Okay, I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is the agenda session uh city council meeting of Fayetteville, Arkansas, June 30th, 2026.

Um for our meeting, our next meeting, we will have roll call, pledge of allegiance, any mayor an mayoral announcements, proclamations, and recognition.

Uh we'll also have first item will be uh sales tax and monthly financial report.

Do we get that today or is that next week?

Okay, next week.

Okay, then we have our consent agenda.

And so we have approval of the June 16th 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

A two is a resolution to approve the purchase of two commercial mowers.

And I don't have glasses, I have sunglasses there.

So purchase of two commercial mowers from Professional TERF Products LP in the total amount of $205,512 and 92 cents pursuant to a source well cooperative purchasing contract plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges or delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price.

A three, a resolution.

Yes, Bob.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um who's who's uh the A2, the commercial mowers?

That's Ross and Keith.

If Ross is there, is he available to answer questions?

Yes.

He Ross come up.

I just noticed the price for two mowers.

So it's a hundred thousand a piece.

What are these these aren't your just typical zero-turn motors?

I take it.

No, these are not.

These are basically a lot of what we buy are hustler mowers.

We're mowing about five feet at a time.

These commercial grade mowers are liquid-cooled, mowing eleven feet at a time.

Oh, we're able to do that.

So these are like big Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, that was my question.

I was just wanted to make sure we weren't paying 100 grand for just zero-term mowers or correct.

That's completely different, yes.

Okay.

And Councilmember Stafford, that's the exact question I had.

I asked them in detail when it eventually came before it even made to the council.

Is can you please explain why these are as high as they are?

And they both Ross and Byron Humphrey sat down and explained they have a lot more longevity than those zero tune mowers, and they have a lot wider they're batwing mowers, correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

So they would like it would basically be like running three mowers side by side or something like that.

That's correct.

Save a lot of time.

Correct.

As well.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Ross, I just had one follow-up question.

I just was curious because I know you do less scoring and you have a certain um time frame that you expect.

What is that for these mowers comparable to other mowers that we would buy?

So typically the hustler mowers, the classification that they're in, we're expecting about three to four years of service.

Okay.

These were originally set for six years, but we've held on to them for about 10, 10 plus.

Uh by the time the new ones show up, it'll be about 10, 11 years each.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Ross.

Yep.

Thank you.

And as I read I'm still I was about to say as I read as I bet I read through these, just flag me down because I was a little caught off guard today.

Thank you.

Ross, I guess we want I want to talk about what we have in inventory.

Are we replacing inventory?

Are these are new purchases?

This is the first time we're purchasing these.

Could you give me a little background on it?

Sure.

So one of these assets, number 5067 was purchased in 2016.

5082 was purchased in 2017.

Uh we're probably looking at somewhere between a three to six month lead time for the replacements to show up on the ground.

And that's gonna depend on you know how many are available right now or upon approval of this resolution.

Um just inventory on hand.

Uh these are not first time of purchases, these are definitely replacements.

And so we do have more in stock on that is current in our inventory.

We have two of these in our inventory right now.

Okay, thank you.

Both of these right here.

So Ross, real quick, how are we able to keep these mowers lasting as long as we do?

We have an excellent fleet department who takes extreme pride in maintaining our equipment every day.

We do our best to make equipment last as long as it can, but at some point we have to replace before downtime becomes an availability problem for every department.

We have to keep them in equipment daily.

And then whatever we whatever quit equipment is left, we sell it, right?

Correct.

What both of these assets uh, if approved, will go to Gov Deals for auction when the new assets show up.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

All right.

Next item, A3, a resolution to award bid 2637 and authorize a contract with APAC Central Incorporated in the amount of 3,500.

$3,568 for construction of the MLSAP and College Avenue intersection and North Hemlock Avenue project to approve a project contingency in the amount of 357,000 to authorize acceptance of a surface transportation block grant in the amount of 3,600,000 awarded by the Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission and to approve a budget a budget amendment amendment.

Anybody?

Yes Councilmember Moore.

Thank you Vice Mayor um I just had a question about is this the totality of the financial expense we're expecting to have with this project or is there any additional potential for this particular project?

We have another item coming up that's uh some additional design services we've expended uh other funds on previous design also on right of way acquisition and and other things but this will be the this will be the last of the major contracts do you have on here and if I missed it I apologize the total amount that we're going to have between all the different portions of the project for this I don't have the total but the uh three point six million dollars of grant funds that's about 80 percent of the total project cost so can uh okay I'll do it by that number and uh you can get that answer.

But with a contingency is we're not expecting that we have to come back and revisit anything additional on this project no other than the the very next item these will be the last of the contract items all right thank you Chris Chris um also how long has this MILSAP and college intersection been in the works oh gosh we received uh I think our first award um was probably at least uh two or three years ago so it's been it's been a few years under design working its way through the federal aid process okay okay thank you um our next item a four is also tied to this intersection a resolution to approve supplemental agreement number one to the contract with Burns and McDonald Engineering Company in the amount of 937 93785 dollars for additional engineering services associated with the Millsap Road and College Avenue intersection and Hemlock Avenue improvements project any other questions for Chris on that okay thank you Chris A5 a resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize a tender agreement with U.S.

Specialties insurance company and a ACS Playground adventures to transfer project completion responsibilities for phase one improvements of Bryce Davis Park to ACS Playground Adventures to authorize additional contract days to complete work and to approve a budget amendment and Zach from Parks Keith is he in the room if so I know that this has been his item and he can answer questions about it if needed that's correct.

Come up Zach I believe Councilmember Turk you have some questions.

Hi Zach thanks for coming up here and answering some questions.

So I read through that and I was um sounds like the first contractor didn't fulfill their obligation then you've gone to insurance to try and recover those costs my uh and then you found another company is there any additional cost to the city um uh based on the scenario that's a great question no uh all the costs to complete the project and then complete the expenses that would need to be done from the contractor not fulfilling their obligations are all covered in this tender agreement no additional costs are to be expected for the city so I looked at the budget um uh the budget attachment and it looked like there was another sixty thousand dollars is that just going to be reimbursed by the insurance company um so the let's see make sure the sixty seven thousand five hundred and eleven doll that you see is the difference between how much money the city has left in the contract with this uh SSI the original contract and how much more it would take to actually complete the project so when USSIC evaluated the project they looked at what how much it would cost to fix the project to date like right now and because things have sat and there's some additional erosion for example that happened because of lack of because of negligence the original price is now increased so USSIC is paying that additional 67500 to us to make sure that the contract or the project gets completed correctly as needed.

So USSIC is paying that additional 67,500 to us to make sure that the contract or the project gets completed correctly as needed.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Yes ma'am.

I see council member Monique Jones.

Next mayor I just want to ask how are we documenting contractors that are not fulfilling their obligation to the city?

Another great question.

Yes.

So there have been a few ways to do this.

The one that we did specifically for this project was each time that I had a conversation with this contractor, I logged that conversation into a spreadsheet with the date and what was discussed and in general terms.

And that was um another way that we kept track of it was on our OAC meetings, which is for this project it was weekly we would have a write-up of what was discussed during that meeting and then on top of the agenda and anything that happens going forward we have now through purchasing a way to evaluate our experience with a contractor and that helps purchasing get a better idea of what experiences we may have with that contractor in the future.

But if there was a contractor that had an issue then we would be able to log that issue clearly and objectively to be able to kind of make sure that we have a set of expectations going forward.

So what I heard you say is you're logging it but you're sharing it with with purchasing so they can also have a record of issues that you've been having with the contract um so I I could share it with them if they needed it certainly but the purchasing thing was only like a it was like a exit kind of evaluation thing.

Sorry it's it's a newer um form that I haven't actually done it's been within the last few months that that thing has even come into play.

I think we can see you can help with that yes I can I can help out with that one.

Thanks for the questions Minister Jones.

We do we have a professional project evaluation that departments fill out when we use these contractors and vendors and that information from there gets fed in when we evaluate when we have selection committees going forward for additional um additional services I believe um you know all of all the council members have served on a selection committee and we do have part of that criteria that deals with past performance and certainly this would be something that would come up in past performance to make sure that uh the selection committee knew about the problems that we encountered thank you.

Uh councilmember more thank you vice mayor um so kind of building off of that I'm just curious then do we have criteria set at a vendor that would be in default on a major project like this that they would not be able to be eligible in the future I know we do take that in consideration on the selection criteria of past performance but I have taught heard when we've had a previous vendor not fulfill their obligation that we no longer were doing business with them do we have a set uh policy with this because I've got some other questions to ask about you know people are trying to use that space and are asking questions about the the time frame et cetera.

