All right, good evening, everybody.

We are going to call to order the Tuesday, June 2nd meeting of the Fayetteville City Council.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bench here.

Ms.

Turk.

Here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford.

Present.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Ms.

Moore.

Here.

Mr.

Wheateker.

Here.

Mr.

Berna.

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Here.

Please join me as we recite the five.

Okay.

Very first up this evening.

We have a sales tax and monthly financial report from Stephen Dotson, RCFO.

Stephen, I will turn it over to you.

Thanks, Mayor.

Starting off with the sales tax report, and this is the uh March sales tax report for taxes received in April of 2026.

In March, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately 298.8 million, which uh basically matched the taxable sales in March of 2025.

So we didn't really see an increase or a decrease compared to last year in total taxable sales.

Retail trade was up one percent year over year, representing an increase of 1.4 million.

Accommodation and food services were up 5% or 2.1 million.

Wholesale trade was up nine percent or around 1.6.

Um I think the most important point to note um for the sales tax report for this month is that we are comparing it to March of 2025.

And if you recall from my comments uh last year around this time, that was right before the tariffs took effect.

So we saw huge increases in manufacturing and transportation.

We were up around 22 million dollars as a result of those uh the tariff purchasing last year.

Um so it was a little bit difficult to compare uh this year with last year, uh given that last year was such a huge uh month of of March.

But um uh we were uh I guess uh to report out net we were pretty much flat in comparison with last year.

Compared to 2025, um our tax collection was also flat.

Our city one penny was down two hundredths of a percent or around four hundred dollars.

The county portion was down five hundredths of a percent or roughly twelve hundred dollars, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection decrease of uh three hundredths of a percent, so almost nothing, around sixteen hundred dollars.

When we look at what was budgeted, um the city one penny was down approximately two point nine three percent compared to budget, that's around eighty-eight thousand.

The county portion was down around two point nine six percent or seventy thousand for a combined total for the month of March down two point nine four percent compared to budget.

Um cumulatively that's gonna put the city on a year-to-date basis down approximately four-tenths of a percent or around eighty-four thousand dollars compared to budget.

Any questions I can answer on our sales tax report?

Minister Jones, thank you.

Which one did you say was flat pretty much the entire the entire month was in terms of uh our total taxable sales, so that was pretty much flat.

And then if you compare our tax collections to uh from uh March of 2026 to March of 2025, everything was pretty well flat.

The city one penny, the county, it was all pretty much flat.

So we uh we were taking in what we basically what we did last year at this time.

Thank you.

Sure, Mr.

Wheataker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I just want to compliment you on the screen that we have.

Uh being a person who's just you know slightly deaf to begin with, visually seeing this makes tracking with what you're saying exponentially better for someone like me.

I can't thank you enough.

Thank you for the comments.

We're we're definitely gonna roll out some more visuals here uh as we proceed.

Um okay, if that's uh if that's all the questions on the sales tax report, I'll move on to the monthly financial report.

And these are these are results for the month of April of 2026.

Starting off in the general fund, uh property tax, we were up two percent compared to budget through the month of April or around 51,000.

Sales tax was 1% down.

Our franchise fees were up eight percent or around 209,000.

Alcoholic beverage fees, those were up two percent, and uh, you know, we had seen some decreases at the beginning of the year, but uh it looks like we've kind of bounced back there.

Our building permits were up sixty-eight percent over what we had budgeted, we're up around eight hundred and seventy-nine thousand dollars uh for the year through the month of April.

Turn back was flat.

Um, and all in all, the general fund, we're up around three percent three point six percent compared to budget around nine hundred thousand dollars.

Moving over to the street fund.

Um we're flat in the street fund, we're up around seventy-five hundred dollars for the year, so uh not much to report there.

In the parking fund, we're down around two percent or around eighteen thousand dollars.

And once again, um that is primarily due to to budgeting for that new that new lot, the bakery building lot.

We're still monitoring that, and uh we'll have better budgetary projections for next year.

In the parks development fund, we're up 3.6 percent compared to budget through the month of April, or around 65,000 in water and sewer, we're up around 6.2 percent or around a million dollars uh for the year uh compared to budget.

Um that was led by uh strong increases in charges for services.

We were up four hundred and seventy thousand dollars.

But please do remember um you know I'm reporting on the revenues here.

Our expenses have gone up as well uh for our purchased water, as we have all uh discussed thoroughly during the the new rate study that we that we recently passed.

The stormwater management fund we're up six percent uh compared to budget through the month of April, around sixty thousand dollars.

So that um that fund is tracking right where you know right where that needs to be, and that is that's running well in recycling and trash.

We're up around 2.2 percent uh for the year, around 130,000.

And finally, in the airport fund, we're up 4.6 percent compared to budget or around 77,000.

And we've noticed around uh 911 more flight operations um for the year uh compared to last year.

And that is the monthly financial report.

Can I answer any questions for you?

Ms.

Turk, thank you, Mayor.

Um, do you have any idea why uh airport the airport uh sales or number of flights are up?

I think we so those number of flights operations that is compared to last year's data, and uh I think the main thing you would note is throughout the first several months of this year we had better weather than we did last year.

Um in talking with Jared out there at the airport, that seemed to be one of the indicators as to why we we've had more flight operations.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Steven.

I appreciate it.

Um now we have some proposed agenda additions.

We have two walk-on items.

We'll just take them one at a time in the order that I has received them.

The first is a walk-on from Dr.

DeAndre Jones, co-sponsored by um councilmember Sarah Moore.

It's a resolution recognizing black-owned and LGBTQ owned businesses in Fayetteville during Juneteenth and Pride month.

Um and so um, would you like to read the full body of the resolution?

Or do we typically we don't typically do that, do we?

Uh probably just the operative everything after now, therefore, you might want to read that.

Great, perfect.

That is what I'm saying.

You want me to do that?

You want okay, great.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that the Fayetteville City, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby recognizes and honors black owned and LGBTQ owned businesses in Fayetteville during the month of June in connection with Juneteenth and Pride month.

Section two, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby recognizes the business owners, workers, customers, patrons, and community partners whose support helps these businesses succeed.

Section three, that the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby encourages residents, visitors, public institutions, private organizations, and community partners to support black-owned and LGBTQ-owned businesses throughout June and throughout the year.

And section four, that the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby affirms that Fayetteville's economy benefits when entrepreneurs from every background can build business, serve the public, build businesses, serve the public, create jobs, and take part fully in the civic and economic life of the city.

So I believe we need a motion to add it to the You need a motion to spend the rules to add this to the agenda.

Okay.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion and a couple of seconds to suspend the rules and add it to the agenda.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bench.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay.

So this is now on the agenda.

Okay, great.

And so may we go ahead and hear the item at this time?

Okay.

Okay.

Uh Dr.

Jones.

Would you like to go first?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council, and thank you to my co-sponsor, uh, Councilmember Moore.

Uh I'm just I'm going to uh echo the sentiments of our mayor.

Um this resolution is just simply recognizing black owned and LGBTQ owned businesses in Fayetteville during Juneteenth and Pride month.

Uh we know that uh these groups, both of these groups are playing huge part in our city's economic vitality.

So I thought that it would only be appropriate for us as a city council to recognize uh these groups during the month of June.

Okay, okay, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, um Councilmember Dr.

Jones.

Um yes, I am definitely happy Pride Month.

Uh we're on the second day, and also um uh you know, freedom for um African Americans um in uh the United States.

So um I'm really excited about the activities and events we have planned too.

So I really want to invite folks, there are calendars of events out.

Um on the 19th, there's Juneteenth event at Let's Talk Northwest Arkansas.

They've done this for a number of years down at the spring shop area by the old Jefferson School, um, and that's from four to eight p.m.

Um then on the 20th um at the Umper Ramble on Saturday.

Um there is also a uh Juneteenth event um that will be occurring from um 10 a.m.

to around uh 3 p.m.

Um and then uh we have pride, which is one of the you know biggest um uh activities that happens in our region and in the state.

Um that's happening on the 27th.

There are events happening all month, but definitely that's a huge celebration.

And the night before that on the 26th, there'll be um our trans march as well and gathering celebration.

So many activities and hope folks can get out and celebrate together.

It's a great opportunity to get to meet those vendors to get to know those operators in our community that add such diversity and vibrancy and really help us to pursue equity um here in Fayetteville and across our region and state and really um looking forward to celebrating together even uh during all these hot days ahead of us.

Thank you, Miss Moore.

Um if we don't have any more questions from the council, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

Hi, please go ahead and please state your name and address.

Thank you.

Uh Evelyn Rio Stafford, 527 South Sherman in Fayetteville.

Uh and I am an LGBTQ business owner uh for the past 10 years here in Fayetteville.

Um I also uh helped out with the resolution a little bit.

Um I have some notes here.

Um I want to say that small businesses are part of the backbone of Fayeville.

They create jobs, serve customers, support families, bring people downtown, strengthen neighborhoods, and help shape the culture of this city.

Business being a business owner can mean self-determination.

It means building a life on your own terms, creating a place where people feel welcome, respected, and seen.

Diversity in business can help strengthen our whole economy.

It affects who feels welcome as a customer, who sees a path to entrepreneurship, who gets hired, and who decides that Fayetteville is a place worth investing in.

When people visit our city, they experience it through local businesses.

They eat in our restaurants, shop in our stores, attend events, stay in our hotels, and support our local economy.

And that activity helps generate HMR tax revenue, which helps support tourism in our city parks.

Recognizing black-owned LGBTQ owned and the whole diversity of businesses in our city is a statement about who helps build Fayetteville and who belongs in Fayetteville's future.

And so I appreciate Councilmember Jones for bringing this forward and I encourage the council to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anyone else who would like to make a comment?

Do we have anyone on Zoom?

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

Madam Mayor.

Yes, ma'am.

A motion that we adopt the resolution.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay.

We have a second walk-on.

So that passes.

We now have a second uh walk-on item from the administration.

Um I will turn it over to Ms.

Masito or Mr.

Masito, but first of all, I will read it.

It is, it should be at your um up here on the dice.

Everybody should have a copy.

It is a resolution to authorize an application for a federal railroad.

For a federal railroad administration grant to make safety improvements to railroad crossings in Fayetteville.

Mr.

Brown or Keith, would you like to go for one of you?

Either one.

Just jump right in.

Chris, go ahead.

I was I was ready to answer questions as necessary.

Um this is a grant application as you all may recall.

We have a uh current grant in place for some planning and design efforts on a couple of railroad crossings, uh, one at uh Frisco Avenue and one at university.

Uh that that uh process is being completed.

Um and so we have another round of grant funding available to uh implement these crossing locations.

Chris, I'm gonna ask you to pause for just one second.

I apologize to the council members that may have difficulty finding it, um, in an effort to save paper and be a good steward of resources.

I think Keith printed um on the back.

And so if you're looking through the packet and you can't see the paper if you look on the reverse.

So got it.

Anyway, okay, go ahead, Chris.

So uh the the uh grant application deadline is uh next week uh the 8th, and so uh we uh we needed to to bring this forward now in order to uh get approval from the council to apply for this grant.

We are uh partnering with Springdale again on this grant, so it's a total of 48 million dollars, about 19 million of that is in Fayetteville, and the other is in Springdale.

Okay, and we request this be added to the agenda and voted on this evening.

Okay, great.

Um Minister Jones.

And this is a match, Greg, Chris?

Yes, and where are we pulling funds to motion?

Uh this will come from the bond program, either the the current bond or the the bonds that will be issued later this year.

Is the match the 9,628?

Um it will be the total match um if we receive the full grant amount um is up to uh about 3.9 million dollars.

So it's 20 percent of the uh of the of the total project cost.

Thank you.

And procedurally, before we go further, we need a motion to add it to the agenda.

I'd make a motion to add this to the agenda.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and um seconds clerk packson.

Will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berner.

Yes.

Okay.

We'll go uh back to questions.

Um Minister Jones.

So Chris, just let me help me understand three million is our commit commitment in the match grant.

That's up to nine million, but proportionately out of a 48 million dollar grant, Springdale will get the majority, and we will proportionately get about nine million in our match is about 39 million.

Uh, let me let me go through that.

The total grant amount is uh 48 million dollars.

Okay.

Uh the total uh match amount is nine point six million.

Okay.

Um the city's portion of the grant is um 19 million, 19.6 million.

Our match amount is 3.9 million.

Okay.

So for for the city of Fayeville, it would be a nineteen point six million dollar grant with a three point nine million dollar match.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Chris, I just want to um because it just came in front of us, um, so I'm looking through it.

Um I know we talked about some potential closures, but this is just for safety improvements at those crossings.

This is not currently funding towards any closures of crossings.

Is that correct?

Uh that's correct.

So uh the Frisco crossing, and I've got I've got pictures if if you all want to see it, but uh the Frisco crossing is uh to make that be a fully um lights and signals there, uh make it be a a uh uh perpendicular crossing where right now it's it's very much skewed, and also clean up the trail crossing there and make that be a much safer location really for all modes of travel there.

Um the university crossing is to get a pedestrian and bicycle tunnel under the railroad at University Avenue.

Okay, and then did you say you have photos of those projects?

I do.

Can we show those just this with this being walked on just for the public in case someone's trying to follow this and hasn't heard this for the this is the first time.

Can we show those pictures?

Sure.

Thank you.

Should uh okay.

Uh so the the first picture here is the Frisco crossing.

And I've got a couple of different views of it, but um, so this is the existing street crosses here at an angle, goes and then goes down across uh the low water crossing um of the uh Skull Creek uh up to prospect.

And so the the proposed connection is uh a perpendicular crossing here, lining up with Taylor Street.

Uh this is sort of a kind of a half roundabout uh through in this intersection.

The trail that now runs uh in this area will be pulled away further from the railroad and will line up at this uh T intersection and then come on up here and then this will be a new bridge that will uh take the place of the of the low water crossing not shown but also included is replacing uh this railroad bridge and crossing in order to make the hydraulics work for all of the the bridge.

So uh the railroad gets a new bridge, we have a new improved crossing, uh the trail crossing and and interaction with the street is much safer, and then we've eliminated this low water crossing.

So it really does four or five things for us.

Okay, and that area is under quite a lot of additional development currently.

Um how does that impact this project or do those projects potentially um contribute towards any of this project?

Because it looks like they would get some benefit.

Yeah, I think it's a it's a you know really a good improvement in the area for for many reasons.

Um the the developments uh if if those develop if that development does occur, it just it just helps improve the access to those.

Um and this is just a bird's eye view of that kind of looking north.

Uh this is what that what that crossing, uh the trail interaction, and uh at the very top of the page there is the is the bridge going to the north.

Uh next up is the university avenue project.

Um you can see university there in the middle of the page.

Stone Street and university do not currently connect, um, but those two would connect under this proposal.

The actual crossing of the railroad is to the south of here.

Um, and as you all know, we have we have an agreement with the railroad to close that at some point.

Um we're still negotiating some additional terms on that.

We have a proposed uh amendment that we'll be bringing at some point.

But uh if we get to the point where that uh section is closed, then this replaces that pedestrian and bicycle access.

The the uh trail crossing, the tunnel you can see is there towards the top right of the page.

And again, this is the the bird's eye view of that.

