Okay, everybody.

I'm now gonna call the Tuesday, June 16th meeting of the Fayetteville City Council to order.

Um, Deputy Clerk Spawn, will you please call the roll?

Miss Turk here.

Minister Jones.

Present.

Mr.

Stafford.

Dr.

Jones.

Here.

Miss Moore.

Here.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Here.

Mr.

Berna.

Here.

Miss Bunch.

Here.

Mayor Ron.

Please join me if you decide to leave.

The United States.

Okay, our first item of business is the nominating committee report, which I believe was missed.

Is that Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes, Mayor, thank you.

My name was drawn out of the hat this time because we have some rather interesting names.

And so I was volunteered to butcher these names, and I apologize in advance to all the people being nominated tonight.

So the nominating committee is recommending the following individuals to the full city council.

For the Animal Services Advisory Board, Dr.

Jesse Hargis with a term to expire June 30th of 2028.

Aaron Ng with the term to expire June 30th, 2029, and Jan Hicks, same with the term June 30th, 2029.

For the Environmental Action Committee, we're recommending Ben Davis with the science discipline with a term to end June 30th of 2029.

Mary Hemati with a term to end June 30th of 2029.

For the Food Commission, we're recommending one Aletha Anderson with a term to expire March 31st of 2028.

Catherine Cabazia with a term to end March 30th of 2027, and Ashley Utsy with the term also to end March 31st, 2027.

For the Washington for the Walton Art Center Council, two uh recommendations.

Mark Kenyon, resident at large with a term to end June 30th of 2029, and Joel Frund also to end June 30th, 2029.

And those are the recommendations of the nominating committee.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Um I saw so many of y'all at the same time.

Minister Jones.

A motion to accept the nominees as presented.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Miss Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

And Miss Spawn, can you please move the mic just a little bit closer, please?

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Um, that leads us to our consent agenda, which I will read.

Mayor I'd make a motion to spend the rules and pass the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules and um accept the consent agenda as presented.

Courtney.

Miss Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

Now for the vote to accept the agenda as presented.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Yes.

Sorry.

Oh, it's okay.

It's okay.

Getting my papers agenda.

No, I'm sorry.

Yes, sorry.

Miss Turk.

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

That brings us to the public hearing portion of our meeting.

Um item B1 is a private club application.

It's an ordinance to approve the application of Motelier Fayetteville LLC doing business as Oxpo for a permit to operate the Oxpo as a private club in the City of Fayetteville at 2980 North College Avenue.

Mr.

Pennington.

We're at as Act 1112 of 2017, which amended the permitting procedure set forth in Arkansas Code annotated section 3922 for private clubs in the state of Arkansas.

Requires the city council to approve by ordinance an application for a permit to operate as a private club before the applicant can submit the application to the state alcoholic beverage control division.

Now there are four be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section One, that the City Council of the City of Faiville, Arkansas hereby approves the application of Motelier, Fayetteville LLC doing business as Oxbow for a permit to operate the Oxbow as a private club in the city of Fayetteville at 2980 North College Avenue.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Chief Reynolds.

Yeah, good evening, uh Mayor.

Good evening, Council.

So as uh as uh assistant city attorney Blake Pennington mentioned, uh new business Oxpo, uh which will be located, I believe it's at 2980 North College, which is our old Motel 6 located on the north end of town.

They're requesting this private club uh permit from the Arkansas uh alcohol beverage control board.

And as uh Blake mentioned, Arkansas Statute 39-222 requires that the city council first approve by ordinance that application uh before any establishment can operate as a private club or can uh get a permit from the Arkansas Alcohol uh Beverage Control Board.

Uh the application is to the Arkansas uh alcohol beverage control board is in your pack.

It's an all required documentation.

Uh it appears to be in order.

Um the Fayetteville Police Department has no objections uh to this private club application that's submitted uh by the applicant and owner, which is Mr.

Charles Mackey.

Uh to my knowledge, uh the city of Fayetteville nor the Fayetteville Police Departments have had any dealings with uh Mr.

Mackey.

Uh Mr.

Mackey was scheduled to be here tonight and uh certainly can answer any questions that the the council members uh may have, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have as well.

Okay, great, thank you.

Mr.

Stafford?

Oh, sorry.

Okay, Ms.

Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Oh, uh Chief.

Yes, I'm sorry.

I might have questions of you, sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh is the applicant are they a current um provider of these same services in the city of Fayetteville and any other establishments?

I'm not familiar, but Mr.

Charles Mackey's standing behind me.

You can certainly answer those questions.

Mr.

Mackey, can you can you come on up to answer a couple questions?

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Miss Moore.

Good evening.

Hi.

Um I didn't since he is the applicant.

Shall we give him a few minutes also potentially to speak in case?

Yes.

Do you have a presentation you'd like to share?

I did.

I sent it to media services.

Wonderful.

Okay, some of my questions.

Yeah, no, good call.

Thank you.

Okay, yeah.

Please go ahead.

Be aware it is my first private club application in the state of Arkansas.

So uh if there's things missing, items missing.

I didn't structure it in a presentation format, so apologies, but I'll take you through it.

So essentially this is you know, the the Overland Hotel, which is a full service uh uh hotel, which will feature a branded coffee and cocktail bar uh called Oxbow.

Um this is located at 2980 North College Avenue, um, and uh just up the road, the old Motel 6.

Um the property overall consists of uh four buildings.

Uh we've got the lobby with the attached coffee and cocktail bar, um, a gym and fitness wellness building uh and two accommodation buildings, all kind of built around this uh centerpiece courtyard, which is uh, you know, this is an exterior corridor um hotel, that being the case that uh you know, all room to open up to the exterior walkways and such courtyard.

The hotel um again that it will primarily operate as a hotel with uh with the guest rooms directly accessing that courtyard.

The hotel will be independent, yet it will be uh fully operated by a uh large um hotel management company called Hotel Equities, uh, who will take over FNB management.

I do have our general manager here as well that we just uh brought on board, and just in case I don't cover any questions because he's gonna be liable as with me.

So um the buildings are rather small.

Um you know, we've got the the lobby building tied to the the cocktail bar that's about 1500 square feet.

The the gym building, which will not feature any can we um did Keith can you help thank you?

Yes, yep.

Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

We'll not allow alcohol, that's not a pro in the proposal, no food or beverage within the fitness uh building.

Um and we've got occupancy loads on here as well.

If you need details on that, um questions therefore, you know, I think we're we're a fairly small um bar, so 31 occupancy at the seating area and uh another 12 uh in standing.

The uh the the food and beverage will primarily be centered around drinks.

Um it's not a full service restaurant.

We won't have a conventional kitchen or anything of that nature.

There will be light fare, um, you know, small plates, um, packaged goods, local um merchandise, things of that nature.

Um then as far as site security goes, we will you know we'll have the the full uh gamut of um cameras, uh you know, on-site staff, um, of course, any you will set parameters, responsibilities, um, you know, for for management, um, and you know, all uh guests will be held accountable to those rules, regulations, signage, which which will be a big part of kind of control being an exterior corridor hotel.

Uh not everything's enclosed, right?

So uh keeping everything in within the courtyard area, um, you know, inside uh the lobby and uh their fourth.

The um and any staff members also will be, you know, uh what is it, tips certified?

So we'll we'll have them go through that full training.

Um and uh then on page four, if we're still scrolling through.

You can see where we've uh where we're seeking the boundaries of the alcohol beverage uh where it could be carried.

Uh bar interior, obviously, um the part of the the covered porch, which would be the patio to the bar, um, and then the surrounding pool area, which will have limited use, a limited alcohol, um would would have to be in plastic containers, no glass whatsoever.

Um, and the courtyard area.

Uh guests would be able to carry beverages to the room, but not you know, obviously walking around the parking lot or or any of the exterior exits, uh specifically towards college avenue, uh, which again will have quite a lot of signage here, um, which you can see on uh the fifth page.

Uh boundary signage will we'll have no glass beyond this point for the pool and entry, gym building, no food alcohol in the fitness area.

Um, the college avenue exits, which we're required to have.

Um they will obviously have signage, no alcohol beyond that point.

Uh parking lot perimeter as well.