And so I just I didn't know if they're doing additional projects anywhere else in the city if they're not existing but then would we mark them off as a vendor or what criteria does it take to no longer be an eligible vendor with the City of Aaron.

Generally speaking I think that was that's going to depend on the specific circumstance and what exactly happened with the project.

So I mean certainly that would be something that we would take into consideration and uh like I said I think you know most selection committees um that I've been a part of over the or that I've overseen that is something that one of the top questions that's asked is has the city had experience with this vendor or contractor before and what has that experience been there's no uh not much point in repeating work with the vendor when we've had significant problems with them in the past okay thank you and then uh do we have an update then too with this change happening on what the timeline looks like for the project out there yes so as soon as this uh if this were to be approved approved and passed uh it would take about a week and a half to get all of the final paperwork ready and have the contractor start on site at that point the substantial completion date in the contract is set for two months so two months from the signing of contract which should be about a week and a half after approval of life we're we're really hoping for faster than that but you know this nothing's been too fast about this project so far.

So two months from the signing of contract, which should be about a week and a half after approval of uh we're we're really hoping for faster than that, but you know, this nothing's been too fast about this project so far.

So hopefully this is a new new page.

There's been some conversation that I think that folks, because it's been delayed or trying to access the property, both the dog park and other areas and safety concerns.

Is there currently um anything kind of being communicator or put in place additionally out there with folks that seem to be, I think, climbing into the construction area.

I'm sorry.

I mean, I and if I'm putting on the spot, we need a follow-up.

I just it's been on my list because it's been brought up to me and I hadn't had time to follow up on it.

Uh I mean, again, that's been a huge concern for us as well, and it's been uh a big effort on our parks maintenance side and even myself going out and zip tying back the snow fencing.

And um it's been a it's been a constant challenge for sure, especially with kids being out of school and a playground being right there and swing it's it's understanding, but uh the I've we've had signage out there that's been torn down.

Um and so if there's anything else that we can do, definitely let us know.

Um but uh yeah, no, that's been it's been a couple of things.

I'm curious if we proceed and do get this new vendor under contract and with you talking about the new timeline if that potentially could be communicated citywide to just have one of those kind of like you know, pardon you know, this kind of disruption that's happened, but for safety, just to help neighbors be neighborly to other neighbors to just remind them.

Yes, ma'am, yeah, absolutely.

Signage uh would I I can put signage up back out there tomorrow for sure.

You know, so yeah, absolutely.

Like that's I can add a little bit to that.

I know Alison and I've been talking about that just to try to improve that communication uh toward the public and also uh Zach and his team have definitely worked with this vendor because this vendor was already on the project, correct?

The oh ACS, yes, the uh current the incoming vendor was the playground contractor.

Okay.

Yeah, so that's something that they that's one of the reasons, primary reason we picked this vendor is because they were already on it and they're already on the ground, they know what the site is, and we feel that they they're the by far the best vendor to finish this as quick as possible.

They basically became from a subcontractor to the general contractor is what's going on right now.

Correct, yes.

So they're very familiar with the project and they have had an investment in it, and Rob with ACS has actually gone out there and pulled some snow fencing out there too.

The orange and then for the public, I think we just continue.

I guess if they're seeing something to just maybe put it and see click fix so you're aware of it.

Yes, yeah, absolutely.

Any concerns that we have.

I I've talked to them in person and parents.

Parents understand, of course, when they're out there, but I mean, if I was 10 years old, I'd I can't I'd I may have done the same thing.

So um yes, yeah, thank you for bringing that up.

Yeah, thank you.

We certainly, you know, it's unfortunate that this is being repaired and this construction's going on at this time, but we don't want anybody to get hurt.

Right.

You know, kids taking swings down and stuff like that, and you know, getting into the dog park and other stuff is just kind of it could be a little bit dangerous there.

But uh Mr.

Wheedeker.

You know, my my children enjoyed dog parks.

I would drop them off.

So I just want to what I believe I'm reading is that we've cashed the contractor's bond and that we're using the word insurance, but I mean, once you cash someone's bond, it's very difficult for them to bond in the future.

So I feel pretty safe that we will not be doing work with this contractor in the future, and maybe no one else will either.

So I just want to commend you guys for staying on top of the project.

I know this had to be a real pain for you to try to babysit someone who's not performing, and so I appreciate you hanging in there and finding a solution for us.

So thank you.

Yes, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Okay.

Our next item, A6, is a rela is a resolution to award bid 2636 and authorize a contract with Milestone Construction Company in the amount of 178,997 for the construction of a sidewalk along the north side of Mission Boulevard from Libby Lane to Winwood Drive to approve a project contingency in the amount of 17,000 and to recognize revenue in the amount of 50,000 from the Whistler Woods subdivision property owners association.

Do we have any okay?

Councilmember Turk.

Um I don't know who I can.

Chris Brown should be there and present and is able to speak to this, Ms.

Turk.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

Um, so you know, the city's gonna have to put up um about 120,000, right?

So how does that how does something like this get evaluated with all of our other sidewalks across the city?

I mean, that's a really short stretch, but that's a whole lot of money, even with the donation from the homeowners association.

Right, yeah, that's a that's a good question.

Uh the sidewalk along mission is one that is is highly rated.

Uh, it's it has a lot of traffic, a lot of school uh, you know, pedestrians get trying to get to and from school.

So uh it did score pretty highly on our on our system.

Um because it was so expensive, it had kind of gotten pushed off over time.

Um but then the property owners came forward and and had this um offer for the the additional dollars.

So we felt like at that point it was a good deal for the city and was the right time to push this forward.

So the evaluation process is through the transportation committee, right?

I mean it.

Yes, we we have a scoring system, um, and then we we present the results to that to the to the committee uh to develop that work plan over time.

Yes.

Okay, I just want to make sure I understand the process because there's probably some other um as worthy projects in other parts of the city, and this one just kind of stood out because um the city's gonna have to supplement uh this.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

All right.

Um I've been alerted that the uh problems with the audio have been taken care of by our very worthy IT department.

And starting with A7, I'm going to turn it back over to the professionals, and the mayor will be Mayor Ron will be leading the agenda session from here on out, unless I need to fill in again.

So thank you.

Yes.

Uh thank you, uh, Councilmember Bunch.

And please stay close by because you you never know.

Um we are at A7, which is a deed of declaration, First Amendment for parcel 765 148501.

This is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the deed of declaration associated with city-owned parcel.

The aforementioned aforementioned number.

And Devin Howland is there in the chambers to give a brief overview of what this means.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, Council, Devin Howland.

In 1979, a group of property owners established a private deed governing the shopping center that's located at the southeast intersection of I-49 and MLK Junior Boulevard.

It's commonly known to in Fayetteville as the former Kmart site.

Um it was anchored by Kmart at the time, and the agreement established a few things between those private property owners shared access for parking.

It also included restrictions on the development standards that those property owners wanted to see at the point in time.

Now, 50 years later, a group of collective property owners are working to amend this deed of declaration that has placed a one-story height cap over this entire shopping center.

The amendment.

So why is the city party to this agreement?

Well, back in 2015, we were building the Shalagee Trail, and we needed to do some stormwater infrastructure behind the shopping center.

There's an exhibit in your packet.

And rather than an easement for that stormwater, the company at the time just wanted to sell it to us.

So we got it for a dollar.

The unintended consequence of that is we are now party to this shopping center agreement.

And um, because that parcel was subject, the city became one of those and is now required for any amendment.

This does not interfere with our use of the property, doesn't change our use of the property, and it doesn't change any development standards down the road.

The city's simply providing one of the signatures needed across the mini group of property owners to modernize this outdated agreement.

One of those other parties is the University of Arkansas, and they inquired, what say you city about this agreement?

And so we looked at it, we reviewed it with appropriate teams, the development services team, our city attorney's office.

We saw no issue with signing it, and we said we'll bring it to City Council for consideration.

Um after reviewing the amendments, again, we see no further issues.

This is again just trying to clean up some title.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have on this.

Thank you so much, Devin.

And um Keith, if you'll call on any council members that have questions for Devin or questions for you about this.

Councilmember Moore.

Yeah, uh, thank you for explaining this, Devin.

Yeah, I was kind of scratching my head about it when I was looking at it in the packet.

But so if the deed is then we we're the first step and the deed is removed.

Um, this cat you said the one story.

So does that mean that all of those properties that are impacted, they all revert to whatever the underlying zoning is that the city has for them, and so they have all the entitled properties by right and by CP for them.

Kind of.

Okay, that's where I'm not quite okay, tracking.

Um, given this is a private agreement amongst shopping owners, uh bunch but diverse group of owners.