Um you see the the ramp going down uh and then the tunnel under the railroad.

Uh it'll come out about where the ramble is on Greg Avenue, so it'll it'll come out into the into the uh the park on Greg.

With that um being connected to the uh future closure, can you walk us through like past this grant?

What does that look like procedurally?

About what kind of like public hearings and how that comes before council in the future for that closure.

For the closure.

Um it's a long and complicated history, but uh we do have an existing agreement with the railroad for the Shiloh crossing, which says we'll close the Shiloh crossing or we'll close the university crossing when we when we open up the new Shiloh crossing.

We're now talking to the railroad about not doing the Shiloh crossing, but proceeding with the future crossing, which is the southern crossing, um, and tying that to this uh university location.

Um tying that to this uh university location.

So uh if that occurs when the when the new crossing opens, this university crossing would close.

We're negotiating with the railroad.

There are several things we're negotiating with them right now as far as new terms for this agreement.

Um and uh when we get that ready, we're getting very, very close.

We'll be bringing that to council for discussion.

Okay, thank you, Chris.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Chris, could you go back to your first slide?

Um I I think you've answered my question, but I just want to make sure that's correct.

So the current crossing right there, the one that's sort of the dog leg, that will be closed, right?

That's correct.

Okay, and that'll just be eliminated.

I think I really think this will improve safety quite a bit there.

So um on multiple fronts.

Right.

Thank you.

Minister Jones.

Oh, okay, Dr.

Jones.

Uh uh, Chris, didn't you say that the deadline is it next week?

It is.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

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

Okay.

Mr.

Bruno.

Mayor make a motion to pass a resolution as presented.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turks.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Burno.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to the consent portion of our agenda.

A one, approval of the May 19th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

A two, the Lake Sequoia Bridge Rehabilitation Amendment to the Agreement with Garver, LLC.

A three, Gohan's Enterprises, change order number two.

A four, Greg Street, safe streets for all.

Amendment number one with Crafton Toll.

A five, safe routes to school plan adoption, and a six, vision zero safety action plan.

Mr.

Berna.

Mayor, I'd make a motion to pass consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk Paxon, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Bernard.

Yes.

Okay.

So that brings us to the unfinished business portion of the agenda.

Section B.

Item B1, a resolution pursuant to section 39.10 C4 of the Fayetteville City Code to authorize a payment of 100,000 to Chris Scrockey for a sewer damage claim arising at 516 North Fallon Avenue.

For um the most recently at the May 19th City Council meeting, the resolution was tabled until this evening.

Mr.

Niander.

Thank you, Mayor.

We did receive uh the lodging receipts last Tuesday, so we figured that into the formula.

I'll go over the breakdown of the costs.

Uh we'll start with the lodging is $4,806.

Uh a call out plumbing was an $89 bill.

The mitigation costs for cleanup of the material and removing the damaged portions of the structure was $36,241.

The mitigation of which is the cleaning of personal property was $32,745.

The uh repair construction is $60,719.

Uh the deducts, uh the adjuster had factored in the removal and reinstallation of a water heater, which the owner said did not need to happen, so that was deducted.

And then less the insurance payment of 10,000 uh brings the total to 140,11.21 cents.

Can you repeat that again?

140,000.

140,000 11 and 21 cents.

Staff does recommend full payment of this amount.

Okay, great.

You have any answering questions?

Okay.

Before that, let's hear from the applicant or the appellate or the uh from Mr.

Skaraki.

And then um, and then Tim I'll have you back up for questions if the council has them.

Oh, and Kit, is that the proper now?

I would draft a replacement resolution, which I sent that out today.

We have it here, so at some point uh if you want to follow the uh uh appraisers uh and what Tim has said here, then uh you would need then to amend to that resolution that allows a greater amount than a hundred thousand dollars.

Okay.

So Mr.

Scracky, my res uh recommendation is that we make that amendment now and then have you up to present.

Is that okay with you?

Yeah.

Uh I'll still be able to kind of absolutely pass these around while you guys okay.

Is that the same?

And you can have them to send to the city clerk, please, and she'll send it to the city.

Second or that you're fine.

Okay, we have a motion to amend.

Sorry, I lost track.

Is that right from Mr.

Stafford?

And a second.

Okay.

Clark.

Clerk Paxson, will you um please call the roll on the motion to amend to the language provided today by Mr.

Williams?

Ms.

Butch.

Yes.

Ms.

Herc.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Um, so now we have an amended properly amended motion.

Mr.

Scrocky, please come on back up.

Sorry about that.

I think I've got we've got the some slides as well.

So thank you again, everybody.

Uh Mayor Ron, I've been here often enough that you can pronounce Scrocky now.

Um, so it's been uh several several times over.

And uh just want to acknowledge that um I totally uh appreciate what city council uh has done.

Um I appreciate that folks are are uh we're all kind of there in terms of being um tired of of of this issue.

Um we're in the in the same boat uh in that in that respect.

And uh do want to say that um absolutely recognize the the progress that city council has made in terms of the of the ordinance uh here.

Um you know I did want to share you know some of the um uh a few of these uh issues and still kind of put this out there just so everybody can kind of see uh where we're uh where I've got a bit of perspective uh as well.

So um I don't know that we necessarily shared uh the uh all the images here to kind of show the scope and severity of what happened uh to my home.

Um you know, top left.

I need to point out that that's not the color of the floor.

That's uh the material, the overflow, the sewage, which was completely black, backflowed uh throughout my house.

Um uh bad um affected uh the uh entire first floor of of the home.

Um December 8th, 176 days ago.

Um next slide, please.

Just some additional photos again with the severity.

Uh the bathtub.

Significant amount volume of uh material here.

Um this is this is bad.

Those are the guys that had to enter as this was a biohazard and a place which was not safe to live in for quite some time.

Next slide.

This is um a picture that I also included because I think it's a bit uh indicative of just still some of the um issues that that that I've seen and just some of some of the frustration that that I have had with respect to this.

So um as the caption says, that's where the tub was ripped out in the primary bathroom.

Uh the flowing material at the bottom of the photo is uh tile uh there as per the photo.

This is one of the good visuals of the airs which remain in what has been um produced by the city hired uh estimator.

That's called bamboo flooring.

That remains within what has been submitted.

That's that's tile.

This is an outline of the floor plan on the bottom.

I forgot my fancy blazer pointy here, but it basically went all the way to like the island, uh, hit the dining dining area, touched other areas of the house, obviously the the bedroom, um, and the overflow came from that half bath uh up there towards the front of the house next to the entry foyer, and then the um shower uh in the primary bathroom, uh the uh toilet in the primary uh bathroom as well.

Uh next slide.

So uh a bit of the history recap.

Um again, this is a bit of the so people can kind of have the the perspective again of where I've been.

Um what this has been like, you know, the initial offer again was $4,000 and three nights in the hotel, and we've made a ton of progress since then, but that's um uh puts you kind of on edge, right?

Whenever whenever that uh that happens.

Um so again, I did ask for uh three bids on this.

I received two.

Uh I've had to do FOIA requests to actually get what has been submitted uh initially in terms of an itemized breakout that wasn't sent to me voluntarily.

I've had to learn a lot about FOIA and how that process works.

Um and then the estimates from the hired estimator have been variable.

Go ahead and next slide, please.

And the home repairs are the major discrepancy and the claim amount.

We are on the same page with respect to mitigation costs and personal items.

That's that's good.

Um there's still questions on meals per diem.

Those are small compared to where we're at with respect to large discrepancies remaining.

And so um I just had these distributed out.

So just wanted to kind of talk through some of what um I've I've seen uh here in terms of doing the review.

So I've got my history here.

Um my first estimate amount about 96,447.

Second estimate amount for me, 99,507, about a 3.2% difference in the 99507 is what I've actually paid out of pocket, where I've had to uh borrow from uh retirement savings.

Um I found out you can't get a home equity line of credit when you don't have any home equity because the house is not worth what it was, right?

That's the situation that I found myself in.

Um compared to on this first page, the first estimate.

Again, I had the FOIA that about 46,496.

Then that second estimate after a meeting, uh, which was requested in January, had the follow-up, didn't take place until April.

That difference was a 30% uh increase.

So there's variability there.

I've been consistent in what I have uh been presenting um and submitting to uh as part of this claim process.

Um the next couple of pages are some of the errors and omissions where I went through room by room and then was able to point out that a lot of these things were missed.

You know, for example, the material uh in in the primary bathroom in the in the primary closet, you know, it's still listed as bamboo and not and not tile.

Um that's a very good obvious example, but there are over 25 of these uh I pointed out, uh, including in terms of acting in good faith, calling out some errors which were in my favor.

And so I said, hey, some of these things didn't need to take place.

Uh one of the things uh in the home repair, which was discussed was the reset of the um water heater that wasn't necessary.

So I said, hey, take that out.

The only thing that changed after I pointed out all these was that my amount was reduced in my claim for that um without anything to address the rest of those.

And I don't know what that means, uh, right, in terms of how to interpret that.

The other thing that I pointed out again in terms of acting in good faith here is that I pointed out an error in the spreadsheet whenever it came to my personal property damage when it was like 25,000 and something, and I said, no, no, that's that's not right.

Um there was a placeholder here where we were trying to determine whether or not there was a certain amount of personal property which was going to be recoverable in that uh mitigation phase or whatever.

So I said, hey, I later pointed out, hey, you made an error here to the estimator, take that out.

It should actually be 19,000 something and change.

And then that was depreciated to 16 or that number that was just presented.

So I have been presenting these things and acting in good faith, and um this has been some of what I've I've had to experience.

So I've got comparisons of the estimate versus actual repair costs, those are hard numbers where you can actually see in these additional pages on some of these larger items what the estimate said versus what my actual out of pocket numbers were uh for my home repair that have been completed.

Um I don't intend to take up the entire uh time here, but what I would say is I understand, you know, it has been a long uh arduous process for all uh here.

Um I would say if there is the option of getting some of these errors corrected with a second estimate, I would welcome that.

However, um again, I just want to appreciate I want to express that I appreciate what city council has done and the progress that's been made so far.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we'll start with any questions that we have either for um Mr.

Niander, Mr.

Scruckey, or Mr.

Mosito uh before we go to public comment.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Kit, I think this is for you.

Um I I believe we were told um our direction is for what we can approve um for the city's amount for payout, that has to be tied to something that comes, I think, from an adjuster that has the backup.

I mean, can you can you kind of explain on that to us and try to make clear I hear there are discrepancies, and I know in dealing um probably in our own personal dealings, if we've had a claim of some sort, there can be some back and forth that's occurred and it sounds like that's happened.

Um is is this the normal process?

Can you explain to us?

I mean, there was an ask about potentially looking at this further.

Can you kind of weigh in on that as well, please?

Yes, the city council and uh after the ordinance review studied this particular problem and was trying to do something in order to facilitate uh spending additional money to compensate uh Mr.

Scocking.

Um looked at looked at this and suggested uh an additional section to your code that would allow the city council to pay more money than 100,000, which at that point was the maximum cap, and that was a recent cap from an earlier cap of 50,000.

So this has gone up dramatically.

And that particular section says that if our experienced insurance adjusters professional analysis determines that the reasonable compensation for the valid and allowable claim exceeds 100,000, the city council by unanimous consent for the uh may authorize a payment of the claim over the normal cap of 100,000 and up to the amount of reasonable compensation as determined by the city's professional insurance adjusters analysis.

So that analysis uh as Tim explained came up to about 140,000, a little bit more than that.

Actually, it was 150,000, but 10,000 had already been paid by Mr.

by his insurance company.

So that would be the ceiling uh that what the city council could do, and that would require eight affirmative votes from every council member must vote yes, or that will not pass.

If you don't get eight votes, then the ceiling would be a 100,000, which requires a two-thirds vote by the city council.

So in order to uh pass the resolution that I proposed here, uh based upon what Tim had told me to say, that requires a unanimous vote of the city council.

And if a single city council member does not vote yes, then that cannot pass.

And so the only resolution that you would be able to pass and the compensation be able to pay would be 100,000.

Okay.

Thank you, Kit.

I had one question for the approval applicant.

Um this is obviously a very unfortunate incident.

Um I'm thankful this doesn't occur to most of our residents.

Unfortunately, you are the lucky one.

I apologize.

Um, but my question to you is this has been a lengthy process, it's never gonna be a perfect process.

And so um, you've walked us through the discrepancies.

I understand that there's been some frustration and process, that there are some some areas I think we probably can continue to talk about improvement.

Um, but my question to you is like there's delay too in payment.

It sounds like you've taken some um like personal financial responsibilities kind of on yourself.

And so for us, when we move forward, um, we have to be unanimous, we have to give you one check and move forward.

And so my question to you is we could keep doing the these exercises potentially for six more months.

We might have a smidge of movement, you know, a small amount of movement, but I don't know if you will feel like that compensation for that time outlay and you know, delay of having this being completed would be worth it.

And so I'd like to give you an opportunity to weigh into that as we are kind of considering this tonight.

I would say if there is a again, we're in somewhat obviously the whole thing is uncharted, right?

Um I wish that um we I would be able to well that questions could be asked of the person who generated that as as well um with respect to uh those uh errors.

Um I almost think that that would be a productive uh process if that would be part of another, you know, meeting of hey, why this is what was in the house.

Here are the photos.

This is this does not drive, this does not match.

Um so if there were a process by which and again focus, I'm rambling a bit here.

Um my understanding is like private insurance the way that it would typically work.

And and this is I think part of where it's a bit frustrating is that you would have a um an adjuster come to the house, fully document, fully capture, take pictures of all the rooms, not miss any rooms, which is part of what has happened here.

Maybe do some videography as well so they can go back and take some notes after the facts, generate a report, go to a desk adjuster who then can take a look at that and say, all right, I think we missed this and this, go back and forth a little bit.

And again, this is if it's you know insurance, then an initial check gets gets cut to the person so they can begin construction and not have to, you know, try and take out a second mortgage or dip into retirement savings and mortgage their future.

Um and then there's uh reconciliation.

So um, you know, that's where uh again I have to wonder whenever there are enough material errors and there's not a process, and if there's a single person where we're solely reliant upon that estimate, and we've already there I can we can already show that there are problems, that there are material facts that are that are incorrect, there are errors in the missions, um, and yet not having a means uh if there's a means by which to address some of that, I would be interested in that process.

If there's not a means by which to address that, then right.

If that I don't know if that answers okay.

Okay.

I don't see any more questions from oh yes, go ahead, Mr.

Stafford.

And Kid, I think this is for you.

Uh I know we well, and maybe it's not you've been out a bit a little bit, but I think you're familiar with what the process we've gone through and and I know that some of these discrepancies have been brought up before.

Did the adjuster take a second look?

Is that is that standard for you know for Mr.

Scrockey or or whoever the uh appealing is to get the numbers to look them over to make uh to point out uh discrepancies and when those discrepancies are pointed out, does the adjuster take those into account or or did they do that in this case and and just decide that they disagreed with that?

That may be a question for Mr.

Nyander, so I'm hoping that he will come up.

I mean can't go ahead, of course as well, but go ahead.

Yes, we did talk to the adjuster about these discrepancies and and he was pretty adamant about one thing that was easier for him is because when he got to to this resident, everything was already torn out.