So that we'll we'll make sure that that's clear.

Operating route hours are on here.

If I need to get into those details, um let me know.

But um tried to cover all my bases and give you guys an idea of what we have going on.

Finally shedding some light on this lovely project.

So with that, I'll take questions, I guess.

Sure, thank you so much.

Um Dr.

Jones.

Yes.

Uh thank you for that presentation.

Do y'all have any other I guess hotels, I guess, sites in the state or anywhere else in the country?

Uh no, sir.

Uh we do not.

Uh we primarily on the developer.

Um, you know, uh most of what we operate is apartment buildings, new residential stuff, but so nothing, no hotels in business.

This will be our first uh private club.

Yes.

Congratulations.

That's a big big venture, huh?

It is.

Tell me that I get reminded that every day.

Wow, thank you, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Miss Moore.

Did that no, you answer, yeah.

You absolutely answer my questions.

My question um might just maybe be for staff or for chief.

Um, I've just been familiar when we've had clubs come in the past.

Um, this obviously is still under construction, and so timeline-wise, I just didn't know because I know like ABC checks things out, and typically I believe our um police when they're looking at these when they're being applied for, they've typically had some familiarity with the we see the renderings, but I don't think any of these structures exist today, and so I just didn't know if there's anything procedurally that we're gonna need to have in consideration in this process, or does that complicate it or no?

I've just I wasn't sure.

No, this is uh the city council approval of private club permits is just really one step in the in the larger state process, if you will.

Um, you know, I think things that you're referring to, site renderings and things of that nature would be more in the line of you know, planning commission and zoning and things of that nature when it comes through, uh, but nothing to do with the private club uh permit process.

But your your team typically would be taking into account like the setups that would happen the way the building is, and like he's got written out about not having people carrying alcohol, like in this public area, or do you typically really just look at did they fill the application out properly?

They've got procedures in place to be able to control for if they run into an intoxicated um you know person on site, et cetera.

Is that more the vetting we do on that side?

Yeah, so so there's many many things in the in the permitting process that comes before us, and and one of those particular things does have to do with floor plan of the premises.

Okay, that's I think that's the right thing.

And then also ownership um as well, uh ownership disclosure, and if you see there's a 50-50 percent ownership disclosure that's in your packet as well.

So there's there's several things that are covered, you know, proof of uh of uh articles of incorporation and and things of that nature that we look at as well to make sure all of those boxes are checked.

And I think part of why I'm struggling, and I don't know if it's just my copy, but it looks like the memo states that there's a number five Oxbow private club application, but I don't have a number five on my digital packet.

Am I the only one?

Is that same?

On B1, tell me what you're referring to again.

It just because you keep talking about the application, and that's what I I just don't have one showing.

Um, if I might speak up to that yes, please go ahead.

There was some sensitive information on one of the documents.

So um, if you would like that, we can get you the redacted version.

Okay, but it's basically internal right now.

Okay, all right.

I think that came up after last time.

I think you were one of the ones that pointed out a lot, oftentimes it contains addresses and social security numbers.

So in the future, we can you know certainly be more attentive to those uh issues and we can redact that information if that would be helpful for council.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Thank you.

Okay, uh Minister Jones.

Thank you, Mayor.

Keith, if you can bring his presentation back up on the last page, it uh referenced that alcohol will be served Sunday through Wednesday.

Is that correct?

Or am I reading that incorrectly uh I you're talking about on uh the operating hours?

Yes, those are just operating hours of the the uh because it's a coffee shop as well.

Um so on on Sunday we'll definitely serve coffee.

I I think within Arkansas's law, you know, what what you can and can't serve on the but alcohol will be served over the weekend as well.

I was just I was confused when I just saw just Sunday through Thursday only.

It's two it's broken out in two different times.

Thank you.

One Sunday through Wednesday because we'll have different two different operating hours, Sunday through Wednesday, different versus uh Thursday through Saturday.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry if I ask them.

If you'll go to the last page, Keith.

It says it should be second to last.

Second to last.

Yes.

Right there.

Yes, the top two rows show Sunday through Wednesday hours, and then the bottom there, the next row is Thursday through Saturday.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, yes, Dr.

Jones.

Uh one more question.

Uh do you have an estimate when you all may be open for business?

The bar will likely be open by um January of 2027.

Okay.

So the bar and the hotel or just the bar?

No, they're separate um permits.

Okay.

Um the the hotel existed already.

Right then.

We were talking just a moment ago about what exists on site, the accommodation buildings, the 36,000 square feet that is is there, the 85 rooms that is there.

That would went under through uh quite extensive renovation.

Um, and that will likely open before the bar um sometime uh there maybe two or three months.

Okay.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we will now begin the public hearing portion.

Thank you.

If anybody has any public comments, and Mr.

Pennington, if you can make sure that procedurally we handle the public hearing in the correct order so that we don't have to come back and readdress it.

I'm now going to public comments on the public hearing.

That's right.

Yes.

So okay, and it doesn't seem like we have any comments um either on Zoom or in council, so I will bring it back to the council.

And I think at this point, it is simply like any other ordinance.

Is that correct?

And we would accept a motion to suspend the rules?

That's correct.

Okay, great.

Mr.

Stafford.

I will make that motion to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

I will second that motion.

Okay.

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Wienker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

An ordinance to approve the application of Motelier Fayetteville LLC DBA Oxbo for a permit to operate the Oxbow as a private club in the city of Fayetteville at 2980 North College Avenue.

Okay.

Courtney, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us into the unfinished business section.

So that's granted.

You are good to go.

Thank you so much.

Um, I mean, you are welcome to stay, but I mean, you are you are your item is complete.

Uh we have a lot of fun here.

So item C1, first item of unfinished business is a conservation ordinance for properties included in the climate pollution reduction grant, an ordinance to provide for the conservation and protection of certain city-owned real property to establish permitted and prohibited uses and for other purposes.

This was left on the first reading at the uh June 2nd meeting.

So the council like to move to the second or third reading.

Or a motion to automate uh Miss Bunch.

Oh, sorry, Mr.

Burner.

I make motion spin rules go third and finally.

Second.

Okay.

So you don't have to read it again since it's or do you'll take the roll.

Oh, that's right.

We have to actually vote on that.

Sorry.

I'm so sorry.

Courtney, will you please call the roll on the motion to suspend?

Miss Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore.

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

An ordinance to provide for the conservation and protection of certain city-owned real property to establish permitted and prohibited uses and for other purposes.

Okay.

Should you have them before public comment.

Okay, I'm going to open it up for public comment.

Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on the conservation ordinance?

Hi, yes.

Please come on up and state your name.

And a judge, and we'll have three minutes on the clock.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

City Council, I'm Brian Teague of Community by Design.

I'm representing tonight the property owners, Chris and Chris and Mariah Looney.

They own proper about three acres at the corner of Razorback Road and Town Branch, south south to the southeast, right next to the city property where the conservation easement would apply.

Sent me instead.

But of course, we want to support this, support this ordinance and partner with the city to do our part to improve that that area in Fayetteville.

I've been working with them slowly the last couple of years on residential development plans for for that three-acre property.

We've been discussing ideas with staff on how to bring drinking water to that property.

One of the options is to extend a water main a couple hundred feet from the Ashwood Ave at from Ashwood Avenue to the property.

Staff has asked us to kind of further these concepts.

They've asked us to submit detailed development plans, and we haven't been able to finalize those yet and get those submitted.

So all that to say, I just we're just asking the city to keep us in mind.

Thank you, Mr.

Teague.

Okay.

Do we have anyone else that would like to come?

Yes, please come on up and state your name.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council.

I'm Matt Van Epps with Watershed Conservation Resource Center.

We're a central player in the CPRG grant that is helping to fund stream restoration, ecological restoration along the town branch corridor.

I just wanted to get up and uh encourage you to support the ordinance and to address Mr.

Teague's concerns.

There are allowances in the uh allowed uses for this conservation easement uh that will allow utilities to go through conservation properties uh in the event that there's no feasible alternative, and that's at the discretion of the city.

Uh also just wanted to mention that um, you know, uh this project uh furthers many of the city's goals in terms of ecology, green space, recreation, quality of life, floodplain management.

