's gonna run to the east property uh because the ditch is full.

So I don't know that those people even know that this is a potential.

Um so I I can't support this tonight.

Um just because I think it's got too many questions for us to be able to adequately say it's it's the right thing.

So um I I won't be supporting this uh rezoning tonight.

I think I think oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Stafford.

Then Mr.

Stafford then missed her.

I mean I um thank you, Mayor.

Uh and thank you, Teresa.

Uh you will rarely hear me defend RS for RSF4 zoning.

I it just it just doesn't happen very often.

I've been here for three years and probably count on my hands that the times I've said, yeah, RS4's the best zoning.

But I think uh council member uh Burnham put it well when you you look at this on paper, and and I did it same experience as Mr.

Burner.

It's like when I when I went to the visit the site, it's like, oh, this is different than what I was looking at on paper.

And um informal drainage, I think it's that's kind of a funny term.

I'm about to turn 60, so I think I'm gonna have to start dealing with that.

Um but it uh I mean the way that that property slopes, and I know they could do grading and everything, but I I I think it, you know, you look at that how that that road comes down to the property and it into that lower property on the corner, and I could already imagine that on a heavy rain day that that's just shooting down that yard uh uh into that house.

Uh and I don't think that this rezoning would improve that, and it may cause us to have to spend some taxpayer dollars to, you know, buy build and maintain uh a uh ditch.

And and it's kind of what are we getting in return, maybe one or two extra spaces.

It's not giving us a lot in return.

Um my wife and I went out to the street uh a couple years ago, I think my first year on council, because there was a down at the corner uh north on the north side of Palmer in the next street, uh there was a rezoning we were uh dealing with uh with some student uh type housing of fraternity or something.

Uh there was a rezoning we were uh dealing with uh with some student uh type housing of fraternity or something.

And uh we went out and I actually brought a tape measure and we actually measured the street.

And I remember where we measured, I I think we got 17 foot nine, and that's like from you know, edge to edge.

We and there are no curves.

Um so it it is an extremely narrow road, it has drainage issues, and if you look at that neighborhood and and how that street fits into that neighborhood, you know, I've talked about zone creep before where it's like, and I think one of the commenters brought that up where it's like oh, it's just it's just this one property.

Well, it's just this one property until it's the next one, and the next one, the one across the street.

And and I do think that this street and that that uh Palmer and that other street too kind of define the edge of that neighborhood.

Um so I won't be uh supporting this tonight.

I think they have the ability to build a second house there through the through our ADUs, and I I don't see a problem with that.

I think that would fit.

I think one extra house, two houses on that lot would fit, but and maybe that's all they intend to do, but when we rezone it, we give them the ability to do much more than that.

And so they can do they can get another housing unit on that property, it is, and I I would encourage them to do so.

I think that's fine.

But two more properties or two more properties plus ADUs.

That's a stretch for that piece of land, how it's located, the street, the access, if people are mentioning the safety, uh you know, those are concerns.

Um so yeah, I won't be supporting this this evening.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh yes.

Um I just wanted to echo what I said uh without uh stumbling over what I was saying earlier because not having my glasses.

As I mentioned, I live in that area, and since I've been on the council, I rarely I don't think I've I've ever voted against what uh the city um planning commission is set.

And and uh, but this time because I live over there, I see it almost on a daily basis.

And for the for those reasons, uh I can't support this.

Um I have had some neighbors reach out to me and I know their concerns.

And so I do know that we are in a housing crisis.

People tell me that all the time, and I think that they are they're believing that any house should any house should be fine, and we should just put houses anywhere and all over the place.

That's not so.

Just because we have a housing crisis, we still have to be smart as it relates to development.

So uh I will not be supporting this.

Thank you.

Mr.

Wheedaker well Councilmember Turk was so here.

I'm gonna go ahead and get a little bit more.

I call on I call on people, and then y'all argue with me to call on somebody else.

I mean, so I mean I'm a pox upon me, Mayor.

Okay, I will stay in clean city hall later tonight is my penance.

Uh Mr.

Kurth, my question is is there enough, is the lot large enough to do a legal lot split and create two lots.

I don't believe so.

I think it comes back to that question again of whether there's enough street frontage.

Uh it is a unique site.

They do I mean what we're discussing tonight is no bad intentions, just unintended consequences.

And so we've got topography, we've got a narrow street, we have Mother Nature conspiring to say, despite our intentions, um, there are locations that are not conducive to greater density.