So it was very easy to do the measurements of the of the sheetrock that was cut out and all this.

Uh the only rooms he said that he did not go into are the ones upstairs because they weren't affected by this incident.

Um basically what he has told us is that uh he there's salvageable items like we had said before, then there's items that were too high up to be affected by the material on the floor.

And uh so yes, he's looked at them over again and he stands behind his um his estimate.

And I can tell you as a as a personal injury lawyer before I became city attorney 25 years ago, uh there's always gonna be arguments that can be made that you're not paying me the right amount or you're not paying my client enough money, that it should be this, should be that.

I I value that more than you value it.

And in order for the city council not to get bogged down every time you have a claim, that is why we have this professional adjuster who looks at it objectively and is not going to be second guessed by uh claimants and and other people uh by the city council.

He has to be really an objective type uh person, and that's why we have that standard.

Uh so we don't uh get into the minutiae.

I mean, there's claims that that uh we're paying stuff we shouldn't be paying too in there.

But uh this was the adjuster's uh analysis, and so we decided to go with that.

Uh and because that was what the city council had decided, that was the ceiling uh to do that.

Now you don't have to pay that amount if you don't want to.

You but you in order to, but you can't pay more than what the adjuster's analysis was.

I think he made a fair analysis.

You went back and looked at that.

We were not called immediately, which would have been better, so we could have gotten some of this stuff uh up front and we would have had uh uh probably a better grip on everything on that.

But regardless, we we uh I think have done a fair and and reasonable analysis here by our adjuster, and I I just don't think that uh to try to go and second guess him uh here in the public, it really makes much sense.

I don't think that that is an assistance to the city council to to go through that kind of process.

Okay, does anybody else have any questions either for Mr.

Scrocky or Mr.

Nyander?

Okay, do we want to open it up for public comments?

I mean, I'm sorry, we are going to open it up for public comment.

If we have any members of the public that would like to come and speak about this item, please state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

Evening, my name's Mark Scrockey.

I'm uh 26 or seven year resident of Fayetteville.

Um traveling to Fayetteville for 42 years to do business.

Love the city, our family loves the city.

Um I wanted to speak to the adjuster portion of this because I think it's really important.

I was there for the inspection.

Um things were amiss because I saw the first estimate.

I wanted to walk you through a little bit what happened, what transpired.

There was a first estimate that we received, and that Chris saw some major discrepancies, omissions, however you want to describe it in them.

Um what happened was the adjuster was urged by some of the council members to please contact reach out to Chris to discuss the discrepancies.

What happened at that point uh is nothing for 90 days.

It was strongly suggested by Mr.

Stafford that he get back reach out directly to the adjuster.

So the city asking the adjuster to get back to Chris resulted, didn't happen.

Um nothing happened.

So we took a meeting.

I was at this meeting as well with the adjuster.

There was a utilities department person present, Chris, myself.

Um we laid out questions, and keep in mind the first estimate, the city utilities department was saying, yes, this is the estimate.

This guy's a professional adjuster, and this is accurate, and this is the number we're going with.

Going backwards a little bit upon question, a second estimate, and upon this meeting taking place, a second estimate came up.

Uh coincidentally, the second estimate was I think 35% or 30 something percent higher than the original estimate.

Okay, went through that process.

Once again, the city utilities department came back and said, yes, this is accurate.

This is absolutely the number now.

Two times it's accurate based on the professional adjuster's assessment and numbers.

So it goes up 35%.

Um what happens upon that, of course, is we review the estimate and find some a list of pretty glaring errors.

Um, as Chris mentioned, wait a minute, you got the wrong flooring in these two rooms.

Um here's 25 items that are completely inaccurate on the second estimate.

Um look, I'm please, I'm not here to complain.

I'm just trying to take you through what happened in the course of dealing with the nominated professional adjuster from the city, and that all happened, and I can answer any questions because I've got one second left.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

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

Thank you.

Hello.

Hi.

I am Ari Scrockey.

Can you pull your microphone down to you a little bit?

Thank you.

Sorry.

I'm Ari Scrockey.

There are six of us here in Arkansas, and we're all in favor, and we love it here.

Um I've been a lifelong resident.

In fact, I believe the first time I spoke at this podium, I was probably five.

So I've been here a bit.

Um I'm not happy to be here today, y'all.

I recognize that you guys have worked really hard on this.

And I, you know, usually, like I said, I've spoken at this podium before, not too hesitant to speak at it, but I regret not speaking at it one time.

And that was in the last meeting that we had on this, where we decided where you guys decided to use one estimator.

It doesn't seem fair to me to have one person chosen by the city to be responsible for determining all of the cost.

And it seems like we're coming down to that being what is in question right now.

I've worked in a lot of different fields in my life and a lot of different present professions and whatnot.

It's my common understanding and what I have done that usually people get three estimates at the choice of the individual that is seeking a product or service or damages.

And it seems questionable to me.

How am I supposed to believe when I'm hearing this discrepancy of like 40,000 and errors that were made?

25 of them.

I don't know if that's counting the floors.

Uh that this individual is truly nobody, everybody else has danced around this words, but I'm kind of the outspoken one of us.

Is this person truly as competent as we have all put faith in them?

That's why to me it makes sense that there would be additional estimates.

It just doesn't seem fair that the person in question is now the one that determines the amount.

Um I guess that's my entire point.

Oh, and I forgot to mention I am a long-time Fayetteville resident, 22001 East Bristol.

And I think you need that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, Beth Hall.

I live at 1620 North Star Drive.

I have a rental property in Fayetteville.

I also have a small business in Fayetteville, very rooted in the community.

Moved here 30 years ago from Little Rock and never wanted to leave.

Um I've reviewed the estimate uh from the appraiser.

I've sent it to an attorney who works in these types of claims for a major insurance agency.

I asked a reputable Fayetteville commercial appraiser to review it.

They both agree that it's incomplete and full of errors.

Um there are placeholders called bid items.

Um that I don't believe they have actual contractor cost in there.

Um, and those items are way lower than the actual cost.

Um I would I'm kind of curious why the appraiser is not here for us to ask these questions and find out like, is this a finished item or is this left and you never followed through with it?

Um I know there's a big thing on the discrepancy of like a homeowner versus the city, and the homeowner wants more.

As I've gone through this estimate, the discrepancies are not that like Chris wants more, it's that no wall texture was awarded in the bid to match the existing wall with where the sheetrock was replaced.

These are like just basic things.

Um there were no baseboards in the foyer, only one door was added for the uh laundry room.

There are two doors there.

The sink reset was allowed in some bathrooms, but not in others.

There were no uh plumbing resets allowed in the half bath, there was no dishwasher replacement.

Um the major appliances were all allowed resets except for the washer and dryer.

The cabinetry around the bathtub was omitted, and you saw the state of the bathtub, but that cabinetry had to be rebuilt, and that came out of Chris's pocket because the estimator left it off.

Um there are nothing there's nothing for repairs to the front door, and as you saw in that photo, there was raw sewage backed up.

It had to be treated and refinished.

So this is not a homeowner arguing that he wants more money because he feels entitled.

These are errors on this.

So I'd like to ask like moving forward as this city.

What does it mean for city projects involving the water department of a much greater magnitude when when the department is knowingly and willingly submitting inaccurate information to the city council on a matter?

Because that's what's happening right here.

And one more question.

I believe it's a conflict of interest that the department that caused the damage is in charge of hiring the adjuster and ultimately presenting the final number to the city council.

Thank you.

Do we have any more comments from members of the public?

Keith, do we have anyone on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

I'm gonna bring it back to members of the city council.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this, you know, this has been an imperfect process.

Uh and I I mean it started out with an inadequate uh uh system and ordinance, and we we put something in place that we hoped would would work.

Um, you know, in we we are getting the uh the homeowner more than we were able to.

It it does seem I understand their frustrations.

Uh 38 grand, that's a price of a new car.

It's not a it's not an insignificant amount.

Um and sure there's differences, that's a pretty significant difference.

They did it seems documented.

I thought we had the time.

I thought the whole reason we we tabled this a few times was so that the adjuster would go back and cross their T's and dot their I's and so I I do have questions.

It seems like maybe there's some things we need to uh fix.

Uh I don't know who hires the adjuster and who picks the adjuster.

Um but but uh I'm sure the adjuster is not a city employee.

Is that safe to say?

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Uh but you know, I I at this point we're we're as kit said, we're we're we're given a number uh by the system uh as it was designed.

Uh and and we can't go above that number.

If the adjuster hasn't made these corrections, or is I'm willing to make corrections or dis or just disagrees.

Uh that I don't know.

Uh haven't spoken to the adjuster, and I guess they're not in the room.

Uh but I I think at some point the those of us that are in the room have to uh make a call here.

Um and it's a tough one because uh again, I think uh what we've seen is we we put a system in place that seemed pretty good, and maybe there's still some holes as far as uh it seems like the process between uh having the adjuster come up with their number, then having that number reviewed and then making sure that the T's are crossed and the the I's are dotted.

Uh it seems like maybe we still have a gap there that uh we need to work on, and unfortunately that's a pretty big gap in this one.

Um but we we have the law we made.

Uh and I I don't know what our options are other than moving forward, I'm not sure.

But I'm I'm willing to hope to hear from some other council members.

Mr.

Burnout.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um mayor, could you verify with Tim?

I I'm almost positive he said that the adjuster did review uh after the initial Tim, can you uh tabling of the item?

Yeah, can you clarify Tim when if the adjuster went back and the looked and addressed the the concerns that Mr.

Scrocky brought up of the floor mislabeling or and all of those things?

Well, I think the result of the meeting was determined that the the floor that was in there was much more expensive than what the adjuster originally thought.

Like I said, the floor wasn't in there.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry, okay.

So when he looked at it, so that was addressed that that did increase the the amount of the estimate by by quite a bit, several thousand dollars.

As far as the uh trust me, that's that's going on right now.

That's uh that's a back and forth thing, and and uh the adjuster does not feel like he missed anything to this degree.

And so uh the reason that we do an adjuster is because we used to have the three bid process, and it was a back and forth process constantly uh that really took a lot of uh a lot of effort by everybody's part.

And you do get uh some instances where a contractor doesn't want to do a job this small, and so they'll they'll really bid high.

Well, then you still take the low bid even though it's really high and ends up driving up the cost of everything else.

So it's quite a deal.

There, there's can always be improvement on everything.

Uh we've uh felt like that we've uh made some strides in this one.

Okay, but the bottom line is the adjuster has reviewed this multiple times, and it's uh he's of the opinion that his uh estimate is accurate.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you, Tim.

Thank you, Tim.

Um, I think we could bat this back and forth.

Uh we have batted this back and forth for a couple of months now.

We went to ordinance review and we we uh made some adjustments to the to the ordinance.

Um I'm absolutely on side of of citizens on these type of things, but because I initially when we when I first got on council, it was fifty thousand dollars max, and we raised it to a hundred thousand dollars.

Uh and then we had this outlier come up that that we've never had before.

So we we had to go and look at it through ordinance review, and we had two different meetings because the first time can't we came back and we thought, uh oh, we didn't we didn't do it just right, so we need to go back and do it again.

So we made some adjustments again.

Um the bottom line, in my opinion, though, is we as city council members have to rely on experts.

Uh you know, none of us are remodelers, I don't think.

Uh I'm certainly not.

I don't even know how to hold a hold a hammer uh without screwing things up.

But uh we have to rely on the experts.

That's why we put in the ordinance uh to rely on a third-party adjuster.

Uh my unfortunate experience was I had a total remodel on my house because of broken water pipe.

We had arguments with the adjuster.

We won some, we lost some.

Uh and uh it was not a pleasant experience.

Believe me, my wife to this day is traumatized by it.

Uh, but it it's a reality in life that in these types of situations we are not gonna come down to an exact number.

We have to look at it to say we think this is reasonable.

Um and make a determination along that lines.

I just don't think we're ever gonna get to a matching number.

I just don't.

And uh I I think the adjuster has done a good job.

I think the property owner has you know made it made a case both ways.

So I have to look at this as go, what do I think is fair in this situation, and um go from there.

So that's kind of kind of where I am and kind of interpreting where we are in as a decision making bottom.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, when we started talking, there was a number, and I think you gave out this number, Tim.

It was 140,11 and 21 cents.

Is that correct?

That's the number that he that yeah, is this what Tim is proposing, and it's outside of the city code that we are allowed.

And what I think I heard Kent Kit say earlier is if we agreed to this, it had to be a hundred percent agreement.

Okay.

I wanted just wanted to clarify that.

Go ahead.

I think the initial ordinance was a hundred thousand dollars, and then we would when we amended the ordinance, it we went up to we allowed by unanimous consent up to the adjuster amount.

Okay, and the one forty one eleven would be the adjuster amount.

Is that the cor is that the correct number, Tim?

Did we get that right to run?

Okay.

Okay.

Mr.

Wedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I think it'll forever be known as the the Skaraki clause that um the per diem was increased from three days to the number of days that he documented, and that that's a a huge difference in this claim that caused the numbers to change, to go from three days to whatever the number of days were that were presented.

And um and I commend him for his patience with us until we were able to at least say you don't want us pulling a number out of the hat, and we want to acknowledge the per diem as the federal government honors it for lodging and food for that number of days, and so it's while imperfect.

Um I'd hate to give the man a hundred thousand dollars to be perfectly honest with you.

And so I'd rather us give him the 140,111 and 21 cents.

I'm not sure if there's a unanimous vote to accomplish that tonight, but I'm I'm curious about that.

Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, this has been an incredibly imperfect process.

I feel like you know, the plane's flying right and we're assembling it or trying to reassemble it and change it around.

Um and I want to express probably you know frustration on the part of staff.

This has kind of been an unusual incident and and on the part of Mr.

Scrocky and his family.

Um, you know, our homes are one of our biggest assets and investments that we have.

There's a lot of you know emotional value that's tied up in them and also financial.

Um so I want to recognize that.

Um, you know, my hesitation at not moving forward right now is because um I'm not confident we're gonna get to a perfect process.

Um I think that um we have more work to do.

I think that um we really do need to um consider some of the things that were brought forward.

Um, but much like um council member Berna stated, I mean it's an unfortunate process that you go back and forth forth with an adjuster, um, no one's ever gonna see fully eye to eye.

Um and so my my hesitation at not moving forward tonight is I'd like to get you as whole as I think we might be able to land in a reasonable period of time.

And my concern is that giving us us another month or two, I don't think is going to get you considerable enough compensation for the anguish that it might be.

Um I would just like to say that I will personally, and I think other council members were continue to work with staff to try to address um the concerns that have been raised because I do think we have some additional work.

My concern is that um as a public entity who self-insures um as we've heard from our council, we have to balance, you know, trying to protect you know the full citizenry um assets, um, you know, and also try to make sure we're taking care of our residents appropriately as well.

And so it's such a balancing act, and so I think additional thoughtful discussion, not under um a tight time frame is probably what's needed to kind of go through, and I'll let mention a few of these.

I mean, I think there's validity and uh talking about and looking into whether or not we potentially um need to look at you know other um adjusters potentially um into the mix.

Um that can be very challenging in some of these areas we find in city government when you do bids, et cetera, you have less and less folks oftentimes in certain specialized areas, and so sometimes that presents challenges, but I I think it's something worth noting.