These properties were selected specifically because of their proximity uh to the stream and their location within the 100-year floodplain.

And so, you know, while there were many other potential city properties that could have gone into this program, we really were trying to be judicious and how we selected them.

Uh I would also say that you know this is just a really easy way uh to leverage uh land that the city really is utilizing for these purposes that we're already talking about to uh leverage that for you know nearly five million dollars in federal funding.

So I strongly encourage you to support it.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

I am not seeing any other comments.

Do we have anyone that is called in on this item?

We do not.

Okay.

Um I will bring it back to members of the council.

Mr.

Berna.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh Jonathan, uh, just wanted to verify what uh the gentleman said.

Does that uh does it allow for potential easement for utilities and a conservation easement?

And is there any gray areas that city would not grant that considering circumstances where they're trying to get drinking water to their uh residents?

Would can you foresee any reason that we would deny that?

I heard a couple questions in there.

I think I'll try to answer them maybe in reverse order.

When this first property when development on this property was first brought to staff, the lack of uh potable water to the site was identified early on.

There are offsite water connection opportunities.

Uh to this point, we have heard that they're not feasible for uh various reasons.

There's intervening properties that have to bore under Razorback Road, which is a state highway at this location, and in this specific instance that there is city property with tree preservation easement on it today.

Um, one of the reasons that staff asked the developer or their representative to submit a development plan is so that we as staff can adequately evaluate those three alternatives as the most prominent ones so that we may do our due diligence in advance of proposing the council potentially to consider using public land to make that connection rather than move through any of these other alternatives.

So to that end, it's difficult for me to say which one of those for certain is the appropriate way to get water to the property.

I can say that's in evaluating this item that's before council tonight, uh, between myself, planning, engineering, and parks, we do not see anything in the CPRG grant or the CPRG or conservation easement that prevents the developer from moving forward with some version of getting access to water to their property.

The easement itself does include language saying if if no feasible alternative is available to to access utilities, uh, then they can pass through these properties.

Uh there was also discussion from this uh property owner about potentially swapping land with the city uh so that we could, if they were to run a water line through portion of our land that may uh detract from its public value, we could potentially offset that with different property.

There's nothing to preclude that from being an option either.

Uh at that point, the parks department could evaluate other properties that we could put within an easement like properties that we could put within the easement.

So I hopefully that answers your question, but I think ultimately, in staff's estimation, this conservation easement is neutral towards this development.

It is not provide a guaranteed path to where they will get water water, but it does not prevent it.

It basically they are where they are today if this easement is is approved.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh I I think Jonathan and Mr.

Teague, you brought up you know, all the relevant points on this.

Uh and and this was the reason uh this project in particular was the reason I asked this to be held.

Uh and I just want to make one uh final observation on the record is that I've been out to this uh easement multiple times, and somehow a tree preservation easement was put on top of dedicated parkland.

It's kind of double somehow, some bureaucratic snafu happened.

Uh, but I've been out there, there is not one, not one single tree on that easement.

Zero zilch, unless unless there's some saplings that have grown up uh since I've last been out there.

Uh uh, so uh I do think that that is a feasible pass, and hopefully when this comes uh to council, which it will at some point, uh, that we'll see the wisdom in in uh uh the the uh developer and Mr.

Deag have assured me that they want to work with the city uh to make improvements and everything, and I I hope we're open to that when the time comes.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Stafford.

Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I just wanted to point out in our packet that item I uh in here says new utility facilities with when the city engineer determines there is no practical and feasible alternative.

So it's right there in the packet of information that yes, the city can allow this if there's no other way.

Um I also wanted to point out that all of these properties score really high on the climate resiliency score.

So they really are um very important and need our uh protection, and I think that uh when folks went through and evaluated these, they were looking uh they were taking that in consideration too.

I hope uh my colleagues will support this.

Okay, great, thank you.

Uh Courtney, we please call the roll.

I don't see any more lights on.

So Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes, Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes, Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you so much, and thank you to staff and um our partners uh who worked on this.

Um, and Mr.

Teague for your comments as well.

So okay, that brings us to the first item of new business, which is an ordin D1, an ordinance to approve vacation 26-6 for property located at 1660 East Cypress Lane in Ward 3 to vacate 15.6 square feet of general utility easement.

Mr.

Pennington.

Whereas the city council has the authority under Arkansas Code annotated 1454 104 to vacate public grounds or portions thereof, which are not required for corporate purposes.

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

Now therefore be it ordained by the city council of the city of Fayville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas, hereby vacates the portion of general utility easement as described in exhibit B attached to the planning department's memo.

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

Section three, this vacation approval is subject to the condition that any damage to or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner developer's expense.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mr.

Kurt.

Thank you, Mayor.

This request takes us to East Fayetteville.

It's within the Charleston Place subdivision, uh which is about a block east of North Old Wire Road.

Uh the property in particular is at the south corner of Cypress Lane and Amber Drive, uh, with the request being to vacate 15.6 square feet of utility easement, uh, which may be one of, if not the smallest amount of utility easement that we have brought before you as staff to consider uh vacation.

Uh ultimately what appears to have occurred is that at some point during the home's construction or its porches construction, it encroached slightly into this easement and during due diligence as a part of a real estate transaction is identified that this needed to be cleaned up as a cloud on the title.

Staff has identified no issues with the request.

We are recommending approval with one single condition.

That's our standard that's associated with any easement vacation, and that's that any damage or relocation of existing facilities will be at the property owner or the developer's expense.

Uh I can take any questions that the council has, and I believe representative of the property owner and Alan Reid and Associates is here in case the council has questions that I cannot help with.

Thanks.

And so it was a shock to the homeowner when they went to sell it.

And it had delayed their sale.

So I would like to encourage everyone to uh vote in favor of this.

Um well, I don't really have any more comments.

I think Jonathan covered everything I was gonna say, but I just I had a hard time hearing her, so I wanted to move a little closer to catch the to catch any comments in case there was a question.

Sure.

Sure.

If there was a question, I'd be glad to do that.

No, I had no questions, but what I was saying is I had spoken with the agent that represents represented this.

This is in my ward, and uh that this did not show up on a previous survey, and so the homeowners were really shocked when they went to sell it and got ready to close and found out that there was this cloud on the title that held up their sale.

So I was encouraging everyone to please vote in favor of it.

Right.

Yeah, the the encroachment was unbeknownst to everyone involved really until the last survey was conducted and then it showed up and just in order to get her title clear for a sale.

We just needed to come to you guys.

See if you could help us out on it.

Okay, great.

I'm gonna open it up to members of the public.

Do any members of the public have any comments about the vacation on East Cypress Lane?

Item D1.

Okay, and I haven't seen anyone registered on Zoom, so I'll bring it back to the council, starting with Mr.

Berna.

I'd make a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay.

Courtney, we have a motion in a second.

We please call the roll on the motion to suspend the rules.

A motion in several seconds.

Take your pick.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

An ordinance to approve VAC 2606 for property located at 1660 East Cypress Lane in Ward 3 to vacate 15.6 square feet of general utility easement.

Okay.

Miss Bunch?

Oh, okay.

Um Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Miss Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Thank you.

That moves us to item D2.

We are back to the private club conversation.

This time we are it's an ordinance to align the city's definition of a private club with state law by amending section 111.02 definitions within chapter 111 alcoholic beverages of city code.

Blake.

Whereas the state of Arkansas has amended the definition of a private club found in Arkansas Code annotated section 39202, and the city should amend the city code to align with state law.

Now therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fateville, Arkansas hereby repeals the definition of private club in section 111.02 definitions within Chapter 111 alcoholic beverages and enacts a new definition as follows.

Private club means a nonprofit corporation, sole proprietorship corporation partnership or limited liability company organized and existing or authorized to do business under the laws of the state.

Chief Reynolds.

Yeah, Mayor Council.

So uh I think Blake did another great job of explaining what this amendment does, and this is just merely a housekeeping amendment uh to align the Fayetteville City Code with the current Arkansas state law.

Um currently the city code is is somewhat archaic in that uh we require all private clubs to be organized as nonprofit corporations, and those of you that have been around uh Arkansas for quite some time in Fayetteville, you used to have to go in, you'd buy a permit uh or you know, a private club permit, you'd pay five dollars, they'd put you on a roll and all of that.