You've got about 10 to 12 here.

What this would do is yes the city's development ordinances govern this land but this is very much like a homeowners or private association agreement you'd see it's to make sure that folks can access their parking if they've got they're not accessing it by easements but you've got different private ownership groups.

This currently it had some very specific and I actually provided y'all a link to the original 1979 deed and if you'd like to read that and what the group is proposing to do right now.

And so it did some strange things it said you know we're not going to do any certain venues we're only going to cap it at one story where everybody's parking is going to be preferred and Kmart's going to be happy um it's been a long time and this is a very important piece of property and it's got a lot of potential.

Yeah I think in short we've had several people that are very interested in this corner and this is going to allow some more development potential in that corner.

Okay thank you.

Anyone else have questions okay Mary on to the next one.

Okay.

The next item is A8 adoption of a city of Fayetteville and University of Arkansas memorandum of understanding a resolution to approve an MOU with the university that establishes maintenance responsibilities on certain roadways and sidewalks through and adjacent to the University of Arkansas properties.

I know this one has um been something that the ward two representatives and maybe others um and I have um discussed this week and so it's a very timely and I believe Jesse Masters is going to give a little bit of information about it and Chris can also help answer questions.

Is that right Keith?

Correct.

Yes thank you uh mayor and uh good evening council Iman for Jonathan Kurth tonight he will be here next week um so you'll hear from me a little bit tonight and then you'll get to hear from him next week.

So the subject uh property in this for this uh particular request it's uh it's involving about six and a half acres of public right of way that was vacated uh by you all back in 2023 um as part of that vacation agreement uh the city and the U of A were going to enter into this uh basically memor memorandum of agreement on how to um can like basically aligning who was going to be in charge of uh maintaining which portion of that right of way uh once it was no longer within the city's um jurisdiction um so this uh before you this evening is about a 32 page document that's aligning um all of those uh responsibilities staff is recommending in favor we've not received any public comment on this that I'm aware of um and I'm sure Mr.

Chris Brown could give any more insight into the details of the agreement if you have them we have any questions on this council member Turk um yeah if Chris could come up here um so I remember when we did the vacation and I guess I'm surprised that it's taken this long to get the the MOU or the MOA um before us.

So could you just kind of summarize um because that is a lot of pages there and um my eyes kind of glazed over there at one point sure yeah I I think in its simplest form um this is uh it it it says that the city agrees to maintain the street the pavement the curbs um any of the any of the hardscape elements signals that sort of thing um everything outside the curbs the the uh U of A will maintain um and that one of the big reasons they wanted to have this is so that they would have better control over the the sidewalk area so that they could um put in senior walks they can control utilities that are that are located there those sorts of things um it also includes the agreement that if the city needs to maintain any of our facilities along those sidewalks and we do have to dig up say a senior walk or some other specialty landscaping or hardscaping that they have that we uh will pay for the cost of putting back normal typical uh concrete city sidewalk concrete uh they would pay the additional we would work out a way that we would pay them for some portion of it and then they would do the repairs themselves uh so it's really um again in simplest forms we're we're we're handling the street they're handling everything outside the street and then we'll we'll work out um anything that happens beyond that and if I can add one thing to that one of the questions you asked is how long why it took so long to get here I think uh that's been a benefit um myself and Clayton Hamilton from the University of Arkansas have been meeting on a monthly basis for quite some time now and then we've been bringing in other people uh like Chris Brown was in a meeting this week with myself and representatives from the Q of A facilities department last month it was Jonathan Kurt was in that meeting to talk about things going on.

And it was uh lacking a signature from um U of A staff.

So it was able to kind of uh through our monthly meetings we're able to identify that missing signature and able to get there um get them to sign that and get this process through.

One more follow-up question to you, Chris.

Um so if let's just say they're gonna put a senior walk in and there's utilities right there that the city it's city owns or whatever maintains, are they responsible for paying for the movement or whatever is required that would allow us to have access because once they put that senior walk in and we already know those utilities are there, why should we have to pay for tearing up the senior walk if there's a problem?

Right.

So uh the there is a clause in here about uh existing facilities.

Uh they will provide easements on any of those if they're if they're not already there.

Uh so we will have that easement.

And then again, the agreement says that if we need to dig up the the senior walk, we would pay for the cost of normal repairs using normal city concrete, they would pay the difference.

Um, or we again we would write them a check for the normal repair and then they would do the repairs themselves.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to find there's a lot of information that and Councilmember Turk was saying that's included.

And wanted to just double check if on page eight of the exhibit that that gives all of the listed um areas that are covered.

I saw in some of the background detail that potentially we were even looking at razor back from MLK to 15th Street for the future, and like on Garland from Cleveland to North Street into the future.

I'm guessing those maybe are identified for future senior walk expansions, but just didn't understand, you know, with what we're doing today, what that looks like too to evolve the potential areas and to just make sure I'm going to the right spot because I see some of the legal ease, which I can't interpret into what location that is.

So I was just trying to find what is today and then understand what it looks like for any expansion that happens since it looks like in 22 when this was talked about, there were already those areas kind of identified.

Yeah, so this includes Razorback Road to um MLK.

Okay.

Um also Maple Street, Garland Avenue.

Okay.

Um probably this page.

And then some of the streets around the uh the arts district, Hill Avenue, uh, and Leroy Pond.

Okay.

This one then.

Okay.

And that was definitely a conversation we had on staff on just kind of the the extent of where the senior walk one one staff member suggested a smaller font.

But uh, I think their machine is set to a specific size.

So and I would also say there there are provisions in here for um amending this, it would come back to the council if we amend it.

We have talked about um the section of Maple Street that's under construction right now.

They would they would anticipate doing the same thing with that, um, removing the the parts of the right of way that are outside the curb.

Okay.

Just knowing how highly pedestrian, especially um some of that portion is and and knowing that there was you know some concerns about some of the safety too with how that surfacing is.

I just was curious if we're gonna end up extending into some of those greater lengths that people are traveling from further out into the university.

Yeah, and again, any any additions to this agreement um any cultural areas would come back to the council for approval.

All right, okay.

And I will state Chris Brown and I, when we met with university uh administration last week, we did discuss the safety concerns uh with their leadership and the incident that recently happened there.

And thank you very much, yeah, for addressing that.

And it sounds like um there's some remedies in place.

So thank you very much for that.

Okay.

Sounds like we're ready for item A9, sale of city property to Rendell properties.

A resolution pursuant to section 34.27E, sale of municipally owned real property of the Fayetteville City Code to authorize the mayor to sell approximately 477 square feet of property in the south end of the Ramble Civic Plaza to Rendell Properties Incorporated for the amount of 24,665.

Chris, can you tell us more about this?

Sure.

This is a uh very small piece of property at the very northwest corner of the park hotel site, uh, the very southwest corner of the Ramble.

Uh the park hotel, as they were developing their um project, they identified a need during the permitting process for an additional egress uh to meet code requirements.

And so they've requested this property uh uh to meet that necessary requirement.

Uh this has been reviewed by staff by by park staff and and others.

Uh the city doesn't have a need for this property, and we recommend uh the sale of the the small piece of property to uh Rhindale property so they can continue their hotel project.

Any questions from council?

I didn't remember more.

We had any updates on that project and kind of how it's proceeding as part of the conversations for the need for the space on when they're doing the official kind of groundbreaking when they think they're gonna start to officially move things.

I can I guess we've met uh about three or four weeks ago with our leadership team, and they're still looking at a July groundbreaking, is what they mentioned in that meeting.

Um this was part of that um requirement in order for them to break ground is because they were going up an additional floor, they needed to re I believe reconfigure their stairwell, and that's why they needed this piece of property.

So this is definitely one of the steps that they needed in order to move forward to groundbreaking.

Okay, and that's later this month.

Well, I guess technically next month because tomorrow is the first, but that's in a July of this year in a number of weeks.

That's correct.

Correct.

That was the last information we had from their development team.

Any other questions?

Um, just a quick question.

Uh looking at the um map, this won't uh interfere with the uh the rail crossing, will it?

There no, not at all.

With the trail, yeah, it it will not, it will be to the east of the trail.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

Next item.

Next week we will have a public hearing on two raise and removals.

The first one, B1, raise and removal of a dilapidated structure located at 320 West Isla Street.

I know I've been copied on several resident um emails about this.

A resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Stephen and Cynthia Parette located at 320 Isla Street in Ward 2 in the city of Fayetteville.

Is and I see Billy already up at the podium.

Uh Mr.

Bryant, if you would um answer any questions the council may have about this raise and removal.

Thank you, Mayor.

City Council.