Um I think you know, um also it was talked about potentially not having the same department where the damage happened, maybe processing the claims.

I think I can see some validity and trying to think through of just having another party that potentially that goes through, you know, pros and cons on that too, is our our department has incredible expertise too, and like you know, very specific knowledge that's really important, and so they're gonna have to be a pretty integral part of that process, but I definitely take that to heart.

Um, and so you know, for me, I hate to think about tabling this any further, but I do think that we need to continue to think if this is in water sewer to have conversations going forward or ordinance review.

Um I'll I'll be happy to continue to chat with staff and try to figure out you know how we can make additional forward progress on this.

Um but I think for the time that's been spent and expended back and forth, you know, I think that we've gotten to you know, a number that you know hopefully can allow for him to get wholeness in a way that he can get back in his home.

He can, you know, uh resume uh the the funds back into certain accounts in the way that he needs to.

And I don't know that delaying this a couple more months and getting him five thousand dollars is gonna make him feel very um very good, and that's kind of where I think we might end up, and I'd hate to have that be the situation we're uh faced with.

Dr.

Jones.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Moore.

And I agree with a lot of what you said.

My question is, and maybe we missed this.

Is it possible for us to do?

I guess Kit a second opinion having another adjust to look at this.

The uh code that you all passed talked about our experienced insurance adjuster, which we have one that he has given you his opinion.

Okay.

So we so we cannot have another that would not be in con accordance with a code that you have passed.

Okay.

Just wanted to come back.

Mr.

Burno.

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

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

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

If we vote if we vote no, what does that mean that you cannot pay more than a hundred thousand dollars?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedeker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

I want to apologize to the Scroaki family for all that you have gone through.

Um I hate that this situation occurred and unfolded the way that it did.

Um I know that there are a lot of lessons that we have learned as staff.

I bet it is hollow comfort, however, um, that they weren't learned before and able to make this situation easier on you.

So I'm grateful to the council for their work on this, and also very sorry that this has been your experience.

So I'm gonna move on to item B2, a raise and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure at 20 North School Avenue.

Um this was tabled at the last meeting, and I believe um there's going to be a request from staff to table it again.

Um Mr.

Kurth, I will turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jonathan Curth Development Services Director, uh Billy Bryan, our senior code officer, will be presenting this item this evening.

Great.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Bryant.

Thank you, Mayor.

City Council.

Uh Billy Bryant, code compliance supervisor.

The subject property is located at 20 North School Avenue.

That's between West Meadows Street to the north and West Center Street to the south.

This address consists of a single story 2,261 square foot commercial building.

Staff were notified of the property through an anonymous complaint as far back as 2022.

The complaint at that time was for an unsecure violation, which was corrected by the owner.

Then on March 25th, 2025, a raise and removal case was opened against the property.

The property owner was notified of the violation via certified mail.

As complaints and neglect of the structure continued, staff inspected the property again November 2025 and found an unsecured abandoned cinder block structure with signs of neglect, as evidenced by graffiti on several walls and significant interior and exterior disrepair.

Staff auditing of utility services indicates that the structure does not have electricity and no water service since 2013, meaning it has been exposed to the elements without any climate control for over a decade.

As you see here is some photos of the structure.

Staff started a raise and removal case on that date and again mailed the owner a notice of violation.

In speaking with the property owners, staff was told of the owner's intent to demolish the building and difficulties resulting from the parking lot to the south being paved to the exterior wall.

During this time, the property continued to experience vandalism along with continued decline of the structure.

Staff repeatedly communicated the need to begin the demolition process with a demolition permit application being submitted after a raise and removal order was placed on council's agenda on April 7th.

Given the age of the building, and asbestos report was required, which was submitted on May 14th.

The permit was issued on May 22nd, and staff requested a timeline.

The applicant provided this on May 26th, which indicate indicated a September demolition that was to follow architectural design work on a future building.

Staff advised that this did not adequately account for the nearly 13 months since an initial violation, and that we would advise council to issue the order to raise and remove the structure.

The property owner responded with a revised demolition timeline of approximately two months, with consideration for the work needed to address the south wall's interaction with the parking lot to the south.

Even though hesitant due to the lack of activity on the property, staff recommends tabling the matter until the August 4th council meeting to allow Mr.

Smith the opportunity to raise and remove the structure himself.

I can answer any questions that council may have I don't see any questions.

I'm sorry, Miss I I do have one question.

Um since this building was used for I mean I don't know if this had anything to do with raising the building, but does it is there a possibility that there since it was used for a dry cleaners for such a long time period that there is a chemical uh element that we need to consider with the raise and removal?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay, but you did but there was an asbestos test on the building?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, great.

And I even though there is a request to table, we still now need to go to public comment on this item.

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

Do we have any members that have called in via Zoom?

Okay, I will take a motion from council.

I make a motion.

We uh table this item.

Second.

August 4th.

What date?

What was the date?

August 2nd.

August 2nd.

August 4th.

August 4th.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to table the item to August 4th.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay.

The next item is another raise and removable raise and removal.

It's a resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Bourne in a Barn Incorporated, located at 848 North Jackson Drive in the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Mr.

Kurth, are we gonna again hand it over to Mr.

Bryant?

Okay.

Please go ahead.

Uh staff does not have a presentation for this property at this time.

The owner and representation for the owner have been very communicable communicable recently with staff.

Staff has observed some completed work on the structure and is optimistic more will be completed soon.

Staff has outlined items that need to be addressed on the property, and the owners have agreed to address these items by the July 7th council meeting.

Staff's recommendation is to table the item until the July 7th meeting.

Staff has also informed the owner that if no work is completed, staff is prepared to move forward with the raise and removal recommendation on July 7th.

I can answer any questions.

All right.

Do we have any questions before we go to public comment?

All right.

Thank you, sir.

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

Okay.

What would the council like to do?

We will need a motion one way or another.

Ms.

Bunch.

I'll make a motion.

We table this item until July 7th.

Is that the date?

Correct.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to table until July 7th.

Kirk Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to our point of information.

Pardon me.

Yes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, this is uh for city attorney Co Williams.

Uh, could you please explain the proper procedural mechanism for this council or a member of the council to present newly discovered material evidence that's substantial and wasn't available at the time of the swarm arrow appeal hearing?

That could change the council's vote.

And that was made publicly, was not made publicly available at the time of the vote.

And I can repeat that if you didn't quite get that.

Well, actually, uh before anything like that can be discussed, there has to be an item uh for that on the agenda.

So you don't just discuss things or from the last meeting.

If you want to discuss that, uh, it is possible that someone that voted in favor in the majority in that particular case could ask for a reconsideration, so that would be back placed back on the agenda, but without that, there's no other way to discuss it that I'm aware of.

And just to make sure that I understand you correctly, it would have to be someone that was supportive of the swarm appeal that would have to make the motion to reconsider if they were concerned there might be some new information that wasn't available at the time of the hearing.

Uh yes, in order to have a motion to reconsider it must be done either at that meeting or the next meeting, which would be this meeting before the end of this meeting, and it must be made by someone that voted with the winning side.

Uh they uh anyone that voted on the losing side cannot make that motion.

Someone that it voted on the winning side could make the motion.

It can be seconded by anybody, and then it would just be voted on with the majority controlling.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Ken.

I appreciate that.

But right now, just to be clear, we're I just want to make sure I didn't miss something and that we are on the rezoning on North Hall Avenue.

Is that right?

Okay, great.

So item B for an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-11 for approximately 0.4 acres located at 1002 North Hall Avenue in Ward 4, from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to UN Urban Neighborhood.

Mr.

Kirth.

Mayor, Mr.

Williams, I believe needs to read the ordinance on this one.

I either need to read the body or which will be pretty short, so let me do that.

Be it ordained by the city council, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A and a legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF for residential single family four units per acre to UUN urban neighborhood and section two that the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here by amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayeville to reflect the zoning change provided in section one.

Okay, Mr.

Curtin.

Thank you.

To briefly orient council, since there are two requests on Hall Avenue on your agenda tonight.

They are B4 and B5.

Uh, the first of which is RZN 2026 0011.

That will be the item that we're discussing first.

So we're at the north end of Hall Avenue, uh adjacent to Weddington.

Uh this request, uh, if you're not already oriented, is in North Central Fayetteville.

It is north of the main University of Arkansas campus, one block west of the intersection of Garland Avenue and North Street.

It includes about 0.4 acres on the southeast corner of Weddington and Hall.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

Staff is in support of this request, uh, finding it to be compatible from a land use standpoint.

The urban neighborhood zoning district allows a range of residential and small scale non-residential uses uh that staff find to be compatible uh not just with the residential uses immediately to the south and north, but also the non-residential uses uh that can be found at the intersection of Weddington and Garland to the east.

Uh just as UN is found to be compatible from a land use standpoint, uh staff also finds it to be consistent with our future land uh land use map and future land uh future plan future planning documents.

Uh this includes the future land use map designation of this area as a city neighborhood area uh that contemplates the potential for a mixing of uses, both residential and non-residential.

Again, the urban neighborhood district allows this uh at a smaller scale, three stories, which is comparable to the RSF4 zoning that's immediately to the south and west, uh, but allowing the opportunity for additional housing types from single uh up to two, three, and four family dwellings.

Uh there also are a number of infill attributes that we feel like contribute to this being an appropriate location for additional housing opportunities or non-residential uses.

Uh in terms of other issues, staff reviewed with this request.

It would change the uh if it were approved, it would change the tree preservation requirements from 25% under RSF4 to 15% under UN.

Uh one item that I mentioned at the agenda session, and which the council may have seen in some public comment uh is with regards to uh historic work, historic preservation work that is being done in the university and Haskell Heights areas.

Uh to date, a a historic contact statement has been uh performed in this area, and that is a foundational document that could ultimately lead to the founding of or the creation of a historic district.

Uh this particular property is at the northeasternmost corner of that study area uh in evaluating it uh both during that uh historic contact statement uh effort and by historic preservation staff or long-range planning staff since then.

Uh, we found that this particular property or the structure on this particular property is not of a historic age that could contribute to a historic district of that nature, uh, nor is it eligible for reasons of architectural design or or other contributing factors.

Uh lastly, uh we have received some public comment on this request.

Uh some of this did come in at before and at the planning commission uh with concerns that rezoning this property would uh uh uh lead to a loss of character of the surrounding neighborhood and and increase concerns about traffic and parking impacts.

Uh uh conversely, we did receive at least one piece of comment in favor of the request, uh noting that as preferable to a zoning district that could allow large-scale student housing uh that might have an even greater deleterious uh effects in the area.

Ultimately, again, staff is recommending in favor to this request.

When the planning commission heard it, they forwarded the city council by a vote of seven to one, uh recommending uh your approval.

Uh, I can take any questions that the council has, and Mayor Tracy Hoskins is here as the applicant for the item.

Okay, great.

Would either the applicant or the applicant's representative like to come and present, please?

Okay.

Sorry, ma'am.

For Jonathan, before we went to the applicant.

Jonathan, you said that this area this particular property was not considered for the historic design, but I couldn't understand what you were referencing as you were saying they were not being considered.

I went through that fairly quickly.

I apologize.

There a historic context statement has been done for the University Heights and Haskell Heights area, which this is this property is the northeasternmost corner of it.

It expands southwesterly down towards the western side of the main university of Arkansas campus.

Uh that document is considered foundational and presents the an opportunity for individual properties within that area to get on the national register.

They can use that document as a springboard to get on the national register.

Uh, it can also serve as a springboard for uh residents who want to propose a something for the national registered district.

Uh it could also act as a springboard to create a local historic district, which I understand is currently uh an initiative that's underway.

Uh signatures are being collected for a petition.

Uh at this point, I'm not aware that that position has reached the 50% threshold required by the state of Arkansas.

But ultimately, as a reminder, I think you'll have heard this a couple times in recent months related to other not local districts.

They are not under Arkansas State Statute allowed to regulate land use.

So our zoning is still an independent question, which I think finally brings me to your question about the specific structure on this property.

And reviewing that that single family structure that's there today, our long-range planning staff with a historic preservation background, found that it is not contributing from a historical perspective, either because of its age or its architecture or otherwise.

Does that answer your question?

It does.

Thank you for the question.

Okay, please go ahead and introduce yourself.

You'll have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Council members, my name is Will Clark.

I'm at 75 Northeast Avenue here in Fayetteville, downtown Fayetteville.

Mr.

Kurth set me up very well.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the proposed rezoning of this property on North Howell Avenue from RSF4 to urban neighborhood.

This rezoning represents a well-reasoned and wholly compatible step in executing Fayetteville's long-term vision as set forth in the 2040 plan.

The request perfectly aligns with the property's future land use designation as a city neighborhood property.

And by replacing antiquated zoning with a transitional mixed-use district, the city can encourage the missing middle housing, promote fee simple homeownership over monolithic rentals, and capitalize on the site's excellent access to existing infrastructure.

I've handed to the uh city clerk a copy of the six goals set forth in uh the city plan 2040, the 2040 plan.

Four of those goals are um underscored and executed by this rezoning request.

The first is that uh the city has uh made its intent to appropriate to make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priority by encouraging the development or redevelopment of vacant, mostly vacant and underdeveloped property.

The second goal, which uh is underscored by this uh rezoning, is that the city intends to discourage suburban sprawl.

The third goal is that we will make trans uh make traditional town form the standard with neighborhoods that include not just houses, but a mix of uses that can adapt over time and allow residents to live, work, and play without relying upon vehicles.

And the sixth goal, which is the fourth supported by this rezone request, is that we will create opportunities for attainable housing.

In that vein, uh, council members, uh, I would suggest to you that this rezoning request is not a random change.

It's the execution of Fayetteville's adopted long-term vision.

The future land use plan explicitly designates this property and the surrounding area as a city neighborhood property.

City neighborhood areas are intended to be more densely developed than standard residential zones.

It supports the widest spectrum of using uses in housing types.

But at the same time, uh the rezoning change furthers those goals that I've just uh expressed to you and emphasizes this uh council's plan that was put into place six years ago.

Significant time, energy, and resources uh were utilized in developing the 2040 future land use plan, and this rezoning request fits squarely within it.

Additionally, this property has high infill suitability.

It's detailed um further in the planning staff's report to the council, uh, but the property possesses exceptionally high scores on the city plan 2040 infill matrix.

The site achieved a high infill score of uh between 10 and 11 with a weighted score of between 12.5 and 14.5 as based upon planning staff's uh evaluation.

It's situated in a highly walkable area with immediate access to existing infrastructure.

Uh among those qualifying infill matrix elements include the emergency services, where there's an adequate fire response with station two on wedding on West North Street, excuse me.

Uh utilities, which includes uh six-inch water and sewer mains on North Hall, uh, education and services.

Uh it's located on a street which abuts uh Levered Elementary, the University of Arkansas campus, Harps Grocery Store, various other restaurants uh and commercial services.

Moreover, uh this rezoning request promotes home ownership with uh what's known as the missing middle density housing, uh not monolithic, uh large scale uh multifamily, excuse me, uh student housing that we see across the street of on Weddington with that large development there.