Like I said, it's been very archaic.

Uh you don't see that done as much, and and that ordinance and that state law complied with and really difficult to to enforce as well.

And so as uh Blake mentioned in April of uh 2025, the Arkansas State uh legislator passed the law that amended uh the uh ABC uh private club permitting to allow different or additional business structures uh to qualify as as private clubs, and so the new definition would permit uh sole proprietorships, uh partnerships, corporations, and LLCs, which is consistent with with that state statute now.

And so this uh amendment would just simply modernize uh the ordinance and eliminate any inconsistencies between our city ordinance and the state law.

City uh council approval uh still remains a required step, as you just saw uh a few minutes ago for the uh permitting process with ABC and the amendment simply broadens the types of businesses uh that are able to apply for a private club permit.

And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh and just clarify so basically what we're doing is we're just coming into compliance and parity with state law.

That's correct, Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment.

Do we have any members of the public who would like to speak about the item D2 definition of a private club?

Okay, I don't believe we have had anyone call in, so we'll bring it back to members of the council, beginning with Mr.

Stafford.

Yeah, I'll uh move that we uh suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Courtney, we please call the roll to suspend the rules.

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones, yes.

Mr.

Stafford, yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Ms.

Moore, yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch?

Yes.

An ordinance to align the city's definition of a private club with state law by amending section 1102 definitions within chapter 11 alcoholic beverages.

Okay.

Courtney, will you please call the roll for the final vote?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones?

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker.

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Moving on to our third and final item of new business, additional data center regulations.

Before I go into this item, I want to make a couple of comments by way of explanation.

And that I want to be very, very clear.

Uh with those of you here and those of you listening, the administration's position on this and my position on this.

State law prohibits the city from regulating comment commerce, excuse me, from regulating commerce or outright banning data centers.

Therefore, we, as I have said, need to be prepared.

I am grateful to Councilmember Weedaker and Councilmember Berna for sponsoring and co-sponsoring this legislation to bring it forward.

Um, because they recognize that the opposite of being prepared is being unprepared.

And so what we do not want to have happen is find ourselves in a situation where this type of entity were to want to come into our city and we not have legally available tools to be able to regulate that.

That is something that nobody wants to have happen.

And so we have to look at what levers can we pull to be able to legally make that bar really, really high.

Because this is not a business that we are trying to welcome.

This is a business that we are trying to, to the extent that the law allows, frankly, make more difficult to come into our city.

And I remain clear on that point, um, as have uh Mr.

Berna and Mr.

Weedaker, and also, in fact, Ms.

Moore, I believe, initially brought up legislation back in 2003 to help us be more prepared.

I'm sorry.

What did I say?

2023.

I'm sorry.

I have been doing that all day.

2023 because she also recognized the need for us to be prepared to manage this potential.

So thank you for allowing me that.

And I will turn it over to you.

Well, I guess I'll read it.

It's an ordinance to make data centers a conditional use in the city of Fayetteville and provide for additional regulations on data centers by amending sections 161.31, District I 2, General Industrial, 164.27 data centers, Section 51.001 water shortages, and section 51.1 more 51.112 water service and extension policy of the unified development code and to declare an emergency.

Mr.

Pennington.

If you need a restroom break, now's your chance.

Whereas on September 5th, 2023, with the passage of ordinance 6678, the city of Favel became one of the first cities to enact specific regulations for data centers in the state of Arkansas.

And whereas those initial regulations focused on the noise disturbance that can be caused by the equipment associated with data centers, but they are also known to have massive water and power requirements, which can severely and negatively impact the lives of those in nearby areas served by the same utility services.

And whereas moving data centers from permitted uses to conditional uses in the I2 heavy industrial zoning district will allow the Planning Commission to weigh the potential adverse impact data centers can have on surrounding properties and the public interest.

And whereas the City of Fable finds that the public interest is served by preventing the negative effects on ratepayers and utility customers that can be caused by data centers, and the provisions of this ordinance are enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting the public health, safety, welfare, and property of the residents of Fayable.

Now therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Section 1, that the City Council of the City of Fayville, Arkansas, hereby amend section 161.31, District I2, General Industrial of the Unified Development Code by moving Unit 47 data centers from subsection B1 permitted uses to B2 conditional uses.

Section 2, that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby repeals Section 164.27 data centers and enacts a new section 163.20 data centers as shown in exhibit A attached here too.

Section three, that the City Council of the City of Fayev, Arkansas hereby enacts a new subsection C eight in Section 51.001 water shortages as follows.

Eight data centers, the operation of a data center cooling system employing the use of potable water.

Section 4, that the City Council of the City of Fayev, Arkansas hereby enacts a new subsection D for water extensions to data centers outside the city in section 51.112, water service and extension policy as follows.

D, water extensions to data centers.

Water extensions to a data center is defined in section 151.01 of the Unified Development Code outside of the Fayetteville corporate limits, but within the city's water service area shall not be made without the express approval of the city council and in accordance with the following rules.

One, the data center shall provide a report addressing the following a water usage.

The estimated amount of total water in acre feet that will be used by the proposed project and associated land use for a calendar year, along with a monthly breakdown of projected water demand for each month within that year.

Two, the estimated amount of water in million gallons per day that will be used by the proposed project during a typical 24-hour operational period under normal conditions, including anticipated usage patterns.

Three, the estimated amount of water in million gallons per day to be used by the proposed project in a 24-hour period on its highest water consumption day.

Four, the estimated highest instantaneous flow rate in million gallons per day that will be used by the project along with the minimum average and maximum durations and frequencies of these flow conditions.

Five, indicate high consumption operational flexibility.

Identify if high water demands can be aligned with the city's low demand periods.

Six, the number of proposed water meters and the size of each water meter for the proposed project.

Seven, fire flow requirements and capacity to provide fire flow for the proposed data center as reviewed and approved by both the fire marshal or the appropriate fire official with jurisdiction over the proposed site and the utilities department.

B, water supply.

One, if the data center will be served by a public water supply, the applicant shall submit documentation from the public authority, certifying that the public authority has the capacity to supply the water needed.

Two, additionally, the applicant shall submit documentation from Beaver Water District, certifying that it has sufficient current and future capacity and the needs of the data center will not adversely impact its ability to deliver water to its customers.

Three, if the data center intends to rely upon a non-public groundwater source or is to rely on surface water withdrawal, the applicant shall provide a water feasibility study using parameters approved by the public works director to determine if there is an adequate supply of water for the proposed use and to estimate the impact of the use on existing wells, groundwater, and surface waters in the vicinity.

C.

The utilities director may request additional data or documentation that may be used to make a recommendation to the city council.

Two, the city council may require the data center to comply with additional requirements, including but not limited to requirements for data centers in the city limits as set forth in Section 163.20 data centers of the Unified Development Code.

Section 5 that the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that if any provision of this ordinance is found to be invalid by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining sections, phrases, and provisions of this ordinance, which remain valid and enforceable.

Section six, emergency clause, that the City Council of the City of Favel, Arkansas hereby determines that this ordinance should become effective without delay to address the potential harmful effects of noise disturbances emanating from data centers, as well as the water and power needs of such developments, which is necessary for the public peace as well as the health and safety of Fayetteville residents.

Therefore, the City Council hereby declares an emergency exists such that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval.

Great.

Thank you, Blake.

Mr.

Berna, I will start with you and give Mr.

Wheedaker an opportunity as well.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um after our previous or last uh council meeting and we had that lengthy discussion about a business, a lot of the comments uh centered on uh data centers, and after that debate the following day, I called city attorney as I'd mentioned last week to inquire about uh any exposure that we might have as a city uh for data centers.

Uh as the mayor uh just said, uh, we do not have the ability to uh outright ban a data center.

And if we did, I'm pretty confident that this council would be the first one in the city of the state that would do it, would be receptive to that, but we don't have that option right now.

Uh but what we can do is we can set the guidelines and and parameters and ordinances that would uh strengthen our protections that we give our citizens.

So that's uh uh what we've tried to do here.