Um I have a summary if you'd like me to read it.

Otherwise, I can answer any questions you guys have on this.

I will have a full presentation next week, including photos.

Any questions?

All right, thank you.

The next item.

Billy, if you'll stay put because this next, I think the next two items are yours is as well.

So um, yeah.

Um item B2 is a resolution to order the raising and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on the property owned by GRL 112 LLC, located at three at 3582 North Highway 112 in Ward 2 in the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Billy.

I can answer any questions you guys may have on this.

Any questions?

Okay, I see none.

That will bring us to unfinished business, which is a raising our third and final raise and removal.

Um, it's a raise and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure at 848 North Jackson Drive.

At our June 2nd meeting, this resolution was tabled until the July 7th meeting.

Um it's the structure owned by Born in a Barn Incorporated.

Uh Mr.

Bryant.

I will allow you to answer any follow-up.

Have there is there are there any new updates from the last time we spoke about this matter that we need to share with the council?

There is okay so staff continues to have positive communication with owner representation and the property owner has completed repairs to the structure that were outlined by staff.

More repairs are needed, but staff is very confident the owner of the property will address them.

And staff's recommendation for next week will be to table this item indefinitely.

Okay.

Yes, for all these three uh uh resolutions, we need to have a slight amendment to them to more closely align with the code section that uh requires a little bit different language.

Uh so maybe the one that we're you would be tabling in definitely you don't have to worry about, but the other two, I'll have that language to you.

And uh it's a slight modification, but what it does is it closely follows the actual code section that you passed, uh, which the current language does not exactly cover it, and so I want to be exact on that.

Councilmember Stafford?

Okay.

Yeah, and it just basically regarding all three of these, or at least the first two, since it looks like uh the recommendation is to table the third.

Um the city will be like seeking compensation for whatever our costs are for the raise and removals that's correct.

The bill will be forwarded on to the property owner.

Um they'll have 30 days to pay it if they do not, then we'll place a lien on the property.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember War.

Thank you.

Um I this may not be something you have in front of you right now, may have to bring it Tuesday.

But are you able to share with us the total number of properties that we currently kind of have in process that potentially are being considered that they might face a raise and removal?

I do not have that with me, but I can get that next week.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I see none at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, that moves us on to new business.

Um item D1 is vacation 2026-5 on West Cactus Place.

It's an ordinance to approve vacation 26-5 for property located at 4307 West Cactus Place and Ward 1 to vacate 239 square feet for general utility easement.

Jesse can answer any questions um about that.

Um, and Jonathan will be back to discuss it in more detail if needed next week.

I see none.

Okay.

D2 is RZN 2026-15, northwest of North Dean Solomon Road and West Van Eyck Drive.

An ordinance to rezone the property and RZN 2026 15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of North Dean Solomon Road and West Van Act Drive and Ward 4 from RSF 4, residential single family, four units per acre, and CPZD, commercial planned zoning district, rezoning to RMF 412.

No, I'm I'm sorry, there's no four.

RMF 12, residential multifamily, 12 units per acre, and RSF 8, residential single family, eight units per acre.

Jesse.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um, so just briefly, this uh Mayor outlined the summary and uh pretty well there that this is located at the northwest corner of Dean Solomon and West Van Eyck Drive.

It's overall approximately 36.2 acres.

Um the applicant's requesting to rezone a 9.6 acre portion of the site from a CPZD, that's a planned zoning district, uh, to RMF 12, that's residential multifamily 12 units per acre.

Uh and then they also want to rezone a 26.6 acre portion of the site from RSF4 to RSF 8.

Uh staff in the planning commission agreed um and recommended in favor of the request, um, generally finding it to be compatible and an appropriate increase in density overall.

Um we did receive a significant amount of public comment, uh, primarily in opposition to the request.

Um we did have a few members of the public speak in favor of the request at the May 26th Planning Commission meeting.

Um further, we did uh recently receive um following the planning commission meeting, we received uh a bill of assurance from the applicant, uh, and that has just been forwarded uh and printed, uh, I think believe it handed to off to all of you this evening.

Um the applicant is requesting to remove use unit 26 from consideration uh of the RFF 12 portion of the site.

Um I am happy to answer any additional questions you might have.

Councilmember Turkish.

I've had a number of residents reach out and are extremely concerned about this.

Uh one of them was um, and I don't know if this is part of our review or consideration.

I'd look to um uh kit here to opine on this, but one of them was that did the school illegally swap this property uh so that can be developed.

I would guess that that was a school um attorney issue, but I don't really know.

I doubt very seriously whether that's illegal to enter into an agreement with school district and some other entity.

Uh it obviously the school district can do what they'd like to do.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't seem the council doesn't have to follow along and and do any rezoning.

Uh can't put any pressure on you for that.

So that's what seemed to be implied by this one email.

I I just don't think that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

I I just uh wanted to make sure we got uh kind of an opinion on that.

Um and I'd like to schedule a tour again because there's been so much interest in this, and uh I know it's hot out there, and um, but I think um this is kind of a big deal, and we've had a lot of public outreach uh about this.

So we can schedule that now or schedule that later whenever y'all want to.

Yeah, we can go ahead and I mean okay.

If we kind of at the end of the meeting, if we can schedule that.

Councilmember Stafford?

Yeah, just uh and and Jesse, uh I apologize because you probably told us already, but uh uh staff is in favor and planning.

What was the planning vote on this?

Yes, uh staff recommended in favor and the planning commission voted seven uh unanimously, seven zero one.

We had one member recused and a couple absences, but uh those who were present voted in favor of it.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

Minister Jones.

Thank you, Keith.

Kid, I think Teresa has a question, and I have a couple of questions around it.

One of the questions was ask Um, how can someone else request a rezone on school land if the school still owns it?

How can we legally review this for rezoning if the schools is still the owner of the land?

Well, oftentimes that's what's gonna happen.

Uh the owner will oftentimes uh allow or sign uh an authority to the planning department saying that they won't are in support of this particular rezoning, or they're gonna let this person or this entity uh go forward with rezoning, and sometimes that's even contingent that the deal won't go through unless the city council approves it.

So that's that's pretty common.

You see that many times.

And so maybe that's what happened here.

I don't know.

I'm not privy to any of these agreements, but if the property owner approves and agrees to allow this rezoning to go forward, then it can go forward.

If the property owner says no, I'm I'm not in favor of it, then there's no authority, and and the person could not bring a rezoning forward.

I think Jesse has some more details.

A point of clarification the school district no longer owns the property in question.

Um JCOR really did though.

Thank you for answering that.

I have a question for you.

I see that we have a bill of assurance before us.

Has that been an opportunity or a date set for them to meet with the community prior to issuing this bill of resurance?

Not as far as I'm aware.

Um that uh the applicant has said.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

And I want to apologize.

Um I had a little hiccup in my sound, Jesse, when you were answering that.

Um, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but were you able to clarify for Minister Jones that um the school district no longer owns the property?

That is correct.

The school district does not own the property in question.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Sorry for making you go back there.

Do we have any other questions on this item?

We do not.

Okay.

And then let's make sure to go at the end and get the tour scheduled.

Um item D3 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026-16 for approximately 2.5 acres located at 1905 East Mission Boulevard in Ward 3 from C1, neighborhood commercial and RSF4 to CS, community services.

Jesse.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so just briefly, the request on this property, um, it is located at 1905 East Mission.

Uh that's at the corner of Greenview and Mission.

There's a commercial structure on that property currently.

Uh the request is to rezone that.

Um, the property is currently split zoned between C1 and RSF4.

Uh, and the applicant would like to zone the whole the whole property to CS community services.

Um staff in the planning commission uh recommend in favor um finding the request to be compatible uh and appropriate at this location.

We did not receive any public comment on the request, and the vote was unanimous nine uh to nothing on that.

Any questions any questions?

Minister Jones.

Thank you.

Um Jesse, thank you for that.

Um but I have a question in these um not just on Dean Solomon, but also on East Mission.

I know on East Mission Boulevard is already a commercial property, they're going back to Dean Solomon.

But I notice in our West development area, um, whenever we're going from a PZD or um RMF4 to an RMF 12 or RMF 8, most of those require a 20 to 25 pre-tree preservation.

Um is there a I'm looking for a nice word to say.

Is there a way that developers do not have to 100% keep tree preservation if they just decide, let me give you the money and you just plant trees somewhere else?

Yes.

Um so that that's a great question on how our tree preservation ordinance works.

So there for every zoning district in the city, there is a minimum uh percent canopy requirement that um is established with that zoning district.

Um a developer is typically required to maintain at least that percentage on their property.