The rezoning to urban neighborhood in this instance provides a specific regulatory framework that encourages that missing middle housing, which is crucial for neighborhood stability.

Urban neighborhood zoning permits low intensity residential types, including buildings with up to four units.

The district allows a minimum lot width of 12 feet, uh, but it creates housing options in doing that for young professionals, small families, and longtime residents who want to stay in central Fayetteville.

It allows for home ownership as opposed to the rental options, and again encourages the infill opportunities that exist with the property.

Uh additionally, it creates a logical neighborhood transition.

Um as all council is uh familiar with the location of this property, it sits directly on the boundary between major institutions and existing neighborhoods, making it an ideal transition buffer.

The properties abut the U of A, Leverett, and high activity regional links like Wash uh Weddon Drive.

The intersection of Weddington and Garland is defined as a tier two center, characterized by mixed use and mid-rise housing.

Urban neighborhood zoning allows for small scale neighborhood compatible commercial uses like sidewalks and also for um low intensity residential um living.

As Mr.

Kurt mentioned, there were a few uh, albeit um generalized concerns that were raised uh by certain members of the public that I'd like to just simply address head on.

Um and these factual realities come from the planning staff and their uh report as well.

Uh the first is that uh the first public concern is that there will be an appreciable traffic increase uh with this rezoning.

Uh the factual reality here is that the this lot is very small.

Um the 1002 Hall Avenue lot is four tenths of an acre, which naturally limits uh the maximum density development potential, um, meaning that any added density will be will not appreciably increase traffic dangers.

And on top of that, the development confines uh in the city further limit the fact and what can be developed on this property, including tree canopy requirements, setback requirements, and so on and so forth.

Another public concern raised is that this uh constitutes spot zoning.

The factual reality with that is that uh the requested urban neighborhood zoning uh as planning staff has concluded perfectly aligns with the city's future uh land use map uh and it's a planned transition, not an arbitrary spot zoning.

Uh this rezoning further will increase property value, not decline property value.

Um this council knows that redeveloping underutilized or declining homes that were built in the 60s and 70s elevates a neighborhood property.

Uh it doesn't decline that property value.

And there will not be an a burden on the existing infrastructure as there's adequate schools, water sewer lines, and there's no known capacity issues on this property.

In short, uh Fayetteville has heavily invested in its city plan 2040 to guide responsible sustainable growth, and this rezoning request is a textbook application of those established goals.

Because it meets the objective criteria for compatible land use, infrastructure readiness, and strategic infill.

Uh the planning staff formally recommended its approval.

Uh as a result, I respectfully request that the city council likewise trust the comprehensive planning that dictates this transition, echoed the decisive seven to one approval vote already cast by the planning commission and vote to approve this rezoning request.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do we have any questions for the applicant or for Mr.

Kurth?

Ms.

Turk.

You beat me to it.

I wasn't even done yet.

Go ahead.

You mayor.

Um I have many questions.

So, Jonathan, I didn't see in the packet, and I forgot to requested agenda session, uh, a topo map of the area because it's pretty steep, um, sloping to the north.

I don't have that readily available.

I do know that areas west of here are within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District, but this property is not.

Is it not?

Is it because it's so small?

Is that part of it?

Um that uh dip or that valley right there.

I I can't speak with certainty in this moment why it's not within the HHOD.

The HHOD is not determined by the size of properties or necessarily even the slope, as the name suggests, sometimes it takes place on hilltops.

That has to do with the soil composition of properties as well, since one of the main uh factors or rationales behind the HHOD is that the clay soils associated with it can wreak havoc on foundations if they're not built to a higher standard.

Okay, that's my first question.

So I'd really appreciate if that could be if this is tabled or is only heard on the first reading that that could be generated for our next meeting.

Um the second one is that um, you know, uh this uh urban neighborhood has a uh 12 foot uh frontage um allowance.

So would that frontage be on Weddington since this is on the corner, or would it be calculated on hall?

It is not it's not that prescriptive.

It could be calculated on either.

What is determined by our standards is where they can what public street they can access, or access management standards would dictate that they should set their driveway or driveways along Hall since it's a lower volume street, slower traffic.

And if they if this was approved, they could ask the planning commission for a variance um to access it on Weddington.

Is that accurate?

Yes, just like any of our development standards.

And with these um with these constraints, the you know, the tree canopy goes from 25 to 15 percent, and there's a few other things.

How many units could be built on there under uh if it were approved for urban neighborhood?

I I don't have an estimate on that.

I think it's difficult depending on the size of the units.

You could certainly build more single family units or single bed units than you could multi-bed units.

Uh, if they wanted to detach single family homes versus attached family homes, uh also depending on what they want to do, could trigger requirements related to parking or stormwater uh that could consume some of the land and make it uh less uh eligible for housing.

So I I I'm not able to speculate on that.

But part of the UN zoning district is its flexibility and can make it difficult to speculate.

But they're still required to have at least two parking spaces per unit, correct?

Depending on the unit type, yes.

Okay.

Because there's, I mean, I hope my council members have been able to go drive by there and kind of see the the, even though it's not in the hillside hills top overlay district, the kind of extreme um slope that's there.

Uh I'm sure that could be overcome with a retaining wall, but um that's the status of it right now.

Thank you.

I'll hold my questions, uh more questions for later.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Jonathan, uh, on our future land use map.

Uh we are the is this property uh uh marked for like higher density zoning than what it is now?

Our future land use map is not that explicit.

It based on context, it contemplates the potential for different land uses.

Uh I know that's a very vague and not very helpful answer, but I think the RSF4 zoning district does not align with the city neighborhood area.

Yeah, in that sense, the the property is anticipated to ultimately within the range of the 2040 plan have uh additional activities or additional intensity on it.

Great.

That that ain't that answers the meat of my question.

Thank you.

Mr.

Vernon.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh uh I've got two questions.

One is to Councilmember Turk just for clarification, and then I think it'll go back to Jonathan.

When you're talking about the slope, are you talking about the slope that's uh directly uh uh to Weddington?

Yes.

Okay.

So it I drove by the property and the property building pad area seems to be very flat.

Uh so Jonathan, I was wondering, is that sloped area?

Is that not right away to uh Weddington?

Is it is that even in in the property consideration?

The the property certainly does have slope downward from Hall and the southwest corner of the property to the northeast corner, but the most significant amount of slope is just beyond the northern property line in Weddington itself.

So it becomes steeper as you get closer to Weddington.

Thank you.

Okay.

If we don't have any more questions for the applicant or for Mr.

Kurth, I'm opening it up to public comment.

Please come up, state your name, and you will have three minutes.

And your address, please.

Good evening, Council members and all those in attendance this evening.

My name is Reverend Dr.

Chase Burns, 464 West Streamside Bend Building B, Apartment 101.

I have the honor of serving uh here in Fayetteville as Central UMC's executive pastor.

I also have the honor of serving as a campus pastor of Central on Garland, a campus of Central United Methodist Church, Fayetteville, in which 1002 North Hall Ave served as a parsonage for several years.

And I want to express my support for the proposed rezoning request, RZN 2026 001.

As a pastor, I spend much of my time thinking about communal stewardship, not only of finances, but of communities, of partnerships, and of the resources that are entrusted to us.

We believe that everything that we have should be used in ways that strengthen our community and contribute to the common good of all persons.

As a church, we are deeply invested in Fayetteville.

Every week we partner with schools and nonprofits, community organizations, and neighbors to meet needs and create opportunities for people to flourish.

We believe strong communities are built when churches, businesses, nonprofits, government, and residents work together towards shared goals.

We believe rezoning supports several of these goals.

It encourages uh reinvestment in existing neighborhoods.

It helps create additional housing opportunities.

It makes use of existing infrastructures and supports growth within the city rather than further away from it.

It reflects the kind of thoughtful in-fill development envision in City Plan 2040.

We are particularly encouraged that this request focuses on revitalization rather than leaving underutilized or aging conditions in place.

It creates the opportunity for new investments that can strengthen the neighborhood and contribute to the long-term vitality of the area.

There's also important stewardship components for our congregation.

Our current property on North Hall Ave is not central to our active ministry in its current form.

So supporting this rezoning allows us to responsibly steward these resources in a way that continues to benefit the community while enabling ongoing investment in ministries and partnerships that serve the greater Fayetteville area.

As people of faith, we are called to seek the welfare of the city in which we live, and we believe that this rezoning represents one way of doing that faithfully and practically.

So for those reasons, I respectfully ask that you support the proposed rezoning request.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Very well said.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, uh, members of the city council.

My name's Todd Lewis.

I'm chairperson of Central United Methodist Church, my church home since 1992.

And it's my honor to speak tonight on behalf of Central as well, in addition to Dr.

Chase.

As mentioned by Mr.

Clark and as mentioned by staff and as found by the Planning Commission, the request is consistent with the city's city plan 2040, which is which calls for increased density in appropriate infill areas to reduce sprawl and to make more efficient use of our existing infrastructure without adding any more burden to the city's budget.

The request also meets the criteria for the urban neighborhood zoning and aligns with the city's long-term planning goals.

The properties located in an area identified for thoughtful redevelopment and increased housing options as noted by staff.

The property is located next to Weddington, which is major East West Thoroughfare, and immediately just behind it to the east is a commercial uh development.

Finally supporting infield development such as this helps accommodate growth within our city rather than pushing development farther out and creating additional sprawl.

For these reasons, we respectfully request the council approve this request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Good evening.

My name is Reverend Jenny Williams.

I'm at 1215 North Kings Drive.

I serve as senior pastor at Central United Methodist Church on Dixon Street, but also now on Garland Avenue.

I want to speak in support of the proposed rezoning of this Hall Avenue property because it is consistent with Fayetteville's 2040 plan and the vision that the city has adopted for the future.

For years, Fayetteville has intentionally encouraged growth internally while fighting against the continued sprawl at the edges of the city.

And this is one of my favorite things about living in our corner of Northwest Arkansas.

The urban neighborhood designation was created to support the kinds of housing options and density that the 2040 plan calls to revitalize in appropriate locations.

I believe this property is one of those locations.

Approving this rezoning is not changing the plan, it is following the plan.

Of course, as Chase mentioned a moment ago on a personal note for Central United Methodist Church, this rezoning also creates more opportunities for us to continue to serve this neighborhood well.

The United Methodist Church on the corner of Sycamore and Garland has a long history of investing in the community and supporting its neighborhood, and that includes where this property is located.

The rezoning of this property will make it more desirable for potential sale, and the sale of this property will allow us to improve the central on Garland campus and enable us to strengthen our services to children, students, families, and individuals in this area.

Well, the property may change.

Our commitment to this neighborhood will not, we are not leaving.

We will continue to be there.

We will worship there.

We will invest there.

We will serve there.

So I respectfully ask you to approve this rezoning request and move forward with our city plan 2040 vision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else that would oh yes, please go ahead and come up?

Good evening.

I'm Martha Haigwood, and I'm here as the listing agent representing Lynn Lindsay and Associates and also a church member.

We are very excited about this possible rezonance.

Sorry, I'm getting really nervous.

We're very interested and excited about the rezoning because we see the potential that it brings and know that it aligns with the 2040 plan that the city has outlined.

We want to see continued infill in housing and increasing affordability.

In April of this year, Realtor.com had a publication that talked about the luxury housing market in the United States.

And number one in the United States was Fayetteville.

So by having additional infill and having additional homes that can be built here, we can provide other homes for people to have the American dream of home ownership.

And that is something that we think is very important.

We want everyone to have that opportunity and to be able to afford and live in a beautiful home in a great area with lots of flexibility.

And one thing I will address about the land to the north, that property has been surveyed.

And I do believe that Mr.

Berna is correct that that is in the right-of-way for this for the state for the highway for Weddington.

So we are very hopeful, very respectful that you will consider this request and rezone the property for the urban and give it what it needs so that we can get this sold and move forward with others.

Thank you.

Okay.

It doesn't look like it doesn't look like we have any more comments in the room.

Do we have anybody on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

So now it's the council's turn.

And we'll start with.

Oh, Mr.

Stafford.

I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I I think this uh this location.

Uh the street, this neighborhood is uh perfect part.

I agree that this fits a hand in glove with our city plan 2040.

Um I think delaying this would only add to cost, making housing less affordable.

Um so uh I'm in full support of this project uh and this rezoning, and we'll uh be voting in favor.

Okay.

Ms.

Turk, and then Miss Moore.

I I think she was ahead of me.

Okay, Miss Moore.

Oh okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Turk and Mayor Ron.

Um I I appreciated something that was said in the comment about contributing to the common good of all persons.

So I really I really appreciate that, and that resonates right a lot with our 2040 plan and what we've been doing.

Um, much like council member Stafford stated, um, you know, I think this is uh a really appropriate fit for a city neighborhood definition.

And you know, we talk a lot about the majority of the city of Fayetteville is still single family housing.

And so I think this just shows every time we have to do one conversation after another conversation to kind of tediously go through these, how much we really need to expediate doing a new development code and then you know, updating our um uh zoning across the city so that our map is reflective of the future land use.

So, you know, those parts are just not continued to move forward, and there's just such a tremendous need.

Um, I really am hopeful and um appreciate the energy that's happening around the Garland campus when it was Trinity previously, they had some incredible things happening, and I have no doubt Central will continue those.

You know one of those was really with envisioning what will happen with that campus and so I just want to um encourage under that spirit of what you brought forward tonight that I hope that some of those considerations will still be made I really appreciated the energy that came from that inaugural group of folks that I was at Trinity that looked at the Faithful Foundations project and don't know if that's something you've considered but it sounds like you're working to be a thoughtful neighbor in that area and so just kind of wanted to leave you with that thought too as we're looking for future plans in that particular area but um I'm very supportive of this and you know I said it before too that you know um I I follow if you talk here from Kelly Kraut who's a mom of many many boys she says if um anyone if um if everyone does a little no one has to do a lot and so I think we're really going to be called to do that whether it's from your faith perspective or you care about our community and pursuing equity in a place for everyone every neighborhood is going um to have to be able to welcome more neighbors in a way um too that we try to fold that in and so that we are all doing a little bit so that no neighborhood has to take that on substantially and I think that's all of us and I look forward to being supportive of this project tonight and seeing what comes Ms.

Turk thank you mayor.

If you drove by there you could see that that neighborhood is totally a stable intact RSF for neighborhood that's been there for a very very long time.

So I would contend this is spot zoning and that we are going from um one of the lowest density neighborhoods that we have in our city to one of the highest and right there on that corner that is a very very steep road I don't think anybody can argue against that there um I did not pull up any of the data for the safety information but I would hazard a guess there's been uh accidents there and with higher density um the likelihood is is much higher.

I would also argue that um we don't know what the plans are for the church.

We don't know what kind of buildings will be built there but um it's likely that these are not workforce housing or affordable housing this is probably more market-based housing so I don't know how much that's really going to alleviate our housing crisis that we have here because our crisis is really only low income and workforce housing um uh residents that that is where our gap is and we're not really addressing that by constantly rezoning to higher density neighborhoods we are not we're not really making an impact in that at all so I will I won't be supporting this I think it shatters uh or maybe shatters too hard of a word but it certainly starts to break the uh continuity and the community of that neighborhood by having something potentially very high uh high density in that neighborhood thank you Mr.