Uh I do want to give a tremendous amount of appreciate show a tremendous amount of appreciation to the city attorney's office, Blake Pennington, uh Jonathan Kurth and his staff uh and everyone associated with the city because they have worked tirelessly to get this put together, and it is a very complicated issue that I think our citizens are highly uh aware of and want us to address.

So that's what uh the purpose of this uh ordinance is.

So uh I'll turn it over to uh Mr.

Whitaker.

Mr.

Whedaker.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh uh I appreciate the work of the city attorney's office as well.

Um and all city staff.

For me, it boils down to us wanting to ensure the welfare of our residents such that we don't inadvertently get asked to subsidize a business entity, whether that's through an increase in water rates or electric rates due to their consumption.

And likewise, the other two concerns I have are both heat and noise, and so I think it's completely appropriate for this city to require a conditional use permit process so that we have the legal authority and right to provide conditions upon any business entity.

Now, but between you and me, I I do not think anyone would come with a data center within the city simply because the land values, dirt is cheaper elsewhere, and so we want to sleep well at night, it's advisable for us to be wise, just as been said, and to be sure that we get out ahead of this so that we're not attempting to backpedal and retroactively wish that we had taken action.

And so I commend um the city council for being willing to take this uh under our purview.

I was hoping that we wouldn't be the first in the state of Arkansas to be quite frank with you, but it doesn't look like anyone has gotten out ahead of us at this point.

Thank you.

Right.

Now for that item, Mr.

Pennington.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so we discussed at the agenda session that in 2023 the General Assembly passed the Arkansas Data Centers Act, which doesn't allow the city to ban data centers outright, uh, but it does allow us to enact reasonable regulations to protect the peace, health, and safety of our residents.

Um as I explained when I was reading the ordinance, most of the regulations at that time were focused on uh noise pollution and the effects on surrounding properties.

Uh, but now we're aware of the broader issues that are being caused uh by these developments.

So uh I did meet with council members Turk and Moore on Thursday afternoon uh to hear some more ideas for things that could be added to the ordinance.

I have incorporated some of those in a new draft that went out uh earlier today.

Um staff has not had time to fully vet that proposal, uh, and I think there are probably still some issues with the latest draft.

Um so what I'm gonna do in this review is go through the original proposal and then also highlight the changes that were made to each section uh following my meeting with the two council members.

Uh so the first uh big change is moving data centers from a use by right in I2 General Industrial to a conditional use in I-2.

Uh this would allow for planning commission review along with public notification and public comment.

Uh the standards that the planning commission is looking at for conditional use permits is compatibility with adjacent properties and the long-range plans of the city.

Uh, they must find that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest.

Uh and the commission also has to find that the proposal complies with any other specific requirements for that proposed use.

Uh part of moving data center regulations to Chapter 163 includes enacting those additional specific requirements uh that the planning commission would have to review.

So this shows uh all of the I-2 zoned land in the entire city of Fayetteville.

It's approximately two percent of our total land area.

Uh so very, very small amount uh in South Fayetteville.

There are new pre-approval report requirements.

Uh basically they that the data center has to describe the proposed cooling system, verify that heat will not extend beyond the property line, has to include an energy management plan addressing power use effectiveness, waste heat recovery, and renewable electricity generation.

Uh the report must provide detailed water usage projections, including annual use, monthly demand, daily peak use, flow rates, meter information, and fire flow needs, uh must also provide uh wastewater discharge projections, including peak flows, operational flexibility, total dissolved solids, and chemicals that may affect wastewater quality.

Uh and the city can also request other information needed to determine uh the public interest impacts.

Uh in the the new draft that was sent out today, uh it also includes uh requirement to provide environmental permit applications, modeling, and compliance materials that have been submitted to state and federal agencies for review.

So in the current draft, um the public water utility must certify that it has the capacity to serve the data center.

Beaver Water District must also certify that it has sufficient current and future capacity and that there will be no adverse impact to customers.

If the applicant is relying on groundwater or service surface water, a water feasibility study is required.

Open loop and once-through cooling systems are prohibited.

Evaporative only cooling systems that use potable water as the primary cooling medium are prohibited.

On-site groundwater wells may not be used as the primary cooling water source, and related water shortage rules would restrict the operation of data center cooling systems that use potable water.

In the new draft, we've included compliance with all discharge and pretreatment regulations in the city code, and it grants the utilities department the authority to place additional conditions on the development.

On the power supply end, the applicant has to provide documentation from the public electric utility certifying the power supply is adequate.

Utility documentation must identify any required transmission generation or substation upgrades needed for the facility.

Any non-public or alternative power sources require a feasibility review.

Diesel backup generators must meet EPA Tier 4 standards where applicable.

And one correction on that, all diesel generators for whatever purpose, whether they're backup or not, would have to meet those standards.

Routine generator testing is limited to Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.

to 4 p.m., excluding holidays.

Schedule generator testing requires a 24-hour notice to any property owner within a thousand feet.

And the operator must maintain a public website, submit annual emissions reports, and file fuel handling and spill response plans.

In the new draft, we've added that battery storage must be the primary power backup and battery stores would have to be depleted before they could go to diesel generator backups.

Brand new in this are three additional issues, including a waste management plan.

Prior to the issuance of a permit, they must identify construction, operational, maintenance, electronic, battery, hazardous, universal liquid and decommissioning waste streams.

They have to identify where those materials are going, what companies are taking them, compliance with all federal, state, and local waste management laws, and it would require an updated plan before any material changes in cooling technology, battery system, backup power system, or the way their IT assets are disposed of.

It also adds a thermal management plan that has to be prepared by an engineer.

It requires them to establish a baseline temperature at each of the boundaries.

Corrective action plan in the event of an exceedance.

Any major changes would require an amendment to the conditional use permit, and it would require that they retain their monitoring data for several years.

There are no changes proposed to that.

As far as site design, the current language says the setbacks are 100 feet from I-1 or I-2 and 1,000 feet from the boundary of any other district.

It also requires landscape buffers that are approved by the urban forester, 50 feet wide next to industrial districts, and 100 feet next to any other zoning district.

One issue that was identified by the development services director, Mr.

Kirth, was that there are places where there's a sliver of industrial between another industrial zone and a residential zone, and it could potentially lead to a data center being a hundred feet from the boundary of that sliver of I-1, but within a thousand feet of the residential zone.

So we're proposing the addition of a 1,000-foot buffer from any zoning district that allows residential uses, whether it's adjacent or not.

As far as reporting and enforcement, uh the company must identify a community point of contact, maintain a public website with noise verification reports and complaint and response information.

Any violations can lead to prosecution, uh, amendment of the conditional use permit or revocation of the conditional use permit.

One of the there are two editions proposed in the newest draft.

One of those is an annual report that would be filed with the planning division and posted on their public website that covers complaints and responses, their compliance certification, copies of compliance reports filed with state and federal agencies, and then there are some more specific penalties for violations, including the withholding of city services, which is something that's available for short-term rentals that are operating outside of their business license.

Uh, we're proposing to add data centers, uh specifically the operation of a data center cooling system uh that employs the use of potable water.

Finally, uh we are extending regulations outside of the city limits, but into our uh water service area.

This map shows the city limits overlaid over our utility field rep areas, which is close to our water service area, but utilities tells me it's slightly different for some reason.

Uh GIS is working on getting me a layer that shows the actual water service area.

Um but basically this uh new section four proposes the changes will apply to data centers outside of the corporate limits.

Uh it's very similar to what we're requiring inside the city limits, and uh with the addition of any water main extension requires city council approval on top of them meeting all of those other requirements.

Uh we don't have a uh specific concern about a data center opening in a city that we have a contract with.

I have information on the details of those contracts if you want me to get into it.

I'll I'll skip that for now.

Uh but basically none of those contracts requires us to provide the amount of water uh that would be necessary to serve a data center.

Uh so some of the issues that are not addressed in this that I did not have time to add or research that the council members and members of the public had raised, uh emergency access and fire regulations, the possibility of a tiered structure similar to what Little Rock did with accessory and large and hyperscale data centers uh with different regulations for each of those.

Uh I didn't feel comfortable doing a carve out for accessory data centers in this, uh, mostly because that needs to have some form of regulation attached to it.