And this may be, you know, exhibit A for that.

And um, I was just hoping that the answer would be certainly there's room to do a single lot split, build a single house.

And so they certainly have under state law the right to build a 1,200 square foot ADU.

The only challenge there is they're removing surface parking that's informal, and you don't have to park ADUs, which is in this instance an unintended consequence.

So I think the concerns that have been expressed have a great deal of validity to them, and I I just had to ask the lot split question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for realigning who you called on.

I just try, you know, it's I know.

What am I here for, if not to pick who gets to talk next?

So please go ahead.

So first of all, I wanted to thank Jonathan for the tour yesterday, all his preparation, and um, and also my colleagues that came out to actually see this uh unique sort of situation that we have here because it does look pretty innocuous going from RSF four to RSF eight until you see the slope, the existing drainage issues, the narrow streets, and kind of a blind curve there that I don't think anybody's mentioned, but there are some serious constraints here, and um I appreciate the neighbors um showing up and expressing their concerns and um you know we've had I think just the uh house just to the west of this one we talked about several years ago and also identified these similar similar issues.

The Bohannans who live east of this proposed RSF eight, they already have water in their yard, standing water in their yard all the time, even with all the big ditches that they've put around their house and the efforts that they've made.

So it's still their efforts haven't solved their problems.

I asked them if they'd had water in the house, they said thankfully no, but definitely swampy standing water when we have a a storm.

So um I'm gonna not support um this uh rezoning for all the above reasons, and uh thank you again, Jonathan, for um all that the tour that you provided to us.

Ms.

Bunch.

Thank you.

Um whenever we have a rezoning request, inevitably, if any any neighbors come out, they always complain about oh, it's gonna it's gonna hurt the safety of the neighborhood, it's gonna you know cause drainage problems.

The the things that we hear are always the same, pretty much.

And but inevitably we hear these same things.

But in this case, I actually know that the cons of the time I hear the concerns, and I think, well, that may not be exactly the case, but in this case, I'd know that it's true because I know what the streets are like over there.

I know how narrow they are, and and there are deep ditches along these.

I mean, this is just like it's like what you see out in the country in a way, where you have a little bitty dirt road that's just gotten paved over and the ditches are are very deep and everything.

So I know that there's traffic issues over there, and parking is a con is uh can cause a huge problem.

We've seen it before.

We've seen it with other rezoning requests, we've seen it with other properties in the neighborhood, and I also know that the the drainage and the runoff issues are big concerns.

I don't I don't dispute any of that.

And for those reasons right there, I I mean, in my history of my knowledge of this property over a long period of time or this area over a long period of time, there's no way I could I think I can support this, even though staff supports it and planning commission supports it.

And usually I I l you know put a lot of weight with what they say.

But in this case, I just I just don't think I can support this one.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berna.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to suspend the rules, go third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026 09 for approximately 0.3 acres located at 1660 West Palmer Place in Ward 1 from RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to RSF 8, residential single family eight units per acre.

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

Mr.

Wheedaker.

No.

Yes, is to deny.

It's not an appeal.

It's just in a rezone.

Yeah.

No.

Mr.

Berna?

No.

Ms.

Bunch?

No.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones.

No.

Mr.

Stafford.

No.

Dr.

Jones?

No.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Oh.

And that failed.

Okay, great.

All right.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you, everybody that came out.

And we will move on to our penultimate item on the agenda.

RZN uh 2026 00 2026-8.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-8 for approximat-08.

Excuse me.

I'm going to start again.

Item D6, an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026 08 for approximately 2.10 acres located at 1705 North Garland Avenue in Ward 2 from RSF 4 residential single family for units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Mr.

Pennington.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fateville, Arkansas, Section 1 that the City Council of the City of Fateville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

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

Mr.

Kurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

Staff is in support of this item.

It is, however, before the city council on appeal from the Planning Commission's denial.

This request in particular is in North Central Fayeville.

It is located immediately west of the intersection of North Garland Avenue and West Sycamore Street.

It may be most familiar to many on the council and other community members as the location where Tri-Cuckal Farms formerly had much of their uh food production activities.

Uh the property is currently developed with a single family house that abuts Garland Avenue and several accessory structures that are associated with its previous use as a uh as a community farm.

Uh staff finds the request to be both compatible from a land use standpoint and consistent with our long range plans, uh beginning with uh land use consist or land use compatibility.