Witaker thank you mayor uh you know I would uh agree if this was uh surrounded by 20 mile an hour residential streets but I I believe Weddington drive um being a the collector that it is and being a a major thoroughfare kind of alters the whole concept of just a purely RSF four neighborhood and so I uh find this very reasonable to support and um I'm just looking at the aerial view of the the neighborhood with the commercial immediately next to it the grocery store across the way multifamily across the way so I I agree with other council members that um as a tier two center it would be a logical place for us to increase density.

Thank you.

Miss Bunch.

Thank you.

You know I agree with with a lot of my fellow council members tonight.

For me the thing that really changes this is Weddington.

That's that's the deal breaker for me that that makes me think that this is not just um spot zoning that it's appropriate zoning because of what's near it the the tier center that it is part of or close to and you know we can always deny a rezoning because we don't have a plan or we everything is not perfect in its conception.

And when we do that though we don't really solve a problem I think we exacerbate it because we we say that well we can't build anything new we can't build anything higher density and because it's not workforce housing or low income housing or whatever but the the theory is and it it works to some extent is if the more housing we build that frees up housing like I live in which is an older home and that I bought years ago and remodeled I probably could not afford it today.

But maybe it frees up some of those houses like that.

The newer homes we build will free up housing for people that um you know in that type of category for the older homes.

I think this is a very appropriate rezoning, and it's a very reasonable request.

And for those reasons, I will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, as the property sits there today, uh, what's the maximum they could uh with ADU what could they do with that lot?

I think similar to to Councilmember Turk's question a little while ago.

I don't believe I'm can give you a clear answer that will be a certain uh what will certainly happen on the property.

You could certainly remove the house today and build two houses and two ADUs.

It's possible that you could build small efficiency units, one bed units.

There is a market for that.

It's possible that they could build one large house potentially on the property.

The urban neighborhood zoning district allows a significant amount of flexibility and staff fines that despite that flexibility, this is an appropriate place for all the uses that are allowed in that zoning district.

Okay, but right now they could uh they could demolish the colour.

Yeah, I'm sorry, completely misunderstood the question.

Uh I don't know that I have the exact numbers on that.

It's think it's possible that it could be uh the house could be demolished and have two houses built in its place, but I don't have a survey available to confirm the dimensions.

Okay, and could they put uh besides the two houses, could they put also two ADUs?

Yes.

Okay, depending if they have enough space equipment.

Okay.

Um I drove that by that property, and uh the building pad area where the the existing house is flat.

Uh yes, the terrain to the north uh is is hilly, uh, but it's that's not a buildable area.

Um I look to the to the north, you got heavy density of uh of apartments to the east, you have commercial.

Um you've got a major thoroughfare there with Weddington.

Um I think this is an appropriate zoning, and I think that uh they it gives them the flexibility to make a a project there that would fit within the 2040 plan.

So unless someone else has any questions, I'd make a motion to spin the rules.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see your license.

Oh and Jonathan probably missed this.

What was the what what did the planning commission say?

What was the vote?

They forwarded it to city council recommending you approve it seven to one.

Okay.

And this is a ward four, correct?

Correct.

Has anybody from the ward spoke out against it?

Um I there's been a lot of of uh letters.

Uh I've had filled it a lot of phone calls.

Those letters were kind of commingled in with all the activity we had two weeks ago, but I believe I counted at least seven or eight letters, and I certainly had a lot of phone calls.

It was originally on the agenda two weeks ago when we were hearing Rami and Swarm, so you probably got them in it just there was a large volume.

Okay.

And nobody came here tonight to speak, correct?

Not that certainly not that we've heard.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Dr.

Jones.

Um, Mr.

Stafford.

I was gonna let Scott make his motion.

I was just gonna give them a second.

I was just gonna make a motion to spend rules, go third and final reading.

And I'll second that.

Okay.

We have a motion and a couple of seconds to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turr?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

And in order to rezone the property described in a rezoning protection RZN 2026-11 for approximately four tenths of an acre, located at 1002 North Hall Avenue in Ward 4, from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to UN urban neighborhood.

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

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Yeah.

Thank you for being here.

Um and we will now move on.

Um just down the street.

It's also on North Hall Avenue for item B five.

It's an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-10 for approximately 0.31 acres located at 800 North Hall Avenue and Ward 4 from RSF 4 residential single family port four units per acre and P1 institutional rezoning two UN urban neighborhood.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayville, Arkansas, Section 1 at the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, exhibit A, and the legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre and P1 institutional to UN urban neighborhood.

And section two that the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayville to reflect a zoning change provided in section one.

Thank you, Mayor.

As you just noted a moment ago, we are now to the southern of the two zoning requests.

We're on item B5.

This is RZN 2026 0010.

The biggest distinctions between this property and the last one is it is more of an mid-block situation.

It's about two or three quarters the size of the last rezoning.

It's 0.3 acres.

It's located immediately northwest of Leverett Elementary School, north of the parking lot associated with that school, and due east of a University of Arkansas surface parking lot as well.

As with the last item, uh the request is to rezone the property from RSF4, residential single family, but also P1 institutional, uh which is associated with some remnant zoning at the nearby school to UN urban neighborhood.

For many of the reasons that staff supported the last request, uh we find similar compatibility, uh complementary compatibility uh at this piece of property.

Uh while it is not near the more heavily commercial intersection of Garland and Wettington, that is in much closer proximity to the University of Arkansas's main campus.

Uh, whether is there is a need for housing and there is a need for services uh as we have heard from residents both in favor and against this.

This is a highly walkable neighborhood.

We feel like the UN zoning district and the uses allowed within it are very complementary uh to redeveloping this piece of property.

Additionally, uh the size of the property uh is also smaller, it has less frontage to subdivide it on, uh which staff feels will inherently reduce the developability of the property overall to a level that is more appropriately contextual with this uh piece of property that is located uh more mid block than the previous item.

Uh also similar to the last item, this property is designated as a city neighborhood area on our futures land use map.

Uh, rather than reprise uh staff's findings there, I will say that we find this request to be complimentary of that.

Uh there are a number of infill attributes that are associated with it, including uh near access to both our transit systems that serve the city of Fayetteville.

Uh the issues that are associated with this property are almost identical to the last one.

Uh I noted that the tree preservation requirements will change.

Uh the historic contract statements uh uh description or or feedback on that are similar uh but not completely identical.

Uh the house on the property is of appropriate historic age, but there have been significant modifications to it over the years uh to especially to its material so that it is no longer eligible for uh any listing on the National Register or otherwise.

Uh finally, there was uh questions were posed about the stormwater facilities on the property.

Uh we've I've not since the agenda session been able to identify the drain that is on site.

Uh it is unclear whether that's just part of the the property's own private uh uh uh stormwater system.

Uh the applicant may be able to speak to this, uh, but I can confirm that there is an inlet that is along Hall Avenue immediately in front of the property that is not picked up on our our city maps that does complete the stormwater network along Hall Avenue carrying stormwater uh northwards towards Weddington.

Uh finally, uh the public comments again.

Uh I don't believe any of them were particularly distinguishing between this rezoning and the last, uh so I'll refrain from characterizing that unless the council has specific questions on that.

Uh staff is also recommending in favor of this item, and it also came to the planning commission or came from the planning commission with a supportive vote of seven to one.

They're recommending your approval.

Uh I can take any questions that the council has, and mayor, I believe perhaps Will Clark is also the applicant on this one.

Thank you.

As it may be, uh thank you, Madam Mayor, Council members.

Um as Mr.

Kirth indicated, this is a very similar uh request to the prior uh rezone request that was just approved by this council.

Um I would just like to make a few points.

Uh I'll um copy everything that I said before.

I'll save you the time.

Uh, but I would like to indicate that as Mr.

Kirth indicated, this lot is a smaller lot.

It's uh three tenths of an acre.

Um so some of the traffic and density issues that have been uh raised by some of the neighbors are further alleviated by the size of this lot.

And additionally, I thought it was uh an important point to highlight in response to uh council member Stafford's question to Mr.

Kirth in our last round.

Um it was it was indicated that the city neighborhood um that is designated for this property in the future plan, the 2040 plan is far more compatible um with the rezone to an urban urban neighborhood than it is with the current zoning at RSF4.

So uh this rezoning request um simply propels our city plan forward, and I know council member more uh indicated that that was uh something that was uh worth endeavoring to do.

So in light of that, uh we would simply request that this rezoning request similarly be approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have questions?

Ms.

Turk, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Um Jonathan, I couldn't find in the report what the frontage um distance was for that.

Do you do you happen to know what that is?

I can take a measurement off GIS, but similar to the last time I don't have a survey available, it's about looks to be about 98 to 100 feet.

So with that in mind, and with 12 feet um with urban neighborhood, you could get what, six, seven uh tiny skinny houses right there?

Uh that's possible.

There is no uh no parking allowed on this part of Hall, so they wouldn't have to have a driveway under the site and accommodate parking on their property.

So I think that would diminish their their their ability to subdivide the property.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I don't see any other questions from the council.

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

Please come on up and state your name and address.

Uh my name is Becky Carter, uh, 436 Riverlyn in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Um I am a realtor here locally in Fayetteville and do quite a bit of business in the area.

And when we hear about these types of rezoning projects, um it does bring to our attention that we have a housing issue we all hear about it.

It's all the headlines.

Um with these narrow lots, um, one thing we could accomplish is um uh zero lot lines.

We could have some townhomes and uh with a fee simple structure, and you really do have people who can uh accomplish home ownership, which um trust me, many people out there would like to do.

So um I'm not gonna beat a dead horse in many of the things have been said about the 2040 plan, etc.

So um that was really my main point.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Please come on up.

Martha Haigwood, and I'm not here as a realtor or a church member, but I do support the other rezoning on Hall.

I think it's very effective for our city and does comply with the plans that we have for our future here, and we have a great city for people to move to, and I wholly support this.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone that's called in?

We do not.

Okay.

And I don't see anyone else in um present here, so I will bring it back to members of the city council to uh Ms.

Moore.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, so much like the other item.

I mean, this is near Leverett schools, and I know we struggle to have you know housing available for workforce and folks like our teachers, I can envision potentially, you know, the the fact that you know teachers or staff could live nearby or you know, children to be closer to their school.

Um, and so um I understand again this is you know change that's happening in this area that's typically been single family, and so I do want to you know recognize that as a change over time, but it um is appropriate and compatible with city neighborhood and our future land use, and so um I I would like to uh motion that we go ahead and suspend the roles and we move to the third reading.

Take it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, we please call the roll.

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore?

Yes, Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes, Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described and rezoning petition RGN 2026-10 for approximately 0.31 acres located at 800 North Hall Avenue in Ward 4 from RSF4 residential single family for units per acre and P1 institutional to UN urban neighborhood.

Minister Jones, do you have a comment?

Oh, no.

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

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Um and that brings us to our first item of new business, which is a cost of living adjustment for the local fire benefit plan.

An ordinance to implement an annual 3% compound cost of living for all eligible participants of the City of Fayetteville Fire Pension Fund.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas on July 15th, 2023, the local fire pension board met to review an actual study to determine the feasibility of consolidating the local fire plan with the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System, LOPFEE.

And at that meeting, the board unanimously voted to request that the City Council approve a consolidation with LOTF fee.

And whereas on August 15, 2023, the City Council passed ordinance number 6676 approving the consolidation of the Fayette local fire pension fund with the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Lot fee retirement system.

And whereas, as part of the actual study, the feasibility of consolidating with a 3% cost of living adjustment of colour was analyzed, but it was determined that the revenues were not sufficient to fund a colour at that time.

And whereas in April of 2026, former representatives of the local fire pension fund board contacted the city with a request to that another actual report be performed to assess the feasibility of providing a 3% COLA.

And whereas based on the projections included in the actual report and an analysis of the rejected property tax and state tax turn back revenues, it has been determined that a 3% compound cola can be funded at this time.

Now therefore it 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 enact section 33.051 C as follows.

Quote Subsection C the City Council authorizes the implementation of an annual 3%, 3% compound cost of living adjustment, colour for all eligible paid service participants accepting alternate pays under a qualified domestic relations order of the Fayetteville Fire and Pension Fund to be awarded each July 1st under the administrative guidelines of the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System beginning July 1, 2026.

Section 2 that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby recognizes that the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System LOTFEE is the administrator of the Fayetteville Fire Pension Fund local plan, and therefore the mayor is hereby authorized to provide LOTF fee with an approved copy of this ordinance approving this annual 3% compound cola for the local plan and section three due to the need to promptly implement this benefit amendment for the local plan named in section two and mercy is hereby declared to exist so that this ordinance shall be in full force and effect after the date of its passage and approval okay great thank you so much um Stephen Dodson is here, he is the one that has worked through the mechanics of this.

He gave a brief presentation about it last time.

I know it's something we're all really excited about and proud about and so we don't have an additional presentation for you this evening, but if you have questions for Steven about the uh the pension and the cost of living increase, he can certainly answer them.

If not, we'll go straight to public comment.

Ms.

Moore.

I just have one question.

I didn't get any feedback.

I didn't know if anybody else had got any questions or feedback.

Okay, no, same here.

Okay, do we have any members of the public that would like to talk about this item?

Okay, yes, please come on up to the podium and if you could state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Um re uh 4602 Croxdale, Springdale, Arkansas.

Um the fire department does so much for us now, and they are, as we all know, the also the first responders, and I have seen them up where my son's house is up near campus, where he rents.

I've seen them just like barely being able to get those large trucks through those little narrow streets around Barrie and Lindell and all up around campus.

I mean they work so hard at it, and then in the ice and snow, and uh they deserve every penny that can be carved out for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Keith, do we have anyone that's called in?

We do not.

Okay.

So not seeing any more comments.

I'm sir, do you have a comment?

I thought you might be getting ready to come up.

Okay, all right.

I'll bring it back to the council starting with Mr.

Stafford.

Uh I'd like to suspend the rules uh and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay.

Uh Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll on the motion to suspend the rules and take it to the final reading?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

In order to implement an annual 3% compound cost of living adjustment for all eligible participants of the City of Fayetteville Fire Pension Fund.

Okay, Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

And that passes unanimously.

And we'll need a separate vote for the emergency clause.

Do we need a mo?

We need a motion first, correct?

Mayor to make a motion to extend the emergency clause.

Second.

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

Um clerk to declare an emergency.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

Great.

And that passes as well.

Thank you all so much.

That brings us to our second item of new business, an ordinance to provide for the conservation and protection of certain city owned rental.

I'm sorry, of certain city owned real property to establish permitted and prohibited uses and for other purposes.

It's a conservation ordinance for properties included in the climate pollution reduction grant.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the City of Fayetteville is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located within the municipal boundaries of the city, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached here to and incorporated by reference here too as the property.

And whereas the city has entered into a sub-recipient agreement with Metro Plan and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and the Watershed Conservation Resource Center for United States Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Pollution Reduction Grant.

I guess that's CPRG to some people to implement a project for public land restoration and stream restoration, land protection, and trail construction.

Whereas the stipulations of the grant require that the conservation of the project area until the year 2050 at minimum and to incur maximum greenhouse gas reduction benefits.