If for some reason they can't or they don't, um they are required to mitigate for those trees uh if they go if they go below that uh canopy requirement.

Um and then if there's for some limiting factor for uh an inability to mitigate, they do have an ability to pay into uh an escrow account for trees to be planted elsewhere.

Um the foresters are tasked with keeping preservation as as the highest priority.

Um we do have um which you all passed uh earlier this year, some new requirements um for developers who are choosing to go the mitigation route, they have to provide additional site analysis report um by an ISA certified arborist.

Um so there are some, for lack of better word, hoops that developers do have to jump through in order to get to that basically just paying for a fee um option.

But um, and then uh I did want to add a specific nuance to that is that if a tree, if an area doesn't actually have the minimum requirement, um they start from whatever they're currently is located on the property.

I bring this concern up because not just on Dean Solomon, but with what I found is they're just cleaning the entire land.

You see no tree canopy at all in some of these, and it makes me sad because I thought that's the whole point of tree preservation, and a lot of the trees that I've been seeing taken down are mature trees.

So I don't know if I need to take it up.

I know a lot of citizens have bought this up, so I wanted to bring it before the council.

That what are we doing to preserve areas of our community to ensure there is some tree canopy?

Yeah, it's it's a common refrain.

Uh we hear that pretty frequently in our urban foresters are doing everything they can to compel developers to preserve where they can and working on that push and pull kind of dynamic between property rights and what we are able to ask for.

So um, I I would do want to commend our urban foresters for for working through that every day.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Councilmember Moore.

Speaking uh further on the tree preservation requirements.

And Jesse, if this is something that we don't have in front of us, because I don't know who's here tonight, but when is the last time that we looked at for our zones the tree preservation requirements?

Do you know kind of like a year that we might have looked at that last?

Um just to clarify, I understand your question.

Are you talking about like those percentages?

Correct.

Um I don't know the last time that that was evaluated, but um we did again bring forward we identified an issue where people were just going basically straight to mitigation as often as possible.

Right.

Um and so we did bring forward, you know, that additional uh requirement um for developers to have to, you know, provide more ground truthing on the trees that they were removing.

Um I think it's definitely something that comes up in UFAB quite frequently um and another um and other elements of of advocacy is to try to see what else we can do about um changing our tree preservation requirements.

But um, but yeah, I I don't know, sorry, long-winded way of saying I don't know the exact year that those are.

No, that's fine.

And I can do a follow-up.

And then so you may again, staff may not be in the room for this particular one, but I was just um more of a curiosity thinking about trees going forward and and how we're doing our enduring green network and our canopy.

I just didn't know if um there was anyone in the room or attending on Zane that might be able to speak to what we're seeing across the region on the types of um percentages of uh tree preservation that as you know Rogers you know redid their code and as folks are doing re-evaluations where folks are settling, especially if they're trying to prevent maybe heat islands, if there's anyone that can speak to that, and if not, I can follow up offline.

I can kind of answer that something that we can bring in the future.

Okay.

Keith.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Stafford.

Yeah, um, I have a I do have a quick question about East Mission Boulevard, but uh just to my other council members' legitimate concerns.

Um maybe we need to look at like having like a you know, a part of the preservation, a minimum part of preservation that can't be bought out, that can't be mitigated.

That the you know, we you you have an allowance, but like you know, just a stiff bottom to that.

Um to address some of those concerns.

Um my question uh for mission boulevard is it looks like, and I just want to it's just clarity.

I think I know the answer, but uh everything to the east of that property, I believe that's the old Dillon's uh is already community services.

Is that correct?

Yes, uh that is correct.

Um it does have a bill of assurance on it, uh, the adjacent property, but um it's not we didn't find that that affected how we evaluated the and then the uh the community services would allow for like mixed use development and yes, uh CS allows for um a wide variety of residential uses and some residential or like commercial services as well.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, I see none.

Okay.

Um item D4 is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2026 17 for approximately 3.53 acres located at 3105 North Old Wire Road in Ward 3 from RSF4 to P1 institutional.

Jesse.

Yeah, so the property in question on this one is at 3105 North Old Wire Road.

Um it's basically at the northeast corner of where old wire intersects with crossover, uh, just to kind of orient you all.

Um so the request um, as Mayor mentioned, is to requ is to rezone 3.53 acres of this property from RSF4 to P1 institutional.

Um just to give a little bit of background uh for your benefit.

There previously an applicant had uh submitted a conditional use permit for this location for a child care facility, um, and that was actually denied by the planning commission.

Um a lot of the planning commissioners actually expressed a preference to see the applicant rezone this property.

Um they came back uh with a request to P1 and staff uh and the commission uh unanimously agreed.

Um excuse me, that was not unanimous.

There was one member of the commission who uh was in opposition to the request.

Um but generally uh it was recommended in favor.

Um there were some concerns that were issued uh for members of the public regarding traffic, um water and sewer capacity in this area.

Um this old wire, it's where old wire meets Skiller Skillern.

Um there are some existing traffic considerations here.

Um a lot of the conversation at the Planning Commission meeting um centered around um the fact that development at this location would actually likely improve help improve the situation because we could actually ask for uh some street improvements.

All of that um definitely still somewhat hypothetical since um it's not a guaranteed development at this stage in the game, but uh at the very least, P1 uh we did recommend in favor of finding that it was a suitable request uh and compatible with our current land use considerations and our future land use schools for the area.

Um I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Councilmember Turk.

Thank you.

Um yeah, so it it sounds like I mean, do we know?

I guess we know who the owner is, but we don't know what the use will be exactly right there.

Is that would that be accurate?

We we don't exactly know the use, but um we do believe it will probably be a child care facility, uh a fairly large child care facility.

They were indicating somewhere between 100 and 200 students.

Um it would be sort of like an after care, after school care uh facility.

That's what had come through with a conditional use permit, and it was the same applicants for the rezoning.

That said, um P1 allows for generally just institutional uses like schools, daycares, uh churches, those types of things.

Um institutional uses tend to have more of an intermittent traffic pattern rather than like a regular rush hour type traffic pattern.

Um and so we thought that um this was a better request at this location than something that would be more mixed use or strictly residential because it would be somewhat more predictable and we could actually like account for that.

So regardless of whether it becomes a child care facility or some other institution, we thought that this was an appropriate request.

Um remind me what the tree canopy coverage is on P1.

Uh I believe it's 21% 25%.

I was thinking that too, but I I wasn't sure.

And then um it looks like some of this is in the floodway, and um, so I'm it would be helpful to have a topo map for next week.

Uh because I do think there's some relief right there.

So that would be great.

Thank you.

Council Mr.

Berna.

Yeah, it would be nice, and I understand we can't uh look at traffic uh, you know, what potential traffic uh uh remedies could be for this project since it's a rezoning, but there are significant traffic concerns there.

The the traffic today backs up past Skillern, uh the intersection of Skiller and it wraps around uh I guess that's Old Wire that goes to the north and Skillern going to the east, it backs up to both sides of that.

So um now we're gonna add across the road, we're adding in the new development that uh was approved and is in the process of being developed.

It's probably about uh I would guess 40, 50 houses there.

Uh there just uh behind the uh fire station on Owire Road.

And then we approved the uh junior high that's down the road.

And one of the one of the concerns or one of the issues that we talked about then was that they would have the ability to come out the back way from the school, the backway is gonna bring them to township and Skillern.

Uh so or not township, but O wire and Skillern.

So I think this is a significant uh challenge that I think we need to uh talk about how it can be addressed.

I don't know.

I know that's maybe premature, but I want to make sure we at least talk about it and see what the process would be.

Councilmember Punch.

Well, that's exactly what I was gonna say right there.

Pretty much, pretty much sums it up because you know, in theory, when we look at this on a piece of paper, this is uh a good location for something like this.

You know, it's a stoplight and all of that, but when you think about the traffic that goes through there, and I know this is a rezoning, and you know, but I feel like this is something the traffic issues are going to be uh the traffic concerns are going to be what Scott and I are going to hear the most about from people um, you know, concerned about what's going to go in on this location.

So and and he did, you know, what he said about the school is exactly right.

You know, they're going to be coming out at this intersection here.

So I do think it is something, you know, maybe a little bit more down the road we need to be considering because I know we're going to be hearing a lot from citizens about this.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I see none.

Okay.

That brings us to item D5, sales and use tax bonds.

An ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the cities not to exceed and sale of the cities not to exceed 191 million two hundred and twenty thousand of sales and use tax capital improvement and refunding bonds series 2026 for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of certain water and wastewater systems, parks system, animal services, trails, transportation, sustainability, aquatics recreation center, and fire department facilities and improvements, and for the purpose of refunding the city's outstanding sales and use tax capital improvement bonds, authorizing the X and execution and delivery of a trust indenture pursuant to which the bonds will be issued and secured, authorizing the execution and delivery of an official statement, pursuant to which the bonds will be offered, authorizing the execution and delivery of a bond purchase agreement, providing for the sale of the bonds, authorizing the execution and delivery of a continuing disclosure agreement, authorizing the execution and delivery of an escrow deposit agreement, providing for the defeasance and redemption of the city's outstanding sales and use tax capital improvement bonds, prescribing other matters relating there to and declaring an emergency.

And I believe that um Steve and or Jennifer have a um presentation or at least some discussion to bring forward about this matter.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council.

For this item tonight, we're bringing forward documents to secure the first round of bond financing.

In March of 2026, the voters passed nine bond questions totaling 375.5 million.

These bonds will provide financing for improvements and expansion of our utilities, transportation, fire department, sustainability, animal shelter, and parks.

Upon passage of these bonds, the city reviewed these projects to determine how much bond funding would initially be needed to begin work.

And looking at the timing and scope of the work on these projects, it was determined that the city would be best served to divide that 375.5 million into a few smaller phases.

If council will recall, uh, that's what the city has historically done, and that's what we had done with the 2019 bond issues as well.

When those 2019 bond issues were passed, we had three separate issues in 2019, 2022, and 2024.

And we came to council um to issue bonds at that time for all three phases.

Uh effectively, uh, under that scenario, we split the funding into those three phases so that we didn't issue more bond funding than we actually needed at any one time to continue working on the bond projects.

We plan to do the same with this 2026 issue, and we need to keep in mind that the city is required to follow a couple of firm rules related to bond funding.

Uh we must obligate or spend five percent of these funds within six months of the bonds being issued, and we must spend 85% of the bond proceeds within three years.

And uh please keep in mind all of that's being done at the same time that our city departments are providing programs and services and construction or under their normal budgets and allocated CIP funding.

And we don't want to draw too much bond funding all at once, otherwise we're kind of under the gun to spend it according to those two rules that I read to you a minute ago.

This ordinance that we're discussing tonight.

If you want to move on to the next slide, please would be the first issue of the 2026 bond funds in an amount not to exceed 191.22 million.

Included with this council item is the standard legal documentation to offer these bonds, which is includes the bond ordinance, the trust indenture, the official statement, the escrow agreement, bond purchase agreement, and disclosure agreement.

Approval of this ordinance will authorize the issuance and sale of these bonds, and it outlines the regulations and requirements under which we would issue the bonds.

This is the first of many bond related items that we're going to be bringing forward to council over the next several months.

We're going to need to be bringing forward amendments to some of the contracts that we already have in place for additional phases of work on those projects.

And we're going to need to be bringing forward new contracts for construction to build all these new facilities under these bond programs.

Awarding these contracts will be in compliance with all the same procurement rules that the city is required to follow, and all the ones that you're used to seeing will need to be doing selection committees and all of the standard procurement practices.

And next slide, please.

This item before you tonight is simply the first financing phase of the bond issue, providing a means for the city to secure that funding and prescribing those rules and regulations that the city must follow in doing so.

At next week's city council meeting, we're going to be asking you to consider and pass this ordinance so that we can secure the bond funding and begin work on these projects as soon as possible.

In attendance tonight, we have Gordon Wilburn, he's our bond counsel from CUTAC Rock, and we have Kevin Fott from Stevens, which is our uh bond underwriter.

Uh, with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have on this item tonight.

And please, um, after this meeting, if you have further questions, please feel free to email those to uh either Keith or myself, and we'd be happy to address those at the upcoming council meeting as well.

Councilmember Turk.

Could you identify maybe that was the next slide, uh, the 191 million dollars in which how those were how that was going to be itemized between all the different uh bond issues?

We certainly can.

Would you want to bring in that slide up, please?

Okay, this is the uh breakout of the 191.2 million dollars.

Uh we're going to be issuing bonds up to that amount.

Um, so that that obviously is going to include the refunding, which was uh question one, as well as uh $89 million for water and sewer, $13.7 for roads and transportation, 11.5 for parks and rec, 17.5 in animal services, 12.2 in fire safety, 1 million for the aquatic center, 1.2 in pedestrian infrastructure and trails, and 660,000 in recycling and sustainability.

Is there going to be any follow-up with that is gonna discuss how which projects are moving forward?

Uh I guess, especially like with the Nolan plant, like what's going to be implemented there, and will the contract that specifies that um that disbursement of money will that come before the city council?

Yeah, it certainly will.

And and that that was uh the plan is to bring forward basically which specifics, the specifics about these projects as we bring the construction contracts forward.

Well, I I hope we're gonna be kept a little bit better in the loop because uh we certainly at least I was not told about uh the agreement or the proposed agreement with the uh school district.

So uh it would be helpful that we know that kind of potential arrangement on the front end rather than reading in the favorable flyer.

That was my fault.

That was what I was trying to get a hold of either the night, and I just got busy, so I apologize for not connecting with you that night.

If there are any other of those kinds of agreements in the pipeline for these bond issues or any others, it would be really helpful to let us all know.

Uh and uh, you know, I I think um we don't need to be caught having to read the newspaper to find out what's going on in the city.

That was my intent that day, and it was just a hectic day, and I apologize for not getting back with you.

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you.

And I wanted to check and see, you know, there were a lot of um kind of wish lists and proposals and some of these about potential projects.

And so it would be helpful much to piggyback on what council member Turk said to be able to see kind of what the current running list is of prioritization because we talked to voters about lots of things, and we did this.

I'm kind of having deja view of 2019.

We had a lot of hopes for things that we would be able to tackle, and there's the reality is when you start to really number crunch about um how much those cost, but we really have not had anything communicated back to the council who talks to residents about these projects on you know which ones are queued up for these particular areas.

I mean, water and sewer, we know that there's a big project that's been identified, so that one's fairly and then I would like to also um here officially too.

Um there's been a lot of conversation about the location for the aquatic center.

And so I think somewhat informally through the city, it's really been decided that it's Lewis Park and now this presentation to um the the um district.

However, there is additional conversation that the community has wanted to have around the location, and so trying to understand if we're allocating this million dollars, and I see there's some notes there about that to better understand exactly where we're getting down the road with those particular projects and wondering if that's gonna be sitting on a forward-facing dashboard or website somewhere.

Sure.

Thank you for those comments.

And you know, I think there's something in there that I would like to address right off the bat.

And those that was your comments on the 2019 bond issue.

And that was uh a little bit of a unique situation.

Uh obviously we came forward to council and we went to the voters and we issued those bonds, and then right after that COVID hit.

And so basically construction in the area kind of shut down for lack of a better term.

Um, and then when we came out of COVID, we had other cities that had issue bonds, and so we were competing for the same um contractors that those other cities were as well.

And along with that, during that COVID time frame, we also had significant cost escalations from for all of the raw materials.

So that did lead in some cases to to some of the projects that we didn't get to complete as much as we had initially planned.

Um so I I don't foresee that we're gonna be in that same situation this time.

That was kind of a unique circumstance, but I I do take uh you know what you're saying in terms of of that notification to council and and that that list of which projects we are going to be focusing on.

And I will just follow up on the dashboard.

That's something that we spent about an hour last week, I think it was Friday, just brainstorming on how to come up with that dashboard and how to best like what types of things that we want to put out to the council and to the public and to help our staff.

So it's that percent complete, percent spent, who's a project manager, what the department is.

I think that um the mayor's made it very uh a very big priority for us to make sure that we do an improved job of managing our projects, um, and then also how we explain that to the public.

So uh Steve, myself, uh Jennifer Walker, and Kevin Springer has sat down and brainstorming and we're trying to come up with a a good way to where we can have a tool for our project managers in our departments to help them manage projects, but then ultimately provide a lot more information to our public on how we're proceeding with projects.

And that you know, college avenues one of those.

It would have been nice to have a little more information out there for the public.

And you know, that was one where we had utilities that were really slowing down that work, and it would have been nice to be able to tell that story to the public on that's why that was happening.

So we're trying to learn from those mistakes and make sure that we're addressing some of those things in this public dashboard.

Thank you for that update.

And then my other question was just a clarifying question about the five percent that has to be spent.

Is it five percent of the 191 million that we're looking to take out has to be spent within six months?

Yeah, all those bond proceeds, we either need to commit or spend five percent of that within six months.

That's correct.

Okay, of issuance from the date of issuance.

Yes.

Okay.

And we haven't had a problem in meeting that requirement in the past, but it does take some planning on the front end because you don't want to issue these funds and then start the process right there.