Uh while the immediately adjoining properties are single family uh in character, the larger area in the Sparta Favil is characterized by a significant number of different housing types ranging from large multifamily buildings uh several blocks away to townhouses and and duplexes immediately across Garland Avenue from this specific piece of property.

Additionally, uh the city has made recent significant infrastructure uh investments uh immediately adjacent to this property, specifically along the midtown trail, uh of which a portion of it uh runs along the southern border before actually entering the property uh before it ultimately crosses Garland Avenue to the east.

Uh we do find this request to also align with many of our long-range planning goals.

Uh this property's future land use map designation of a future land of a future land use map designation as a residential neighborhood area uh indicates that it is uh appropriate to be developed with residential uses uh with the intensity and diversity of those uses dependent on uh those that surround it, as well as the existence of uh characteristics in the area that could support it with adequate fire response, proximity to water and sewer service, the immediately adjacent trail and other amenities, uh we find that rezoning from RSF four residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban uh is an appropriate request.

Uh there are a number of additional items I want to touch on, uh similar to the last item.

Uh some of these came up during the tour.

Uh, they also were considered as part of uh staff's uh review of the request.

Uh first and foremost, the tree preservation uh requirement on this property would change with the approved rezoning request from 25% under RSF four to 15% under RIU.

Uh second, and perhaps the most significant consideration staff had when evaluating this request is as a matter of access to the property.

Uh those that were able to attend the tour or are simply familiar with the property uh recognize that it is immediately adjacent to an unconventional offset uh double signalized intersection uh between Dean to the north, Sycamore to the south, and Garland connecting the two between them.

Uh this property today does not have a signalized entrance, although it is directly opposite of Sycamore, uh, which does have a traffic signal uh controlling access.

Um staff ultimately came to the determination that we do not find there to be an existing dangerous traffic condition today.

Uh we have evaluated traffic numbers, which suggests that Garland is uh within its expected norm for how much traffic it can carry.

And we've also evaluated traffic accident data, which does not suggest that there are uh an excess number of either accidents and and no particular number of of injury associated accidents.

Finally, on this topic, uh staff is confident in the existence within our street standard requirements that a development on this property would be required to submit a traffic uh traffic study as a part of it.

Uh there are several thresholds within our minimum street standards that um are intended to trigger when those traffic studies are required.

Uh, there's also a final section that says when a city engineer has specific concerns about a property, and our city engineer in evaluating this has already made that that determination as a part of their consideration.

A additional consideration uh is one of potential density.

While the RIU zoning district does not have a prescribed density number, staff consistently relies on our development standards as natural safeguards against inappropriate development for this particular property that not only includes the tree preservation that I mentioned earlier on this slide, but also parking requirements.

RIU is a residential zoning district, so it is required to provide parking.

The size of the property also suggests that it will have a larger scale of development, and that comes with a uh full compliance with our drainage criteria manual, uh, not just the the green stormwater practices, the smaller scale detention and retention requirements associated with smaller projects, but uh those associated with larger ones instead.

We feel like that will be a natural limiter on the density on this property to an extent that uh does not give uh staff concern.

Uh on the topic of drainage, uh, this was uh discussed uh uh at the tour yesterday in particular.

Um there was a uh question of where this property drains specifically.

Uh it is towards the uh top of what is a generally flat watershed, but it does uh slope somewhat to the west and south.

Uh if you can see on the screen here, as a part of the tr the midtown trail project, the city did install a stormwater.

We don't have anything on the screen.

I haven't been sharing this entire time.

I apologize.

Thought that you had already addressed it and weren't going to be showing us anything.

Just going to be able to do that.

Thank you for saying that, Bob.

I thought it was text up to this point.

I promise you didn't miss anything of that.

But I can I can go back if it is helpful.

On the topic of drainage, apologize.

Uh those who visited the property had the opportunity uh possibly to walk to that southwest corner where the city uh installed a stormwater box and inlet uh where the property naturally drains today.

That incorporates the swale that tricycle farms had constructed.

Uh our engineers for the project found that it served uh exactly the purpose that it was intended to and was able to be incorporated into uh that more formal infrastructure.

Zooming out a little bit, uh there was also a question uh I believe from Councilmember Moore of how this property interacts with downstream properties, especially given uh other agenda items that you all have considered tonight uh on Valley further to the south and west.