And whereas the Arkansas Code annotated 1454 101 and other applicable provisions of Arkansas law authorize municipalities to acquire, hold, manage, and regulate real property for public purposes, including parks, open spaces, and conservation.

And whereas the city council desires to formally designate the property for conservation purposes and to restrict its use accordingly to ensure long-term protection.

Now therefore it be ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts a foregoing recitals as findings of fact.

The purpose of this ordinance is to conserve and protect the restoration area in its restored condition for the benefit of present and future residents, consistent with applicable Arkansas law and consistent with the provisions of the EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grant.

Section two that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby designates the restoration area described in exhibit A as the conserved city land.

This designation shall run with the land unless amended or appealed by ordinance in accordance with Arkansas law.

The designation of conserved city land means that the property shall be subject to the regulations and conditions regarding permitted uses, prohibited uses, and compliance with AFCO federal laws as shown in exhibit P attached here to section three.

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby declares that this ordinance may be amended or repealed only by a subsequent ordinance adopted by the city council.

Any amendment or appeal prior to the year 2050 may result in penalties imposed by the EPA due to violation of the stipulations of the climate pollution reduction grant and executed sub risk subs sub-recipient agreement to conserve the land until the year 2050 to incur maximum greenhouse gas reduction benefits.

These penalties could result in repayment of the full amount of the sub-award funding or as otherwise determined by the EPA in section four that the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas here declares that if any provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.

Thank you, Kit.

Okay, Alison Jumper, our Parks and Recreation Director, has more details.

All right.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

In 2024, the City of Fayetteville partnered with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission Metro Plan in Central Arkansas and the City of Fort Smith to create the Arkansas Tri-Region Coalition to apply for an environmental protection agency climate pollution reduction grant.

This grant is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollution.

The Tri-Region Coalition worked with over 50 communities, agencies, and organizations to identify and develop projects and programs aligned with the grant and with communities and stakeholders.

In late 2024, the EPA awarded the Tri-Region Coalition a grant totaling just under 100 million dollars to support community-driven solutions to tackle the climate crisis, reduce air pollution, and accelerate the clean energy transition.

This work was this was the work with many of many of our city staff and staff of all the participating organizations and agencies across the state who came together collaboratively.

This was a major accomplishment, which resulted in the grant award and is enabling work to reduce greenhouse gases at a regional and statewide scale.

Northwest Arkansas is receiving approximately 36.25 million to support 18 projects across the region.

Five of those projects are in Fayetteville, including the Town Branch Corridor Project, which is receiving approximately 5.2 million for habitat and stream improvements.

Watershed conservation resource center has been approved as a lead agency for this project and will be managing the work.

This is a request to approve an ordinance conserving city owned lands that are associated with the uh with the grant along town branch until 2050 to meet the carbon sequestration metrics outlined in the grant.

The map in your packet illustrates all of the properties that have been identified to be a part of the town branch corridor project.

The properties in blue are the city owned properties and the only properties this ordinance will affect, which includes nine parcels or portions thereof in approximately 72 acres.

The yellow properties are privately held in watershed conservation resource center will be working with those landowner individuals to establish agreements for those properties.

The ordinance language was largely modeled after the Streamside Protection Ordinance, as much but not all of the properties in the Riparian area of Longtown Branch.

The permitted uses in this ordinance mirror that of the Streamside Protection Ordinance with the exception of three items.

Under permitted uses P, active recreational uses are further defined as uses compatible with conservation, such as trails, interpretive areas, small picnic and overlook facilities, but excludes organized sports fields or uses requiring extensive mowing or grading.

It further adds under permitted uses Q, systems, equipment, and devices funded under the CPRG shall be properly maintained for their expected lifespan in accordance with commonly accepted design standards and practices and grant requirements.

And finally, under permitted uses R, it includes activities outlined in the CPRG Town Branch Corridor Management Plan provided prepared by Watershed Conservation Resource Center.

This allows for specific maintenance activities as outlined by the management plan developed for this particular project.

All of their prohibited uses mirror the 12 streamside protection ordinance language and include activities such as grading, dredging, dumping, filling, and similar construction activities, landfills, and storage of hazardous materials.

A full list is included in your packet.

I did want to touch on a couple of questions that came up during the agenda session.

The first was regarding utility installation.

That language is in exhibit B under permitted uses, and it does include new facilities when the city engineer determines that there is no practical or feasible alternative.

So I believe that if there is an instance where those criteria were met and the city engineer made that determination, then those utilities would be allowed.

The second question was regarding if there was a situation where we needed to allow one of their prohibited uses in this area.

And as I understand it after talking with our project partners, if that situation occurred, we would just need to offset that area with other like land that would be covered covered under the ordinance to ensure that the metrics are being met.

Again, this ordinance is proposed in accordance with the grant requirements to maximize and realize greenhouse gas reduction benefits included in the grant application and in the grant award metrics.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.

And two of our project partners uh in this work are here.

If you have questions for them, Matt Van Amps with Watershed Conservation Resource Center is here as well as I believe Madison Kinzel from the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission.

Okay, all right, great.

Thank you.

And they are here for questions, but they have there are no presentations from okay.

All right, great.

We'll start uh with Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I have a question.

There's five projects in Fayetteville, five for two million point two million.

Who did you say was managing those projects?

This uh project in particular, the project lead is watershed conservation resource center.

Um not every project is managed by them.

The project partners?

Yes.

Uh so watershed conservation resource center, um, the Northwest Regional Uh Planning Commission are two of our partners in this uh particular project, as well as the Northwest Arkansas.

I mean, sorry, the land trust, Northwest Arkansas Land Trust.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Stafford?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Alison, uh you and I have been having a little discussion about this, like one tiny little sliver of land uh that may need that kind of uh engineer's approval.

Would there be any issue if this was just held on the first reading until the next uh like with that cause any issues, it was just held to the next meeting?

Just so I could work through and maybe talk with the engineers.

Sure.

I that won't um that won't be a detriment to the to the project if we need a little bit more time to work through a particular uh instance.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, not seeing any more questions.

I'm gonna turn it over to public comment.

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

Hi, please come on up.

Hi there.

Uh my name is Matthew Van Epps.

I'm the associate director and co-founder of the Watershed Conservation Resource Center.

Uh our business office is at 909 East Rolling Hills, and I personally live at 1718 North Wheeler Avenue in Fayetteville.

Um I am here today to uh just kind of voice my support, obviously, for this uh ordinance.

And um uh before I do that, uh I've been thinking all day about what I wanted to uh say to the council, but I uh what I want to say is I appreciate your partnership.

Uh the WCRC has been long-term partners with the city of Fayetteville for almost two decades.

And through that time, uh we've been able to collaborate with city and with staff.

I really appreciate city staff that we've worked with for all those years as well.

Uh we've been able to do restoration at Gully Park at Sweetbriar Park at Kessler Mountain at Tanglewood Branch uh in the Fay Jones Woods.

We've been able to assess uh natural uh habitat conditions on Owl Creek, Clear Creek, Skull Creek.

So we've been able to collect a lot of information that you know, maybe in the context of some of the bigger decisions you all have been making recently, uh, really have a uh a direct effect on everybody's uh experience in Fayetteville.

Those kinds of things are what make makes Fayetteville a great place to live.

Okay, so I just want to express the gratitude for that.

When it comes to this uh conservation uh ordinance, I think the really the the biggest thing that is is take home is I I understand that there's like what if scenarios and 25 years is a long time, but I think what you really have to focus in on is the land that was identified for putting into this conservation ordinance, it is narrowly focused on the riparian zone and also the floodplain along town branch.

I mean, the you know, the practical application of construction.

Yes, sure.

Some developers are able to figure out ways to encroach into the floodplain, get floodplain maps modified, that kind of thing.

I I don't envision that being the case for the city.

Uh in terms of uh the prohibitions, I really think that they are limited in their impact in terms of the use that the city has always kind of envisioned for these places.

These are natural corridors, these are places that improve the quality of life for the citizens of Fayetteville by providing green space along ecological features that are important to protect.

So while we want to increase density in lots of places, these are the places that we want to leave uh open, viable, and vibrant.

And with that, I'll take any questions if you have any questions, but I you know urge your support.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any other members of the public that would please comment?

And I'm actually dot, if you'll hold on just one second, I want to ask a question.

Should I miss for him to be treated as an applicant so he's able to ask questions, or is it still treated as public comment since he's involved with the if I miss that?

Probably you would ask an applicant.

I don't know if they're the app we are.

We might be the applicant.

Okay, all right, great.

Okay, got it.

All right, sorry, Miss Neely, please go ahead.

That's all right, thank you, Mayor.

Uh I'm Dot Neely.

I live in Ward 3 at 1244 North Mission, and I heartily support this ordinance.

Um it's in fitting with their plans for the blue trail along the west fork of the White River, down in this area in town branch is a uh a tributary.

Uh so as uh Matt said, this is all tightly in within the Riparian corridor and within the floodplain along town branch, and it's a win-win situation for for the city of Fettville, the residents and anyone in Northwest Arkansas that is served by Beaver Water District because it will ultimately um ensure and protect the water quality in the West Fork of the White River, which eventually flows into Beaver Lake, our our public water supply.

Uh so this is a very fortuitous and and opportune uh uh ordinance to to support.

Thank you very much, everyone.

You do good work.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm not seeing any other members of the public who would like to comment.

Do we have anyone that's called in, Keith?

Okay.

Um bring it back to the council.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to highlight how much work has gone into uh drafting this proposal that hundred million dollars that was a lot of coordination with Little Rock, the 30 million that we're gonna get in Northwest Arkansas.

That was a tremendous amount of coordination with the other with the Northwest Arkansas Council and with our other neighbors.

And as has been discussed, this really aligns with our streamside protection ordinances that are already existing.

And boy, I sure would hate to see us not take this money.

Uh that staff has worked so hard uh through legislative processes, through phone calls, to all other mechanisms to try and get um this money to us.

Uh I think it's been particularly hard in the current administration in DC.

So this is a very, very good win-win um situation that will help protect a lot of our riparian zone, restore a lot of our riparian areas.

And I guess I had one question for Allison.

Um these funds be able to uh fill in that gap where we are able to get the dam removed at Pump House Station Road.

That is a question that I may not be able to answer.

I I don't believe that these funds are commingled um or can be commingled with that particular project, but I can check on that.

That would be really helpful, and maybe they fill in that missing gap of funding that maybe we've had for a while.

I mean, trying to remove that dam has been an ongoing issue for at least eight years, seven years, and uh I think that will be uh a real uh great thing to do where we restore the ecology, we'll increase the fish populations, the benthic communities, and make for a really great kayaking or canoeing adventure um in the springtime.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um first I just want to say I am in full uh support of this uh and uh I I do hope that we uh are all in agreement on that and that passes.

Um with that, I would like to request that we leave it on the first reading this evening.

There is one tiny little sliver of of land that's already a utility uh easement.

Um there's a property that's kind of landlocked uh where I was working with the constituent last year to uh help them get access for the water through there.

Um they were kind of told like we'll wait until you have everything in row and then come back to us and we'll decide.

Uh I want to just make sure that this doesn't put a a wrench in that that we don't have uh collateral damage.

I've spoken with the architect, the uh the owner is uh uh unavailable on vacation.

I think I can get all this kind of settled out in the next uh two weeks.

I I will do my darndest to do so.

And and so I'd be really grateful uh again uh uh if we could just hold this uh for two weeks uh on the first reading, and uh again it'll have my total support when it does uh when it is time to vote.

Okay.

Looks like we're holding them.

Okay.

All right, we will move on to the next item.

So, and just for those of you watching, nothing has to happen for it to be held, it's automatically held unless someone else makes a motion to suspend the rules and then take it forward.

And that didn't happen, so it will stay on the first, and then we will hear it again at the next meeting.

Um Ms.

Moore.

Um I have a point of information.

Um I just wanted to ask members from the prevailing party from the Swarmero appeal vote if you might consider reconsideration tonight.

I just as a point of information.

So um that would just be um those that might have voted yes for the appeal um to potentially consider uh motioning to do a reconsideration on that vote.

Point of order.

That's all it has a point of information.

I'm sorry, who's telling when we said point of order?

I said point of order.

Yeah.

I mean, is it it's up to a I mean, is it is it proper to be lobbied like that?

Isn't it up to a council member that voted in favor to either bring forward a reconsideration or not?

I think probably your point of order is well taken at this point.

It's already been discussed once with not being on the agenda, and it probably shouldn't be discussed again unless someone uh who has the power to actually make a motion decides they want to I I think at this point, since it's the second point of information, everybody is very clear on what it would take and the process if a vote were to be reconsidered.

So I don't know that we need the continual reminder, though I appreciate that that is probably good politics.

Um I don't think that it is necessarily helpful for the meeting.

So that will bring us on to item C3, an ordinance to rezone the property described in I'm sorry, did I skip C2?

No, I did not.

C three, an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-14 for approximately 0.21 acres located at 2710 North Colette Avenue in Ward 3 from RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council, the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification of property shown on the map, exhibit A and their legal description exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation.

And section two that the city council of the city of Favela, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect a zoning change provided in section one.

Uh Mr.

Kurth.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

I couldn't get the button to come on.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh staff and the planning commission are recommending in favor of this request.

Uh the property is in East Fayetteville.

It's about 600 feet northeast of Gully Park, uh, one block south of Oldwire Road at the northeast corner of Colette Avenue and Yvonne Drive.

Uh the property includes just over two uh fifths of an acre and is currently developed with a single family home.

The request, as was noted, is to rezone the property from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation.

Staff does find this to be a compatible request.

Both zoning districts allow permitted use or the only permitted use, both zoning districts allow are single family homes.

Uh the biggest distinction is that the neighborhood conservation zoning district allows a greater density, 10 units per acre versus four, uh, which staff finds to be appropriate given this property does have access to uh not only goalie park, but uh prompts fire access, uh access to water and sewer, uh as well as paved trail with the Nyakaska Creek Trail uh just to the south of this site.

Uh additionally, we feel it's compatible uh given the wide variety of lot sizes and housing sizes, housing sizes in this area.

Uh it is a mix uh not only is the goalie grove subdivision that was recently built immediately to the west, uh, but there is also variety among the uh existing subdivisions to the east, south, and north of this property with lots ranging from several acres in size to uh three to four thousand square feet in size.

And evaluating the request from a long-range planning perspective, uh we do feel that this complements our city planning goals, uh particularly the uh aspiration to uh encourage appropriate infill.

Uh this property with its access to again uh prompt fire access from the station immediately to the east or near east uh along crossover road, as well as access to water sewer public schools with Butterfield to the north uh and goalie park and the Neocasca Trail system to the south make it uh a well uh a penitentially well used uh addition of our existing infrastructure.

Uh we feel it also complements our future land use map designation of a residential neighborhood area uh which does contemplate uh additional residential uses where they're appropriate contextually.

Uh staff feels that that threshold is met with this request.

Uh there are two items that we identified in evaluating uh this item beyond land use compatibility and land use plan consistency.

Uh the first is that tree preservation would change from 25% to 20% uh as a part of this project.

Uh also in evaluating the infrastructure capacity in the area, our engineering service or engineering department identified uh that there is a wet weather sewer capacity issue uh in considering that with our utility department, they found that what would be a very small potential development capacity of the single lot uh would not have a substantial or concerning impact on uh the system as a whole.