Uh you know, whether it's restricting it to certain zones or requiring certain uh development requirements, it it just wasn't coming together at this point.

Uh it doesn't cover additional cost recovery or requirement for outside consultants, performance bonds, uh power usage effectiveness or water usage effectiveness studies, on-site power generation uh beyond the feasibility study if that's proposed, uh, and it also does not cover surprise or ongoing inspections.

Thank you for that very thorough presentation.

And we will now um have questions from the council, either for um I guess Mr.

Kurth to some extent, but primarily Mr.

Pennington.

Um we'll start with you, Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I think most of my questions will be for Blake.

Um Blake, you just brought up those those things that haven't been addressed yet.

Um and then I know we just got the the amendments from Councilmember Turk and Councilmember Moore uh that are you know pretty substantial.

Um I'm wondering, so would passing it.

I first I want to thank everybody.

Real quickly, I want to thank Councilmember Berna, Councilmember Wiedaker for their thorough work, staff and and Blake for getting this push forward, and council member uh Turk and more for following up and and adding their uh uh amendments.

Um my question is um with these issues that aren't addressed and these new amendments, it does that preclude us, does that keep us from like passing uh what we have in front of us, putting the emergency clause in place, and then I think our our July 7th meeting is uh a doozy.

So I guess the meeting after that would be the July uh 21st meeting.

That could we get everything addressed by like that it that it isn't addressed uh by that meeting and get all the questions uh or staff's concerns uh addressed that they have with the uh amendments, time to review the amendments, and then kind of come back then on the 21st and and and uh pass the amendments and the and the and the loose hanging threads uh that aren't addressed and put an emergency clause on that too.

Would that be uh that is an option?

Yes, like would that be an option that that it might be something for the ordinance review because I need to take it.

I don't want us to necessarily like if we delay the whole thing.

I think there's an urgency here, and that's why it has the emergency clause.

And so um, but obviously there's things that aren't addressed and and things that need to be reviewed.

And so you like would that be a a good option or path?

Our office can make that happen by July 21st.

Um, I don't know if you want ordinance review to take this up.

Um, I don't know what staff's capacity is to review all of the proposed changes and all of the the other issues that haven't been addressed in this latest draft.

I know there are still staff concerns about the latest draft.

You mean the latest draft without the amendments yet?

Or my understanding is that there are concerns beyond even what have I shouldn't have answered for you.

No, the drafting sent out today, staff didn't have the time to vet that.

And so specifically, Mr.

Kurth had raised some issues that I think probably need to be addressed before we just pass those.

But but those issues aren't in what Mr.

Bernard and Mr.

Weeder brought forward, right?

Is that correct?

Okay.

The one you have before you is the original ordinance, and then the highlighted portions that I talked about tonight are in the latest draft that I sent out today.

Um so you've got two to choose from, and if you want to do the latest draft, you would need to amend exhibit A to adopt that new language.

And then I think as far as moving forward, I would leave it to ordinance review whether they thought that they needed to look at this or or um whether they feel comfortable just you know moving forward without that review as quickly as possible.

All right.

Let's take some more questions to uh Mr.

Berna.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I was just going to suggest uh uh number one, I was gonna ask Jonathan for his uh if he could address his concerns, but um uh I was going to suggest we pass the uh the ordinary or consider passing the ordinance uh as it originally states, and that I would um uh agree to move forward with an ordinance review meeting quickly to involve both staff and council members to discuss it more thoroughly to take each issue that's been raised and talk about the pros and cons of of how it might affect uh the ordinance, how it might affect staff's ability to enforce uh the elements of the ordinance.

Uh I think it it it would be by passing an ordinance tonight uh as originally uh intended uh gives the city significant protections that we don't have right now.

Uh it gives us ability to then uh really vet out everything uh that that has been brought forward.

We can look at the pros and cons.

Anybody I would welcome any council member that wants to come to the ordinance review to come.

Uh uh and we could sit down and talk it through with city staff and and really get an understanding of uh what could be challenges associated with that.

Um Ms.

Bunch.

Um yes, I'm I'm in favor of path passing this tonight, so we have something in place.

Uh but let's say we do pass this tonight and there's some weird unicorn data center that comes in that has that will meet all our criteria right now, but comes in under one of the the items that we're discussing.

Can we how long does it take for if it were to be approved or something like that?

And we're still working on the other issues that we have that would go to ordinance review or or staff review.

Well, if you pass the proposed ordinance as it is as as I read it tonight.

Yes, it will create that conditional use permit requirement.

It'll have to go to the planning commission.

There is that discretionary review, they have to find all of those factors have been met.

There's no adverse impact, uh that it is compatible with surrounding properties in our long-range plans.

So there's no automatic approval of anything if any version of this ordinance that you're reading tonight is passed because it creates that path through the planning commission as a conditional use permit.

Okay.

So I guess what I'm saying is is you know, like I said, this strange perfect data center comes in.

We still have time to get the other items in place before it could be approved.

Absolutely.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um Dr.

Jones, then Ms.

Moore.

Um my question is for Jonathan.

Jonathan, how long do you think it would take you to review what you need to look at?

And first of all, I want to say this, I agree with Scott.

I think that if we I think that we should go ahead and pass this tonight and then look at making any amendments.

The answer depends on if what I'm being asked is the what's being proposed that's in the memo that the that Blake uh Mr.

Pennington put out, or if it also includes, I think it was the additional seven or eight uh bullet points of information.

I've not I've not seen any information in that regard.

I have started doing some initial research into councilmember Turk's question about whether we ought to have some uh uh element of different um permit fees or application fees associated with these applications, uh, but I cannot speak uh in an informed manner how much additional time it takes to include that.

I think with the language that was provided in the memo, I think staff can be prepared for I think the second meeting in July was discussed or an ordinance review meeting sometime around then.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Stafford had my question, but we've kind of turned into a round table discussion.

So I want to just throw this into the mix while we're talking.

Um the reason I delayed and had not come to staff to update my ordinance from 2023 was because you know there is a great deal of discussion, and this is definitely a very like emerging topic.

And so the one thing I just want to at least add into our consideration set is um that you know there's just a lot of unknowns that are out there.

You know, there's a list on a piece of paper today, but I will tell you I continue to meet um with folks in the central Arkansas area, different attorneys, um, people who are um in this line of work um who continue to send me additional information and it basically just continues to bubble up, you know, additional potential, you know, workarounds or you know, little areas that we probably will want to address.

And so I know we're trying to weigh timelines and staff time, and we also are looking at the potential to path through this through ordinance review.

But one of the things too I think we should, you know, consider is that you know it'll have something tonight potentially, something potentially from ordinance review, and I just really think we're gonna continue to learn on this, and like what was said, there's a lot of research.

I mean, that's my file on this has gotten to be ginormous.

And so um, you know, I know you know, there we're talking about microclimates around these and you know, the the entire climate type change and and patterns of things that can be disrupted uh because of these centers.

You know, these are definitions that we are on the cutting edge and we potentially are gonna have to lead on um or talk to people across the nation who you know are are going you know through these things as well.

And so I think we also are having a lot of conversation too around the um whether or not a you know, a pause or that's been talked about in the state too is a ban, right?

Because there is a lot of concern around there is a complication to this language and what this technology looks like to get right to regulate appropriately.

Um and so I guess I just am trying to say there's a lot of moving parts to this.

And so I don't even think after ordinance review meets or the July meeting that this is the end of this.

Uh I do think we'll unfortunately revisit it again.

So I at least want to wrap our minds around that.

This is an ongoing discussion.

I'm sorry.

I mean, it's not my favorite subject.

Um I'm learning a lot and I really appreciate all the residents who have sat with me and have expertise in this space and continue to send me information.

Um but I I think it will just be an evolving thing, and so I just at least want us to be thinking about that, whether it does live within the city attorney's office who's doing a tremendous job um or through ordinance review.

I think that there definitely is gonna need to be a continual public conversation and continuing to visit this going forward.

Thank you.

Okay, um as so Mr.

And I did, and I you brought up a very good point.

I did kind of lose the plot a little bit.

It did become a round table instead of questions.

We still will go to come public comment and then come back to you all for final comments.