And that's one of the reasons why we had come forward to council early on in the bond process and we used other city funds to bring forward contracts for design of these projects so that we would go ahead and refund those with the bond funding when we got it, but we would have a plan in place and we wouldn't have to hit the ground um without knowing exactly where we were at in terms of some of this stuff.

We wanted to hit the ground running.

Uh we we came forward with some of those contracts, and you know, I'm pretty I'm I'm certain that we're not gonna have a problem meeting that bond requirement.

And then my last question was um in regard to actually I'll hold I'll hold that.

I'm gonna I probably send an email and follow up on this next one.

Sounds good.

Happy to take any questions uh that you've got councilmember Bunch.

Councilmember Bunt.

Uh yes, I just wanted to add a little bit on to uh what council member Turk uh said earlier.

And I am I'm just I just want to say I'm just really disappointed that that every council member was not made aware that that there was going to be this discussed with the school board and and that sort of thing.

I mean, I I got a call, but to say that we need greater efforts would be an understatement here.

I I just think that that's not it's just kind of inexcusable to not touch base with all the council members on this and to find out about it in the paper is just uh it just is not it's that's a hundred percent my fault.

I did not reach out to council member Turk, wasn't able to, you know, did not reach out to council member more.

And I understand that, but that's you know, that's that's on you, Keith.

I'm sorry, but you just gonna have to try a little harder on that.

Thank you.

I apologize for uh for that oversight, and we'll make sure that we we do a better job going forward.

I do want to go ahead and put out um the question that I had, and if this does need to be a follow-up, I'm okay with that too.

Um I wanted to find out between the time that we um had the vote in March on the bond, if there are any particular projects that have seen cost escalations that are greater than 10% on those, and if those can be brought forward to us to be able to identify what those are and what's driving those.

Um, you know, we'll just say the elephant in the room, the aquatic center is one of them.

But because we are haven't been getting regular updates, I don't know if there are others potentially that might be out there that we're gonna have to address, and it would be very helpful to start to get our minds wrapped around it if there are any cost escalations that are out there on any of those packages.

Does that make sense?

It certainly makes sense to me, Councilmember Moore.

Sorry, it sounded like there was a lag, so I don't know who was in intending to answer, but it does make sense to me, yes.

Um we can keep you.

We have one more with Minister Jones has a question.

Oh, can you all not hear me?

Oh, yes, we can hear you fine.

Okay.

Do you uh was I I was answering council member more.

Do you want me to stop my answer?

Or no, no, no, go ahead.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Um, sorry, I apologize.

I got lost track of where I was.

Yes, Ms.

Moore, I agree, and I hear we I hear you, and I understand that um what you were saying about wanting to make sure that you are kept in um in the loop on cost escalations.

You are right.

That is the um in terms of the the the one that you mentioned, but we can also make sure that we are um communicating to you on all of them.

Um and then though I am less inclined to do it now than I was about 30 seconds ago, I did want to um circle back and and mention uh council member bunch your comment that um that was on you, Keith.

I I I want to say that's actually on me, and that is my fault, and I appreciate um Keith kind of taking the blame on that, but um this is my responsibility, and I um pledge to you all that we will make a more concerted effort to where each and every member of council feels more in the loop um on anything um publicly being communicated about the bond, including um ongoing conversations with the school district.

So I wanted to take responsibility for that.

Keith, I'm done if you would like to go ahead and call on someone else.

Minister Jones has your light on.

I just wanted to add thank you very much for that, uh Madam Mayor.

And I didn't want to sound too harsh with Keith, but I do I do feel very strongly about this, and I can't I can't stress that enough that everybody needs to be on board when something like this is going on, and and it's it's just not fair to to council members to not be kept up to date on this.

But thank you so much for that.

Yes.

Could can I follow up on that too?

Um it would be nice to be kept up like a week ahead of time.

You guys had to spend a lot of time drafting that agreement, uh, getting on their agenda, their schedule, and that you ran out of time that day right before the meeting.

I'd I would have liked to have known at least a week in advance.

Um, and I think probably other council members would like to know well in advance too.

And in addition to cost escalations, if there's mission expansion, if the scope of the mission or the building uh has expanded, I think it would be helpful to know that as well.

Got it.

No, that makes sense.

Um thank you.

Um and I wholeheartedly agree.

And uh you're right, running out of time the day of is not that that's not uh you know fair because at that point it's too late anyway, and I hear you.

Um I want to also be clear just for, and I know Ms.

Turk that you understand this, but just in case people members of the public are watching when you were talking about an agreement.

I want to make sure that people understand that we do not have an agreement with the school district in place.

Any such agreement, obviously, as you all know would go back to you.

This was um we what this was a discussion about what an agreement might look like.

I know that wasn't, I know your point remains, Ms.

Turk, but I just in case anyone was listening and got confused when they heard that word, um, there is no agreement yet.

We made a proposal um and it's the continue the culmination or the continuation rather of discussions that we've been having with the school board um since I took office.

So I just wanted to clarify um that I make a follow-up uh comments on your on your question, uh councilmember more about the cost escalations.

Uh just a couple things about that.

Uh number one, we are not able to spend any more bond funds than what was actually approved by the voters on those specific projects.

Number two, when we uh engaged uh design firms to come in and do partial design work on these projects, it was with the understanding that ultimately we wouldn't have the bond funding uh in hand until the very earliest um September.

So at this point in time, there really wouldn't be much to provide you in terms of cost escalations.

Um that that's not something that we have or at the point yet with those firms where we could say, hey, you know, what's the the difference between what you had projected initially that we were going to be spending in September versus what what you're projecting that we're gonna be spending now in any event that would need to be like the project would need to be reworked to to factor in any sort of increases in cost.

Okay, Minister Jones.

Thank you.

I'd just like to know if you can share your presentation with the council.

Have some questions and I wanted to reference a couple of things, but if I had the presentation, it'd be easier.

So thank you.

Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Keith.

Uh I feel like I'm uh the outlier here uh which isn't uncommon.

Uh, but I I do distinctly remember during the campaign for the bond issue that there was discussion of uh cost sharing by the schools to help pay for operating expenses.

I mean, that was part of the campaign.

Uh I I was fortunate to get a call from Keith.

Uh uh, and it was the day of the meeting, maybe it should have been ahead of time.

But but my reaction to that call was like, you know, just okay.

But good luck.

Uh wasn't really I I think that we should be seeking cost sharing.

I I don't know why we wouldn't.

Uh that helps us pay for everything.

But again, uh that's it.

And if I could just say one thing, it's the same thing I said at the school board meeting is uh I worked at a city in Texas where there was a separate competitive pool and a separate aquatic center, and they almost shared the same parking lot.

And it was one of those things that we looked at both sites.

I looked at them every single day, and we looked at where we could have shared we could have shared parking, we could have shared operating expense.

There's a lot of things that we could have shared, but at that point in time we did not make that decision to do that.

So that's something that was a history in my career.

I talked to their former city manager this morning and I asked him, I was like, if you had to do it over again, with would you have combined those facilities to share expenses?

And he said 100% I would.

So that's something that was just history for my you know, my prior career that I feel adamant about when we look at an opportunity to where we can share expense and uh benefit for our community.

I try to advocate for that.

Okay.

I'm gonna move on to D6.

If there are no lights on to answer to ask questions about the bond issuance.

Keith, no.

Okay.

No, go ahead.

D6, an ordinance prohibiting the city of Fayeville from entering into non-disclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of public records or public business beyond that authorized by law and to declare an emergency.

Councilmember Moore.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, there's been much conversation about non-disclosure agreements and um their use um and conducting business across the state.

Um, and so I know people fall in many different camps.

I talked with the administration back in February uh when some particular NDAs had um come to our attention um and was a little bit surprised about you know our use of those.

Um I really first want to applaud the mayor's office from putting forward a policy, um, recognizing that we maybe had some corrective action that would be helpful to be able to make sure that there's a process for looking at NDAs and for the um holding of those NDAs going forward.

Um but policies, as we know, are not you know an actual final law, and so what I'm asking for consideration of is an ordinance.

Um it goes a little bit further.

Um I'll summarize that tonight, and I'll have a little bit of a presentation on Tuesday and happy to answer questions tonight.

Um, but the the thinking is that in the state of Arkansas, we have an incredible FOIA law that allows for the disclosure uh pretty uh blanketly of records with exemptions.

And so I really listened to all the sides about we might have you know a need for an NDA um for conducting certain portions of business.

You know, there are people you know that have certain parts of their business have a lot of sensitivity.

Um and then I also heard much from the public who want to make sure that there is a great default towards the public's business being done in the public light.