And it does uh it is correct that this property, which you see in the upper right hand corner of the screen in the dark bold, uh its stormwater does naturally flow towards Ham Stream Creek through Lewis Park, uh over Valley Drive and ultimately beyond uh Interstate 49.

Uh this did ultimately did not give staff concern, again, given the size of the property and that it would be subject to our full drainage criteria manual, which is the highest standard that we require of development in the city of Fayetteville.

Uh finally, we have heard uh a bit of public comment about this item.

Some of that I've seen has been submitted directly to the city council, so I don't want to uh repeat that uh to uh access.

Uh those comments did focus largely on drainage and concerns about the loss of this green space.

Uh, there are also comments about uh with concerns about how vehicles would enter and leave the property, uh, how the property would interact with the trail immediately uh along its southern boundary.

Uh and also there were concerns about the loss of the potential for the property to be used as an urban farm.

Uh those on the tour yesterday heard directly from tricycle farms who may speak tonight that they've not been operating it as a farm for several years now, and it is not their intent to do so.

So this whether the city council receives this rezoning positively or negable negatively does not affect whether they will continue operating there or not.

Lastly, the applicant did hear uh uh several of the concerns expressed by the public and the council, uh, and they have offered a bill of assurance that uh thank you, uh Miss Baxton Clerk Paxson.

Uh they've offered a bill of assurance which is being passed out right now.

Uh it includes a number of elements uh in an effort to bullet that for you.

Uh the crux of it is it would limit the development on the property to 30 structures and no more than two stories.

Uh, this was intended to address concerns about the the potential for excess density on it, uh, but also to uh consider the uh privacy of adjoining properties.

Uh the applicant has also offered to propose no more than four attached units, which is the buy ride allowance in RIU, uh, but would preclude them from asking for a conditional use permit for an apartment building, for instance.

They've also proposed to maintain uh and with regards to fencing, they propose to maintain visibility from the trail.

Uh if you've been along that section, uh you've noticed that it that that piece of property interacts very clearly with the trail, whereas uh much of the other properties have privacy fences along that route.

Uh conversely, they're proposing to offer privacy fencing for all the adjoining properties to the northwest and northeast.

Uh finally, they are offering a traffic study proactively and to do that before large-scale development uh uh uh submittal.

Uh the last two items uh they proposed to offer to maintain a canopy requirement of 20% uh to remind you what's required today is 25 and what RIU requires is 15, and so they're proposing 20 percent.

And finally, uh, if the council uh saw the one specific piece of public comment uh earlier this week, it was that the the person would have no reservations about the project if a unit adjacent to Garland would face Garland, basically be a street-facing uh residential unit, and they've offered to uh to to the extent possible to do that.

With that, uh again, staff is recommending approval.

And uh when the planning commission heard this item, they uh shared some of the concerns that the public had expressed about traffic safety uh and also had a desire to see a higher level of detail with the proposal, uh potentially through a cluster housing request or a planned zoning district that would uh that could come with a site design or other items.

And uh I can stand for questions, but mayor, the applicant does have a formal presentation.

It may benefit the council to hear that first.

Okay, great.

The applicant please come up.

Thank you all for hearing us out.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council, men and women for coming out yesterday.

Uh, we loved having you on the property and taking your time.

As most of you know, my name is Ali Wilson.

I'm with the purchasers developing group.

Um, we're proposing the rezoning from RSF4 to RIU.

Our first slide will show what RSF4 is currently, encouraging a low density detached residential development.

Uh the density maximum is four single units per acre and seven or less two family or duplex option dwellings per acre.

Our slides, our second slide will show really what RIU is, and we've been asked many times why we chose RIU.

For us, the there's multiple reasons, but the main one is that this site is super special.

Uh, from the moment that we drove by and looked at the land, we knew that we'd be able to create a space that was different from other developments that you see in the city.

RIU is defined as a zoning district designed to promote walkable, compatible infill developments by allowing a mix of housing types, included detached and attached dwellings.

Duplexes, town homes, and as well as quadplexes are all possibilities here.

While maintaining a scale compatible with an existing residential neighborhood, it acts as a bridge between a low density residential neighborhood and a higher density urban neighborhood.

We knew we would be able to incorporate all of these elements with RIU.

The location of this property running along the midtown bike trail will allow us to create a space in a community oriented towards a means of transportation already installed by the city.

This creates a front facing, this allows us to create front-facing homes along the trail, large outdoor seating areas, green spaces, and bike parking all throughout the community.