So uh yes, Ms.

Turk.

Well, I'm wondering if I should hold my comment until the final round.

Well, I was going to say that, but then I felt guilty because I'd not ever said that and everybody else did, and I didn't want to pick on you, so yeah, I'll just hold.

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Burner.

Thank you, Mayor.

The one thing that I think we could amend uh very easily tonight, and it would uh tighten kind of close that door of that uh the thousand foot buffer, considering Jonathan has identified where there are slivers of of land that and you can explain it a little bit better, but we can we can add that that language in there about the thousand foot buffer, and that even tightens it down very easily very quickly on that.

Could you kind of explain that?

Is that feasible to do to amend to this evening, I think is the uh ultimately what we're trying to figure out.

My opinion is yes, but that's also because I looked at that one specifically and it makes sense to me specifically.

So I I admit that there's an element of selfishness there, but it is a very tangible situation as you go down City Lake Road, in particular in Fayetteville, you're just west of the commerce park.

There is a approximately hundred to a hundred foot strip of I-1 zoning district on that street on the east side before it segues into I2 zoning.

And the way the ordinance is drafted tonight is it defines that setback based on zoning boundaries, not property boundaries.

So if you have a strip of a different zoning district in between I2 and a residential zoning district, it could have the inherent unintended consequence of reducing a setback from a thousand feet to one hundred feet.

Is that helpful?

Okay.

Yes.

And so that's an amendment perhaps a motion to amend.

I think that's a pretty easy uh motion.

I can make a motion to amend to add the language, uh change language to a thousand-foot buffer from for any zoning district.

It'll I'll suck at the okay.

All right, we have a motion and a second to amend um a motion and a second to amend to implement the thousand-foot buffer thing that Mr.

Kurth proposed.

Would you like me to read that lease?

Please.

Please, yes.

Should we do the motion first, Blake?

No, read it so we all know what we're voting on, so they know what they're voting on.

So the language proposed by development services says a minimum 1,000 foot buffer shall be maintained between the data center and any zoning district that permits residential uses, whether adjoining the data center or not.

In no event shall any data center building be located within 1,000 feet of any zoning district that permits residential uses.

Okay, so we have a motion in a second on that amendment as read by Mr.

Pennington.

Uh Courtney, could you please call the role?

This is just to amend.

Ms.

Turks.

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna?

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

So the amendment passes.

So if we have further clarifying questions, we can get to those.

If not, we can go into public comment and then bring back to the council.

So I'm gonna go into public comment.

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

If you will please uh just go ahead and come up to the podium and state your name and address, and uh we'll have three minutes on the clock.

We will do uh people inside first, and then we will go to uh Zoom after.

Hi.

Uh Jeanette Byrd, as noted, uh, I'm in Ward 1, but I don't give my address out in public as a woman, but I am word one.

Um, I appreciate the proactive um uh approach to this problem, and yes, it is an ongoing discussion.

I mean, we're gonna learn something new every day, right?

How do you um predict just exactly how far all of this will go?

And I really appreciate that um you're talking about those other issues, right?

And discussing them further.

I just want to make sure that it's part of the discussion and as part of what you are also discussing and sharing with us, the public is let's say we have our unicorn, right?

And they decide once they get in to not follow some of these rules or to do whatever it is they want to do.

Um, I want to know really, like really, like what recourses do we have, right?

Fines can be paid, right?

You know, individuals can be the fall guy, one person can go to jail, everybody else carries on as normal, right?

And not only that, let's say we go as far as we're able to decommission somebody, uh, a facility that breaks the rules, right?

Well, now we have this data center, and we can't just convert it to a mall, right?

So I want to know that you all are having that conversation.

And I also want you to reflect back to us, your plans for things like what do we really do when they violate the rules, and what would we really do with this big data center?

Because once it's built, it's built.

It's here, right?

So even if we're able to drive out the people breaking the rules, we still have this data center.

And like I said, it's not just a regular building, right?

That we can just convert.

So I ask for more information from our representatives on that to be made publicly available, and also that I ask that you make sure that is on your agenda.

So you're talking about what do we do when they violate, and what do we do once we have these centers here?

Um, because once it's built, it's not going anywhere.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I'm Abel Tomlinson.

Uh I guess I'm from Greenland, even though I have a fable address.

Um, I've just say we need stronger regulations than even these for data centers because it's not just a utility issue.

We got to ask ourselves why is the billionaire class rapidly building over 4,000 data centers across the nation.

Well, every other nation in the world only has a few hundred.

Does anyone honestly believe that Epstein class is dumping tens of billions of dollars into building thousands of data centers to improve working people's lives?

To think it's for the public good is dangerously naive.

The real reasons include billionaires' desire to replace thousands of jobs with AI robots, massively cutting labor costs for higher profit akin to outsourcing.

Mass surveillance is another big element as we're seeing parallel nationwide proliferation of AI flock cameras to monitor everyone's movement.

Epstein-linked billionaire Peter Thiel of Palantir has a proven record of working towards a mass surveillance AI, AI panopticon or total information awareness, and is now integrated into the DOD, CIA, ICE, FDA, HHS, IRS, CDC, DHS, etc.

This mass surveillance is also being created because they're worried about anti-AI riots and revolution appropriately.

So uh we see the billionaire class waging genocide in endless wars, killing millions of poor people around the world, which is now being aided by Fayetteville swarm weapons, with the which even the Pope recently condemned.

This wicked ideology of mass killing people abroad is something that can quickly come home.

Billionaire Bill Gates just testified to Congress about Epstein, but they failed to ask Gates about an email saying Bill Gates had a conversation with Epstein saying, how do we get rid of poor people as a whole?

We shouldn't trust the billionaire class that's guilty of genocidal mass killing and horrific crimes to children domestically.

Likewise, we shouldn't trust their mass surveillance schemes and massive expansion expansion of environmentally catastrophic data centers.

We must do everything we can to stop their agenda.

We need far stronger data center regulations, such as requiring any potential data center to generate 100% of its electricity from solar energy, including its massive rooftops.

This would create a strong disincentive and protect residents from higher electric bills.

We need regulations with teeth, not a welcome, Matt.

Lastly, city officials across Arkansas are signing NDAs with AI data center companies to bring them in secretively all across the nation.

This is happening.

Fayetteville officials sign NDAs with AI Corporation Swarm Arrow in partnership with billionaire funded Ron Maloney, the top war profiteering advocate for Northwest Arkansas Council.

Maloney is trying to turn Northwest Arkansas into military industrial complex epicenter.

So we are left wondering if any officials may have signed or will sign NDAs for a data dissenter.

And if we can regulate data centers, why not AI weapons?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else that would like to make a comment?

Keith, do we have anybody on Zoom?

We do not.

Okay.

We will bring it back to the council.

Um I will remind everyone that uh we are on the first reading.

So before we go further, if we were to go further, we have to take care of that.

Um Ms.

Turk.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I um I just want to comment about a couple of our roundtable discussion a little bit earlier.

Um, you know, this is a really complex uh and ongoing and technologically changing issue.

I do think it would be helpful tonight to go ahead and pass the um the original proposal that everybody's comfortable with our amended uh version, and uh and then immediately try and um schedule an ordinance review committee meeting as quickly as we could so we can follow up uh with additional regulations that close some of these um gaps that we have or perhaps some gaps.

So there's lots of details.

I want to make sure that we have a chance to really understand all of those, make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences and um and really give it some thought.

Um and um but the other thing that would be really helpful, I think, to ordinance review is that once the um attorney's office is able to comprehensively pull all those items together and send it out.

If ordinance review could have an advance some of your concerns from maybe planning or other parts of the administration, so we could really think uh ahead of time and maybe have some ideas uh or some um new have some new ideas that would um ease some of the concerns of planning um so that we don't have meeting after meeting after meeting that we maybe can get most of it done in in one meeting if if not if not two.

And I just want to say that those meetings are public, and um, you know, if the public has some specific recommendations, it would be helpful to give those in advance so that we could incorporate all of that in our deliberation and consider all of that.

I I noted right here require solar panels on rooftops, so I like that one.

So um that's just some of my thoughts right there as we move forward.