With that in mind, again, staff is recommending approval.

It came to you by from the planning commission by unanimous eight to zero vote, and there's been no public comment on this item to date.

And mayor, uh the applicant on this item, uh McCain Martin, he was unexpectedly held away, so he's attending online instead of in person, but is available for questions.

Um we have questions for the applicant who is available online or what is that?

I don't have questions.

I was just gonna let the other council members at least on my part.

I've not heard anything from anyone on this particular deal uh rezoning.

And and I really haven't either, uh surprisingly, you know, because but um Jonathan, what is uh the Gully Grove subdivision?

Is it zoned in C it's a planned zoning district?

It uh interestingly to me at least, it informed a lot of our subsequent zoning changes.

Uh this was an example of a subdivision that did a well-executed orientation of houses to parks, houses uh along green spaces as opposed to always having them front the street.

So that that that informed our street frontage flexibility that we uh adopted as a city a year ago or so.

Okay, thank you.

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

Okay.

Returning to the council, Mr.

Burner.

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

Second.

Okay, we have a motion, a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

In order to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026-14 for approximately 0.21 acres located at 2710 North Collette Avenue in Ward 3 from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to NC neighborhood conservation.

Okay.

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

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burnman.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to item C4.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-12 for approximately 0.70 acres located at 2245 West Dean Street in Ward 2.

From RSF 4, residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes its own classification of the properties 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.

And section two, that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas, hereby amends the official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect a zoning change provided in section one.

Mr.

Gurth.

Thank you, Mayor.

On the topic of serendipitous things that are happening in pairs or trios tonight, this is the second set of zonings tonight that are on the same street to orient you towards these two rezoning requests.

The first one on the agenda that we're going to discuss is which is C4 RZN2612.

It is the uh western of the two rezonings.

If you're familiar with the location of the fire station, fire station number eight and the police headquarters.

This is immediately south of that.

Uh specifically, it is on the south side of Dean Street, and it includes uh approximately 0.7 acres uh located between Ening Shade Drive to the east and Porter to the west.

And the request is to rezone the property on which a duplex is developed from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Uh staff found this to be uh to the extent that it is possible in our line of work a very straightforward request.

Uh this property is almost exclusively surrounded by attached residential dwellings of varying sizes and scales, and this is the only piece of single family zone property in the area, and it is a duplex uh developed on that single family zone piece of property.

Uh so we find it to be firmly a compatible request and are uh supportive of it in that regard.

Uh we find it is similarly complementary to our long range plans, uh both in terms of the future land use map and its residential neighborhood area, as well as those attributes that contribute to a property uh being considered appropriate for infill development.

Uh there are the two additional items to touch on.

Uh tree preservation will change from 25% under RSF four to uh 15% under RIU.

And as I noted uh very quickly, but I'll highlight here the property is again developed with a duplex in a RSF4 single family zoning district, so it is today a non-conforming use.

Rezoning it to RIU will uh bring it into conformance.

We are recommending in favor of this request.

Uh it came to you all with a unanimous vote in favor from the planning commission, and to date we've not received public comments.

I can take any questions that the council has.

And mayor, I believe Alex Monte Allegre is online as the applicant for the item.

Okay.

If anybody has any questions for Mr.

Kurth or Mr.

Monte Allegre, um Minister Jones.

Okay, Ms.

Turk.

Um, thank you, Mayor.

So, Jonathan, um, it looks right.

It looks now, at least on the map that I'm looking at, that um this property cannot be accessed from Willowbrook Drive.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It does not have any uh it doesn't contact that right away.

So the only frontage is on is on Dean.

That's correct.

And can you get can you do your GIS magic again and and estimate how much frontage is on Dean with that piece of property?

Certainly.

And if while I do that, uh if perhaps I can speculate at the direction you're going, the driveways on the property today are non-conforming.

You typically are not allowed to have two separate driveways like that on a piece of property onto a road of Dean's uh classification.

Uh so if and when, if or when the property is redeveloped, it's very likely that it'll go from two to one driveway.

But to answer your question directly, it's about a 90-foot width along Dean.

So theoretically speaking, if they were to develop with RIU, you've got the one driveway in there.

And then I suppose they could put um it would still, would it be still be required to front onto Dean Street, or could you have um units that actually uh are oriented uh either east or west?

If the goal was to subdivide them to be sold fee simple, they would have to front onto Dean.

Uh it's possible that you can build units similar to the properties you see uh elsewhere in this vicinity.

You can develop a property with buildings that you don't want to subdivide just as a single piece of property for rent, typically.

Okay.

Does that answer your question?

It does.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

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

Okay, I will bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

I would move to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burns.

Yes.

And orange to rezone the property described in a rezoning potential RZN 2026-12 for approximately seven tenths of an acre located at 2245 West Dean Street in Ward 2.

From RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to R.I.U.

residential intermediate urban.

Okay.

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

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Okay.

So moving on to item C5, also on West Dean.

An ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-13 for approximately 0.4 acres, located at 1429 and 1431 West Dean Street in Ward 2.

From RSF 4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban kit.

Thank you, Mayor.

Be it ordained by the City Council, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Section 1.

At the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby changes the zone classification of the property shown on the map, Exhibit A, and the legal description, exhibit B, both attached to the planning department's agenda memo from RSF4, residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

And section two, that the city council, the city of Fayville, Arkansas, here by immense official zoning map of the city of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.

Okay, great.

Jonathan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And to again make sure we're all oriented at the correct property we're looking at.

We are still on Dean Street.

We have how removed further east from the police station and fire department, much closer to Garland Avenue.

This is uh one property removed to the northeast of the Lewis soccer complex.

Uh the request includes uh two parcels on the south side of Dean Street that total 0.4 acres and are each developed with a single family uh dwelling today that access onto Dean Street with their shared driveway.

Uh the request is to rezone the property from RSF4 residential single family four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

When evaluating this from a land use compatibility standpoint, uh staff's findings were mixed, although we did ultimately find it to be compatible.

Uh it is indisputable that the immediately surrounding area is uh uniformly single family in nature.

Uh we do feel uh that the uh design of the RE zoning district is intended to be limited, limit the size of buildings so that they're three stories similar to what's allowed in RSF four, uh, and to be able to work in situations like this where uh it could be uh complementary to to the overall area where there is a wider mix of housing, even if it's not immediately adjacent to this property.

From an adopted land use plan standpoint, uh we did find this request to be uh much more in line and much more consistent with those plans.

Uh it is designated as a residential neighborhood area at this location, uh, which the RIU zoning district is consistent with and that it allows uh residential uses on a major transportation corridor, both in terms of vehicle traffic as well as uh trail traffic.

Um if you've had the chance to visit the property or drive by or walk by it or bike by it, it is uh immediately adjacent to the midtown trail that runs just on the other side of Dean Street uh going east to west.

Uh, we also find that the infill attributes associated with the property, uh particularly its proximity to transit, uh, making an appropriate location.

Um Jonathan, I'm sorry, I hate to interrupt you, but what you have on screen, is that the property we're talking about?

Oh, I'm sorry, it looks like the map is incorrect.

I'm sorry, the rest of the information is correct, though.

Is that the former property that we just rezoned?

Okay.

That is the former property, but yes, I'm sorry.

They are it is this the property that we are considering.

See, I've got confused myself, but no, what I'm discussing is indeed the information for the request in front of you.

It is uh the residential neighborhood area future land use map, which we find RIU to be consistent with uh the property that is in front of you has seven attributes associated with appropriate infill.

Those are outlined here.

Uh it includes not just transit, access to Lewis, uh Lewis Park, the Midtown Trail, and Asbell Elementary, but also as you'd expect, fire response that is just as good as it was for the other property.

Uh this uh this item uh has uh similar tree preservation comments, uh would go down going from RSF4 to RIU.

Uh the only distinction otherwise between this and the last request is we did receive some public comment uh with concerns about the request.

Uh in opposition to the request specifically uh with concerns that in Phil would uh uh uh uh damage the character of what is a almost exclusively single family portion of this overall area.

Uh and overall, with our evaluation, staff does find in favor of it.

We're recommending the city council approve it, and the planning commission also forwarded it to uh city council recommending approval, and they did so by unanimous eight to zero vote.

Uh, can take questions you may have.

And Mayor uh Larry McCready is here as the applicant for this item in person.

Okay, great.

Thanks so much, Mr.

McCready.

Evening, Mayor Ron, uh, members of the council, Larry McCready, RMP law firm.

Um I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

Um at the risk of losing any momentum we have for the uh previous rezoning request.

Let me just say a couple words about the compatibility with the surrounding uses.

Jonathan, I don't know if you can pull up exhibit A, but I I just want to mention a few things about um.

Mayor, would you like me to pull that up for the application?

Yes, please, you can go ahead.

This is the exhibit I'm I'm gonna refer to.

You can see that the the properties, the two properties that rezoning is requested for is immediately surrounded by RS uh F4.

There's an RSF eight uh unit um very close to the east of it.

Um obviously those are both residential and neighbor uh in nature, and so the RIU zoning classification naturally fits with that.

The RIU allows two additional um uh types of dwellings, three family or uh and four family dwellings in those.

Um, but they're also built-in protections with the RIU in terms of building height and the um building coverage ratio that's that's very similar to the existing RSF four.

So um the rezoning request it maintains that that residential nature um of the properties.

The two other zoning classifications that are most uh uh closely situated to the property is right across the street.

There's RA, and then just to the southwest, there's the P1 zoning classification.

The RA, the existing RA district um that accommodates a mix of lower density residential and agricultural uses in the P1 district typically accommodates public and institutional uses such as schools and parks and government facilities.

The RIU's district emphasis on walkable urban urban living in a diversity of of different housing types will allow a good transition between the existing residential fabric of the neighborhood as well as those other close by um RA and institutional uses.

So I just want to emphasize that the RIU zoning classification will be completely consistent with that, it's consistent uh with the city's 2040 plan.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions.

I appreciate y'all staying here late in the night considering this stuff.

Um I do appreciate that, and I just thank you for your consideration and ask for your approval.

Great.

Thank you.

Yes, all right.

Thank you.

Um questions for Mr.

McCready or for um Jonathan.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you.

Uh Jonathan, um, on that slide that you just had up, um, what is to the east?

Uh what's the white area?

Um sorry, allow me a moment to get that.

I can't tell if it's like an access road or that is a uh portion of unbuilt public right-of-way.

If you if you can see my cursor, Councilmember Tricker, you're referencing the portion that backwards L that runs there.

I am, yes.

Stevens Avenue today dead ends at basically if you drew a line eastward from the northern boundary of Lewis Park, that's where Steven Avenue uh ends today, and there's platted right away there that's never been developed.

But that could be um uh that could be vacated at some sometime in the future.

There's nothing there right now.

Is that correct?

Okay, thank you, Jonathan.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

If we have anybody that would like to speak on this matter, and I can tell we don't have anybody on Zoom, so I will bring it back to members of the council, beginning with Mr.

Stafford.

I was just gonna motion we suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

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

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burton.

Yes.

And ordinance rezoned the property described in rezoning potential RZN 2026-13 for approximately four-tenths of an acre located at 1421 and 1431 West Dean Street in Ward 2.

From RSF4 residential single family, four units per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban.

Hey, Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

No.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burma.

Yes.

Okay.

And that passes.

So we will now move on to our final item of the evening.

Item C6, an ordinance to allow sheep within the corporate limits of the city by amending sections 164.04 urban agriculture.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Whereas the city permits miniature goats in residential urban agriculture.

And miniature sheep are a reasonable and practical addition to consider.

And whereas miniature breeds, such as baby doll south down sheep are small, manageable animals that can contribute to urban agricultural through grazing, compostable manure, fiber production, and agricultural education for families and children.

Now therefore it be it are be it resolved by the city, and be it ordained by the city council of the city of Favel, Arkansas, Section 1.

That the City Council, the City of Avalarks are here by repeal subsection D of Section 16404D, urban agricultural, and a natural replacement subsection 16404D as shown in exhibit A attached here to and made a part hereof.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so we saved the last the best item for last, um, talking about urban agriculture.

Um, so I had a resident I covered this at agenda session, but those that might be newly tuning in as I had a resident that approached um in regard to the addition of sheep, and so the language changes were mostly um to uh put sheep in line with goats.

Um there is a line in particular um that the allowed sheep shall be small sheep, such as Harlequin sheep, North American Shetland sheep, Cheviot sheep, and baby doll south down sheep that do not exceed uh 24 inches at the Withers and Rams are not allowed, and all of my council members are chuckling at me.

This is lovely.

I'm like, you know, we we we have such serious business, but um uh in particular, you know, this is a lovely ordinance too, right?

Because not only does it you know add to vibrancy and the diversity of our community, um it also has a lot of just like environmental benefits too um by adding this into our communities, and all of us need a little more joy in our lives, and so um I was really um excited.

Thank you to staff uh for their work and research on this because when I went to Endeavor it, I was hoping we weren't gonna run into some horrible, you know, uh catastrophic thing that sheep could cause in an urban uh setting and not quite knowing and not raising them myself.

I wasn't quite sure, and so was pleasantly surprised that this is um able to happen.

Um, I will also let my colleagues know that I would like to um auth after this do an emergency clause just because um I did hear you know there are only so many um of these sheep that are available during the season, it's you know the spring is when um offspring are you know produced and those are already being spoken for from what I understand and so don't want to delay in the event that there are folks that want to take advantage of this um ordinance to be able to move forward with that for themselves and their families and I'm happy to take any questions or any comments that folks might have okay do we have questions from the council about the sheep either for Miss Moore or or for Ms.

Moore or a member of the staff if relevant okay um do we have any members of the public who would like to comment?

I don't think anybody called in okay um I will bring it back to the council.

I'll remind you that this is an ordinance, so in order to move forward, we would have to suspend the rules.

Ms.

Moore.

I'd move that we suspend the rolls and go to the third reading.

Second, second.

Okay, we have a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Clerk Paxson, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch, yes, Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones, yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Ms.

Moore, yes, Mr.

Wheedaker, yes, Mr.

Burner, yes.

In order to allow sheep within the corporate limits of the city by amending section 16404, urban agriculture.

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

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Mr.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay, so that passes.

And we also now have a request to um and the to do the emergency clause.

So I will uh hear a motion to declare an emergency.

I would you need a motion, I guess, to amend the ordinance to add emergency clause and then to pass the emergency clause.

Okay.

I would like to do what Kit said, please.

Motion to amend and add an okay.

We have a motion to an amend to add an emergency clause.

Second.

Good.

Okay, we have a second.

Um this is not for the emergency clause.

This is for the amendment adding the emergency clause.

Clerk Paxton, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Bunch?

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Burner.

Yes.

Okay.

So now the item has an emergency clause.

We will call for the vote if you will call the role of Clerk Paxton to enact the emergency clause.

I believe we still need a first and a second to approve the emergency clause.

Oh, even though we amended it, we need a motion to move.

Okay.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion from Mr.

Stafford, and then we have a second.

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

Ms.

Bunch.

Yes.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Wheedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berner?

Yes.

Okay, thank you so much.

And with that, we have no announcements.

We are adjourned.