We'd be able to create a neighborhood oriented towards a huge huge mean of transportation throughout the city.

On our fourth slide, um, we show some undeveloped large parcels of land.

This is an undeveloped large parcel of land laying right in the middle of RSF4.

RIU zone is directly across the trail, and just blocks down.

There are some RMF 24 and across the street as RSF 18.

RIU is a rezoning that would fit perfectly as this bridge between these zonings and would allow us a smaller lot to create a private drive in order to incorporate it safely in existing into the sorry safely existing traffic patterns.

We'd be able to use this zone as a chance to not only logistically but financially support a development exactly where Fayetteville needs housing options.

Mixing housing types would allow us to create the single family townhome structures along the bike trail, orienting them towards the trail, while also allowing us to use larger multifamily quadplexes along the second row.

This allows for multiple housing options for residents to choose from, and it also allows for housing options for those who are looking for a nice residence but can't take on the burden of home ownership and the other additional costs that are associated with it.

RIU zoning was suggested to us by the planning committee.

We were unaware of this option, but after we were able to get some insight, we felt that it was a perfect fit for this property.

RIU zone uh compliance with the 2030 and 2040 city plan, as well as the full support of the current landowner is also another main reason why we feel so strongly about this zoning.

This MBI infill is a bridge as we have stated to residential to multifamily, a perfect and perfect for the small development potential.

On slide seven, um, it kind of shows our um the well next one, sorry.

Next one.

This is our potential site plan.

This is simply a sketch, uh, but this is showing what we are proposing.

Um I do want to address the concerns that have been set stated by residents and council members.

Uh traffic, garland currently has an average of 21,000 cars traveling on it per day.

If we were to propose our 27 unit development, and every single unit had eight car impact on Garland, we would still have less than a 1% effect on traffic.

With our single point of entry and exit at the intersect existing intersection of Garland and Sicklemore, we will be able to have a more controlled flow of traffic.

We'll be securing it this with our bill of assurance as you've all seen, with a proper traffic study to be completed before we submit any type of development plan to the city.

We are also prepared to pay for the installation of it lights if necessary.

We would like to also note that the light already cycles through this intersection and would not have a negative effect on the traffic from either way on Garland.

The second issue of unlimited density with our bill of assurance, we are limiting not only ourselves but also the but the land itself.

If we were to sell the the bill of assurance stays with the property as we confirmed, a total of 30 structures on the property is its maximum.

We chose this number simply because fire code states that with our single entrance and our non-sprinkled units, that this is our maximum code.

Our proposed design, of course, shows 27.

If you'll go to the next slide, this is actually what it would look like if there were 30 units.

This is one with 30 designed on it.

Um, like I said, what we're initially looking at is 27, so a little bit more green space.

Um third, the removal of tricycle farms.

Don will be your firsthand account to give you way more information than I will, but uh, he is the current landowner and the owner of the nonprofit tricycle farms.

Um has had a change on it on his production and his structure with his company.

The land has not been used to grow or teach for the past year at a minim minimum, and the owner is in full support of this rezoning in order to bring life back to a special property.

It also gives them the funds to keep their nonprofit running of food recovery program for at least one more additional year, if not more.

Tri-cycle is a still a huge part of this land.

We we know that everybody in the community knows that.

And so with our property, we really want to integrate a self-growing beds to allow a green space for people who live there to be able to integrate growing back into the community, as well as um monuments to honor the impact that they've had on this community and this piece of property.

The unsafe trail interactions that were discussed in a formal letter in our bill of assurance we've listed to keep the fence visible to ensure that the property and the bike trail create do not create a tunnel effect.

The privacy fences that we will put along all other roads will be different from this visible fence that we will install along the bike trail as it already is.

On slide eight, you can see this is like kind of our entry perspective.

Um, you'll see on this that the that the current house is demoed.

Um that is to begin with, the structures are not listed as the Arkansas Historic Preservation or on the National Register of Historic Places.

Um, as the planning commission suggests that we will get with the long range preservation and planner to do any before we do any demolition or alteration to get the photos that are needed for documentation.

While we do not have a final set of plans, these are simply design drawings.

Um, it shows that this structure is gone and that has caused some upset, and we've heard and we want to we want to take that into consideration.

We did have a structural engineer already take a look at the property.

Um he's given us a preliminary report.

We have the steps that'll take place for us to deem if this house is safe for us to continue use in, or if we will have to go forward with our different design programs.