I also noted in addition to Abel's uh solar panels on rooftops, there was also the what do you do after if they don't with the remaining that we had Miss Bird mentioned?

I thought that was good too.

Um, Miss Bunch.

Uh yes.

I I like the idea of the solar panels, but I believe the suggestion was that they produce all of their energy with solar.

Can we require someone?

Did I misunderstand that?

No, I think you're right.

I think we may be right.

We require any business to produce all of the energy they use by solar.

Do we have that capacity?

That's something I'm gonna have to research.

I don't I don't have a good answer for you right now.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't think so.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Witaker and then Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and this is just a reference to staff to help explain the the good question was asked if there's a violator that um, you know, letters of correction and fines and even filing in municipal court don't correct.

My understanding is that similar to short-term rentals, that the city already has the ability to shut their water off as the single greatest consequence of error.

Am I correct in presuming that that applies in this case also?

I think it does.

I think putting it in the ordinance makes it more clear that that is a potential penalty.

So we do have some options available.

And we can certainly work to strengthen those because that that was one of the proposals in the new draft.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Miss Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, I'm definitely in favor of doing something tonight.

Um, and I just um I know there are a lot of things that are floating around, but I at least want to kind of state on record some of the additional things that I really hope that we will explore and do think that they are, you know, some things that we're currently missing.

Um I really do think we need regulations around um microclimate impacts.

Um I feel really strongly about emergency access and fire regulations.

I talked about at agenda session that you know, the type of response that would really be needed on high intensity, that it would be a regional response.

And so um really needing to understand that and additional access points ahead of time as part of the pre-kind of consideration approval process.

And I do think this ongoing inspection process is incredibly important.

Um I do think that accessory data centers are another way currently that there can be a work around this regulation, and so I do think they need to be looked at, you know, being um uh a small component to a very, very large entity like a Walmart um, you know, office in Bentonville to Fayetteville, supporting it with a data center, um, you know, it would definitely be a smaller proportion, but really trying to figure out um the tighter specifications on what that would look like.

Um additionally, I very much agree about cost recovery.

I do think that these are going to require us to potentially to look at you know, outside expertise that has to consult on that, and additionally, it is gonna take an additional disproportionate amount of staff time versus um other industries that would come into our community.

Um I think there's been mention of performance bonds.

I I do think that's something that we should explore.

Um and then um some of the the things that I've I've had that's come up more recently or considering about um PUE or WE performance standards.

Um there they require reporting but not don't really set benchmarks, and so considering that um definitely was mentioned about renewable energy sourcing requirements.

Don't know if that's legal, but if we can at least start to tiptoe into looking into that.

Um and then I've heard there's actually been again key learnings from other areas.

Um we talk about um being on generator supplies, but you do have operations who've um struggled to get fully into the grid and they've ended up in temporary power situations where they have run diesel generators for 18 months in some places, and I've heard that is just absolutely abhorrent to have to live next to, and so I really hope that we'll dig into that more.

Um I definitely am hopeful that we can dig more into environmental management plans um and then also really considering about third party um requirements.

It's one thing for the industry and those folks to tell us that they um are gonna be within these areas or give us their management reports, but really the third-party expertise that um is emerging or is in in these spaces.

Um one of the um areas too, as we're looking to things, um the green grid consortium, you know, they have industry and standard metrics, and I'm I'm curious too about you know other entities that are staff um and are part of um uh these these types of emerging tech that are seen as being standards um that potentially could uh be the ones that would be a third party that would look in these pre-reports as well as in the auditing and to take some of that burden um off staff.

So you just heard me say a whole lot of stuff, and so um give me a couple more days, and I feel like or a week or two weeks, and I'll have more.

I just you know, at least wanted um, you know, to to bring up those particular areas that today that folks are bringing up.

I'm incredibly thankful that we're addressing this today, that we'll have more stringent standards and that they also have the ability to really think about you know the water that's going outside of even Fayetteville and that impact that we have in this this region, our water is so incredibly important for our area.

I think so many of us um we forget how important it is, which I'm I'm so incredibly you know thankful for this being brought forward.

And so tonight I'm I'm thankful to to be able to be supportive of this, but I I really want to encourage, I know we have people that stood outside who have sent in messages and and been in this conversation.

And I really want to encourage you guys to come to those meetings um to send in the research and the information that you have.

Um we're all better whenever we're able to hear that information to consider it.

And so now would be the time, you know, as we are caught coming to the table if there are studies or resources or certain areas that you feel like really need to be looked at and addressed.

Um we're always better, you know, having more voices in that conversation.

So I really appreciate uh where this is continued to go and where it will continue to proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Burner.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um I will work with uh uh other uh ordinance review members to uh potentially set a meeting for next week.

But Jonathan, uh you're you're saying basically what do you want me to review?

So uh I I think initially I would like for us to focus on the uh matter the uh proposals that the uh council members made uh that were in Blake's presentation.

Uh and then we can branch out uh if we can get some ideas on that, and then we can branch out if we need to have another meeting for more uh uh additional uh items.

But uh that's what I'd like to to do initially if if everybody's okay with that, if you're you're okay with that direction.

Um and then uh I don't know if anybody else has anything to say, but I'll I'll uh after their comment.

Oh, okay.

Go ahead.

But after I'll make it quick.

Yeah, that's yes, yeah.

Mr.

Stafford.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'll make it quick.

Uh I appreciate the conversation.

I think we're off to to a great start.

I appreciate the public comments uh that have been made and they brought up good points.

Um I'm not gonna regurgitate the the you know we've gone over the the things that still need to be gone over a couple of times.

Uh one thing I want to point out is is personally I think uh I think the a thousand feet uh adjustment that we made is good, but you know, when you deal with these big uh industries sometimes a thousand feet isn't as far away as you think it is, and with the amount of noise these things generate, uh I wonder if we also might want to look at and maybe we could do some research on does that need to be two thousand feet or or or what is the actual distance it needs to be so somebody doesn't have this hum.

But but I really think what we're we're trying to do, and I hope we accomplish is make this such an arduous pain that that we never have to deal with the reality of one of these things being here.

And I think that's the and I'm hoping that's the goal.

And and uh with that, I'll I'll go ahead and and make the motion uh to vote, or I'll let you make it if you vote.

Well, do you do the motion would whomever makes it the motion would be to suspend I'll make a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading?

Second, I'll second.

Okay, Courtney, we have a motion to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading.

Will you call the roll?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes, Minister Jones.

Yes, Mr.

Stafford, yes, Dr.

Jones, yes, Miss Moore, yes, Mr.

Weedaker, yes, Mr.

Berna.

Yes, Miss Bunch, yes.

An ordinance to make data centers a conditional use in the city of Fayetteville and provide for additional regulations on data centers by amending section 161.31, District I2, General Industrial, Section 164.27 data centers, section 51.001 water shortages, and section 51.112 water service and extension policy of the unified development code and to declare an emergency.

Courtney, will you please call the roll for the vote?

Ms.

Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford?

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Bunch.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes and don't go anywhere yet.

I would uh like a motion to motion to do the emergency clause, please.

Okay.

Second.

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

Courtney, will you please call the roll?

Miss Turk?

Yes.

Minister Jones.

Yes.

Mr.

Stafford.

Yes.

Dr.

Jones?

Yes.

Miss Moore?

Yes.

Mr.

Weedaker?

Yes.

Mr.

Berna.

Yes.

Miss Sponge.

Yes.

Okay.

So that passes.

Thank you all.

Keith.

Before we set a record for adjourning early.

Do you have any brief announcements?

I do.

Uh Friday is Juneteenth holiday.

The city offices will be closed.

Uh there will be no change to our recycling routes.

Uh the or the transfer station.

Transfer station will be open to seven to ten.

And we do have various events around the city to celebrate Juneteenth, including an event on Saturday in the upper ramble.

Great.

All right.

Thank you so much for that.

All right.

And we are adjourned.

Stacy, I expect you to look up and see if this was the shortest ever.

So please get right on that.

I realize that we have already adjourned, but just an announcement for those of us that are here.

It is a good reminder that due to be there being five Tuesdays in June, there will not be a meeting next Tuesday.

No meeting, no agenda session.

You just get to do just get to go live your life.