This is all something we will discuss and weigh all options before our final presentation of our design plan to the city.

The other items on our bill of assurance that you have include the privacy fencing adjacent to our neighbors, increase of the tree canopy preservation from 15 to 20 percent in order to comply with more than the current with more into the current zoning of the 25% that's necessary.

And lastly, that the first existing house be removed if removed, the first structure would be oriented to face garland or to at least appear to face garland.

Um with these, you can click through these so they can see them, but with these renderings with our bill of assurance, uh, we hope this has brought some security to not only our neighbors but also council members.

Um we're trying to improve this property and make it reach its full full potential for the city that is rapidly growing.

We want to do it in a tasteful and an appropriate development.

We're also residents of Northwest Arkansas.

We want to see developments that are tasteful, like I said, and fit within the city's plans.

Not only as a developer, but we are also going to be the contractor.

We will be building it.

We want to make something that is not only a good design, but a good product, something that we'd be happy to put our name on, but also and also live in.

Thank you for your time.

Luke is also here with our development team.

So if you have any questions, he's more of our expert on that.

So I'm like divert to him.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um, okay.

We have the bill of assurance.

Um does anyone on the city council have questions either for the developer or for Mr.

Kurth before we go to public comment.

Okay, I just want to make sorry.

I didn't have any other slides.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, when we did the walkthrough, and thank you.

I really appreciate that.

It was a very extensive tour.

Um, so thank you.

Um, I believe I didn't hear it in your presentation tonight.

And if we don't usually have it within like Bill of Assurance, I at least was wanting to publicly have a discussion.

I thought that there had been, and I heard something about a monument now is how we've called it.

Um I know it's been evolving.

I do appreciate the new language.

Don is still alive.

He's here.

So I a celebration.

Um, but I thought that we had um heard you walk us through that there was some accessible portion of the land that was gonna be a park that was allowable for folks to access from the um trail and also from the property.

And so is that the memorial area or we're gonna we're gonna have access from the trail.

That's something that we're working on with the fence, but well, we're also gonna do something to implement uh tricycle into the property.

I'm not sure if it's gonna be a naming or it's definitely not gonna be a you know a tombstone for Don or anything.

But uh we we I know that one of the big things that in the planning commission is obviously it made a huge impact on the community, so we want to implement that.

Uh we choose what to build.

Uh typically we build we want to build things that we like, and this is the opportunity next to the bike path is huge.

I think the biggest things that were detrimental to us are our large scale will cover all the drainage.

Large scale is the most strict that we'll have to deal with on drainage.

We could out have more density if we didn't have to deal with the drainage issue and the traffic.

We we are completely willing to basically add the other cycle to that line, which it already cycles to the property anyway, and we'll build a road with the turning lane.

So I don't think either of those are really issues for the property.

Thank you but we we love tricycle, and we're we're gonna do something.

Yeah, thank you for for answering on that.

I do, you know, again, we can't hold you to that legally, and so I do just want to say um that we have a lot of conversation about third spaces and places that people can easily linger and thinking about the length of the trail, and that as individuals are using that, especially where transportation networks needing places to safely linger, that's legal for them.

And so I really would appreciate if that continues to be a major consideration in your design that not only do your residents have access to that kind of green uh pausing space, that that would also be allowable to the general public there right off the trail if that's something that you continue forward with in your design.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm not hearing any other questions for council, so I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

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

If so, please come up and state your name.

And you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Ron and members of the city council.

My name is Donald Bennett.

I've lived at 1231 West Dean Street since 1986.

Uh for 40 years, I've lived adjacent to the property that's in question.

Um, I'm here to support the appeal of the planning commission's decision on the rezoning of RZN 2026 0008.

I want to be very clear at the outset that the request is not about asking the city to bend its rules.

It's about asking the city to apply Fayetteville's own adopted planning policies.

City Plan 2030 and City Plan 2040.

This is a site that is perfectly fits this kind of plan.

This is a fully infilled centrally located site with no need for new streets, utilities, or public services.

What makes it unique and why I'm here tonight is that it has nearly 600 feet of adjacency to the midtown bike trail.

One of the city's most important transportation investments.

Under the current RSF4 zoning, even well designed development turns its back on the trail.

You get fences, backyards, service areas along a major public corridor, no front doors, no perch porches, and no eyes on the trail, and that's not a design failure.

It's a zoning limitation.

RIU zoning doesn't dramatically increase density, but it does something far more important.

It allows development to face public space.

It allows homes to engage the trail and support walkability, improve safety, and make the infrastructure investment actually work as it was intended.

This property previously operated as tricycle farms under unanimously approved conditional use permit.

For years, we hosted large public events, educational programming, and heavy visitation.

The residential development proposed under RIU is a lower impact, more predictable use than what the city has already approved at this site.

I also want to acknowledge the Stonehouse, 1705 North Garland.

That property is not designated historic and not within the historic district, but unfortunately, the house appears to have suffered damage to its foundation and facade during the construction of the midtown trail.

I think the planned professional assessments are presumed to determine that rehabilitation would be financially infeasible.

The developer, however, has committed, as you heard, to full photographic and historical documentation in keeping with the city practice.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this site We had another minute, please.

Thank you.

Keep going.

Thank you.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this site sits near a major crossroads.

Within one mile around the farm, there's almost 20% of the Fayetteville population.

And inside is this property is inside a designated opportunity zone.

If we can't do thoughtful trail-oriented, walkable infill here, it's hard to imagine where we can.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the city council to override the planning commission's decision and approve rezoning to residential intermediate urban.

Thank you for your time and your service to the city.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

Oh, yes, please come on up and state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

I'm Nico Fallett.

I live next door to Don.

I'm at 1239 West Stein Street, the car that got hit by a drunk driver last March.

Um the planning commission denied this rezoning request 6 to 2.

Commissioner cited the uncertainty of intense development that could be permitted by right under the proposed RIU district and potential hazards associated with increased traffic at the single vehicular entry off of Garland.

Several commissioners uh specifically discussed asking for a planned zoning district instead.

I'm here to ask council to take that recommendation seriously.

Garland between the Sycamore and Dean Lights is already congested.

27 units with multiple bedrooms each emptying onto a single entry off Garland will add cars to that exact stretch.

A signal at the entrance makes the entry safer.

It does not reduce the number of cars using it.

RAU's parking minimums are low for a town where most households have cars and guests.

Overflow will land on Lens Place, which already absorbs spillover from West Dean.

That puts parked cars along the midtown trail, a hazard for pedestrian, cyclists, and emergency and sanitation vehicles that need that corridor clear.

This parcel sits at the ridgeline of a watershed that drains downhill into known flooding areas.

Council just approved public funds to buy out a flooded property in a repetitive loss area downstream.

On the same night, you're being asked to convert a highly pervious urban farm into a highly impervious cluster development at the top of that watershed.

RIU permits that conversion by right.

A PZD lets council write coverage in stormwater conditions appropriate to the site.

The applicant has offered a bill of assurance signed by the developer, not necessarily the owner.

It caps it caps structures at 30, but allows four attached units each, i.e.

120 units total, and it can be released by a single council resolution.

It does not bind the parcel the way that it has been described, and it does not bind what RIU permits by right.

I'd ask council to ask the applicant on the record tonight whether option contracts exist on any adjacent parcels.

Council should know whether this 2.1 acres is the whole picture.

And I'd ask council to uphold the planning commission's denial or remand this to the applicant to come back as a planned zoning district.

That is what the PZD tool is for.

It allows the trail facing infill the applicant describes while binding the conditions.

Council and the planning commission have already said that the site requires.

Yeah, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Pollett.

And I'm also sorry about what you experienced with the car hitting your.

I know that has been a bit a challenge.

So thank you for being patient with us.

And I hope that that situation is remedied soon.

So do we have anybody on Zoom?

We do.

We have two people.

Okay.

Drew Jones.

Mr.

Jones.

Mr.

Jones, we'll come back to you.

Who's uh who else is there?

Keith?

Uh okay, Miss Llewellyn.

Hi, uh Jessica Lou Allen at 1206 North Maxwell.

I know most of you from my time with the housing crisis task force.

Um I've lived on North Maxwell for 20 years.

A frequent trail user.

I'm gonna see this property out my window every day.

Um I'm a practicing architect too, and I work with developers all the time.

Um I understand the need for housing and especially housing for smaller households of non-students.

And from speaking with the developer, it sounds like that's their intention.

I would just love to see it monumentalized maybe a little more clearly in that bill of assurance.

I appreciate the time that we spent together yesterday.

Um and I appreciate the effort of the bill of assurance, things like limiting to two stories, adjusting the tree coverage, keeping this visually open fencing along the trail.

But I am a little concerned about the wording of three structures as or I'm sorry, 30 structures as opposed to 30 units.

And I'd also love to see a commitment that the units adjacent to the trail will actually front the trail as opposed to um just saying that the fence will be open.

Um yeah, I understand that my neighbors are concerned, and I would love for this to be a gentle increase in density for our neighborhood.

Um we're in a really interesting place as a neighborhood.

You know, we are adjacent to um Lewis Park that's about to change, and so I understand why my neighbors are concerned, but I also see the need for um well-designed housing.

And I just personally would love to see a little more assurance in that bill of assurance of the things that um the developer has said that they plan to do.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Jones, if you're still there, we'll come back to you.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to Hey y'all hear me now.

Yes.

Woo!

Yes, uh we absolutely can.

Please go ahead.

Cool.

Hey, y'all, I'm uh Drew, homeowner on North Maxwell, backing up to the property under discussion, actually neighbors with Jessica.

Uh I'd first like to second all of Nico's comments.

I thought they were very well thought out and to the T as far as actual zoning requirements.

As far as personal opinions, I'd like the council to deny the proposed rezoning.

I see a myriad of issues with the scale of this proposed project.

There are 19 single family two to three bedroom homes surrounding this property on 5.6 acres.

Well, this proposal is aiming to put 27 homes in 2.1 acres.

Uh the proposed 27 units could have up to 81 cars, not counting for guests being there.

Um, not around 30 as stated by the developer.

That is exceptionally unlikely.

Uh, as discussed many times tonight in this deliberation and the previous, where will guest cars park?

In uh addition, I know that proper drainage management is a priority for the city development.

And my personal experience with the trail expansion has proven that while it is a priority, it is often overlooked.

We still have flooding issues at our home despite having uh an additional drainage put in from that trail development.

Uh, regarding the tree coverage increase, I do like their consideration for it.

I'm curious if that accounts for all of the existing mature trees that are currently there that help maintain shade, the soil and drainage issues that we have.

Uh, and then just one last comment.

I'd like to draw attention that the intention of the developer is not binding and hence ask you to reject rezoning this property from I to IRU and consider the planned zoning district instead.

Thank you.

Any comments before we it's uh just a reminder, it is an ordinance and it is on the first reading.

What would you like to do?

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, first I'm gonna uh thank uh the applicant and and Jonathan and staff for for bringing us on that tour yesterday.

Uh I I came into both our rezonings tonight, you know.

Last week I just I had them both take differently.

And uh I changed my mind on the first one, and I changed my mind on this one.

And a big part of it is the bill of assurance, and I'm grateful for that.

Uh I was originally kind of almost in agreement with the uh uh planning commission uh that maybe we need to see this as a PZD.

Um but basically for me, anyways.

I can't speak for everybody, but for me, what's been included in this bill of assurance answers all my concerns that I had that I would have wanted to see this as a PCD as, you know, like so my questions were answered.

I I think this is a a great project.

My my issue uh with sending it back, or you know, saying no and have them do a PZD is the amount of costs that adds, the people that pay that cost, the builder will have to pay it up front.

But who ends up paying that is the the renter, the end user pays that that money and the time it takes, that time is more money.

Um I think projects like this, everyone's talking about parking.

I think a trail side project that addresses the trail that faces the trail is gonna attract the type of people that want to use the trail.

We need to start thinking beyond the car.

And there's I know that lots of people like cars, everybody loves their car, but there's a lot of people that don't.

And they would love something like that.

We have to give these people an opportunity uh for a place to not be dependent on their car.

And in this is a uh somebody said it earlier.

I don't know if it was Don, I think it was Don.

If not here, then where?

They the the location is almost perfect.

They're gonna give privacy privacy fence to the properties to the north and west uh to give those neighbors uh privacy in their backyards, but they're gonna keep this open to the trail.

They're gonna have smaller units on the trail.

I I think that uh again the increase in creek tree canopy, uh addressing the the building facing the street, so you're not looking at the side of a house from Garland that actually you dress it design-wise to make sure that architecturally uh addresses the street uh fabric, um the traffic study, everything to me is included in this bill of assurance.

Maybe not 100%, but 90%.

And and uh I'm willing to uh I'm gonna be supporting this.

And and I went into this when I when I pulled up yesterday, I was still nope, this needs to be a PCD.

And uh, but after seeing the site plan, after talking to them, seeing what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it, uh, I'm on board.

Thank you.

Ms.

Turk.