And so trying to balance all those different things took me a little bit of time.

Um I want to thank residents who sat down with me too, have expertise in this, have done this in other states and other bodies that they've served on and who contributed their thoughts to this.

But the state of Arkansas has a FOIA law that basically has um exemptions for businesses for things that are their competitive advantage that are listed here.

Um and so in the dealing of those businesses and the information they might share that would be sensitive in the event that that was requested by the general public, um, there are the abilities for those things to not be disclosed.

This policy um put in place um would state that non-disclosure agreements would not be the general everyday conducting of business because of the concern um that these wouldn't allow for um there always to be light shined on what's happening for the public, but we recognize then that there might be those needs, and so it allows for um coming forward to the city council body.

Um I think an example of this is when um the city needed um to uh talk with utility company about the price changes that most likely um I think we had to sign an NDA unfortunately to be able to then have that conversation and intervene to try to help ratepayers.

Um so something like that might come forward that we'd get a general piece of information to let them um proceed with that.

Um the other thing that it does is that um we did see that um we don't necessarily always have a very set place that these end up with the custodian of record, and we know that the city clerk's office um ultimately does the retention follow state law on the storage of our records.

And so um I checked with Clerk Paxton and they stated that this would be something that uh once it would be looked at by the city attorney's office and it would be signed after the approval from city council, uh, that their office could facilitate that being uploaded and then go through the retention policies for how they would manage that documentation.

Uh the city clerk's office is obviously our front door too to the public so that um anyone could inquire and be able to get access to that information.

Um that is uh the general um overview of uh what that would actually put in place in the city of Arkansas, a city of Arkansas Fayetteville.

And um, if you have any questions or uh feedback or comments for consideration before Tuesday, I'm very you know open and have continued to try to have conversations with folks to try to make sure that this might work for all of our needs, hopefully.

Councilmember Stafford.

Thank you, Keith.

Uh is Devin still here.

Uh no, he's not.

Oh.

I don't no.

Oh, I you know, my question uh kind of revolves around the recent uh Conagra Um expansion and the jobs it created in the economic development and I'm wondering and this will be a question for Devin next week, maybe the uh you know, something like this, would it inhibit us from uh like would that have failed if Devon wasn't able uh to sign an NDA in that um instance.

I know that they were talking to other cities.

Um now, counter to uh local conspiracy theories, I have never signed an NDA in regards to city business.

Uh and I don't think any of the other council members have.

I don't think any of us have.

And and I would be welcome to a thing.

This is a an elected council member cannot sign an NDA.

I mean, what we do has to be by definition, we we are servants of the people, and we with our FOIA laws, we have to be completely open.

Um that said, in my business, and I think uh in my business in my personal business, I've signed many NDAs because I can't share my clients' information.

And there has to be an agreement that says I will not share my clients' information.

And I think there's certain aspects in in in city business where you want where a business will that wants to come here and create jobs here, would want to have those same uh protections, whether it's uh with corporate secrets or real estate uh preventing real estate speculation, there's a lot of legitimate reasons.

Now, I think we could look at best practices and and see what the state recommends uh with with you know in line with FOIA and and maybe come up with something that restricts the use to very specific cases and a very specific subjects in those cases, but I I I I would have concerns about unintended consequences as far as economic development went when it does come to like an outright ban on that.

Is that okay?

I think there was I'm sorry, Mayor.

I know I was just gonna say uh thank you, Bob, and and yes, Devin will be uh present at the meeting next week, and you can certainly um pose that question to him, he'll be available.

Sorry, Ms.

Moore, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just just in response, yes, had sensitivity to the potential for that need.

And uh I know that uh Stacy with the Fateville Flyer had FOIA for the past five years of documents across cities.

We know that across the region, so many different industries and um new entities are coming to town, and um Fayetteville had signed uh uh more NDAs by far than any other cities.

Um the other cities had only signed one.

I think in uh I think it was Rogers and Springdale.

And so that that was a consideration for sure that you know, but because of FOIA and particularly um, you know, the Arkansas Freedom Reformation Act creates an exemption, any state or federal statute that requires confidentiality creates that a court order or any other protection that's recognized in Arkansas law, and so I'd be happy to chat with staff if they think there are or if you have language for potential exemption areas that we need to add.

I'm definitely very open to visiting on that because the thought was trying to leave a carve out area in the event that something was needed, if that helps to councilmember Turk.

Bob, if you want to respond to Sarah, I'll hold mine.

No, I don't have a response to Sarah.

I I I I heard her points out at a separate question, so uh I'll let you go.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

So um Kit, I had a question.

Um, I do appreciate the administration with their new policy.

Uh but I think again it was kind of like wow, we were the council was all left out of kind of knowing that uh some of these businesses were coming toward our town, and and that staff had signed the NDA.

And so is it possible?

Just and maybe you need to think about this for a little bit, but could we take an executive session?

Could the council have an executive session to discuss NDAs?

Don't think you can.

The executive sessions are for personnel items, and that's about the only thing you can discuss in a an executive session.

So I think if you want to discuss NDAs, you just need to do it out here in the public.

I mean, why would you not want to discuss in?

Oh, you're talking about a particular NDA?

No, I don't think you can do that in executive session.

It has to still be done in the public.

And the executive session restriction for just personnel matters, is that like a state law, or is that it is a state law?

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

And uh my council member stafford, sorry.

Yeah, my question is for kidding also.

Kit, can we get a uh like an opinion um from the legal department on your view of of this?

Well, are you you could get an opinion, but it'd only be of only the legality, not of whether or not to say, yeah, just yeah, a legal opinion on and probably I I think that is uh the way it's drafted, it's probably not illegal to do that.

Uh there's nothing in the state to says you have to agree to an NDA, uh non-disclosure agreement.

Uh there are provisions within the Freedom of Information Act, so that you don't share information that could be damaging to a uh an entity.

So a lot of times they might they're protected by uh the Freedom of Information Act more than uh any NDA because you have to follow state law, and if they say, hey, we're giving you this information, but it's in we can't let you spread it around because it can hurt us financially or hurt our business model, then actually it would be improper for the city for that particular staff member to release that because that'd be in violation of the FOI.

Oh, if we could get clarification on that, like a written clarification on that.

I'd like to understand that better.

Thank you.

Is your and Mr.

Stafford, just so that I'm understanding it is your request to Mr.

Williams to provide an opinion on the legality of Ms.

Morse proposal or the legality of NDAs in general?

Um, but we're to what Kit just said in his last statement of what protection, you know, if we were to ban NDAs, what protection does a company have regarding whether it's trade secrets or business plans?

Uh uh I see.

Yeah.

So that okay, I'm with you.

Councilmember Whittaker.

Thank you.

I think.

I think I have two questions.

And the first one would be would there then have to be significant redactions to documents?

Which almost kind of problematically doesn't solve the problem of transparency.

Um, and if that's the case, I would at least like to understand.

If there's requirements and documents are going to be redacted, we're kind of back in the same boat of that generating suspicions.

I would I would think on the public to say, hey, I've got a redacted document.

So that would be valuable for me to know.

And then if we're gonna hold a public hearing, I think the challenge for me is to say a non-disclosure agreement.

Well, it becomes a disclosure agreement if you hold a public hearing and name entities and name what they're looking at.

So, how do we solve that issue on um even if you subsequently say yes, this uh non-disclosure agreement makes sense?

Well, how do you have debate and discussion about it?

So I think that nuance would be helpful for me as an individual to understand more about.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Oh, okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, I believe that the um only thing left, that's it for our agenda for what we will hear next week.

The only item left for this time is um the results of our external audit.

Um, this has been something that Stephen and Jennifer and the entire finance team has uh worked really hard on and also then presented to our audit committee.

And so I'm gonna turn it over to Mr.

Dotson to introduce um our um the chair of our audit committee and to talk more about our annual audit.

Thank you, Mayor.

We've reached the end of the uh Financial Statement Audit for 2025, and we published the annual comprehensive financial report out on the city's website.

Uh the financials were audited this year by Forvis, um, which is a national firm, and they've performed the city audits for the last few years.

At this point, we have chairperson of the audit, the city audit committee, Ann Garrety here tonight, and she's gonna provide a report on the conduct of the audit and on the city's compliance with federal and state guidelines and grant requirements.

And hi, good uh good evening.

Uh, I'm pleased to be here as a representative of the audit committee to report the results of the City of Fayetteville's 2025 audited financial report.

Uh the city's auditors, Forbes Mazars have issued their independent auditors report on the financial statements with an unmodified opinion.

This means that the city's financial statements are presented fairly and in all material specs in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles.

Uh this on a modified opinion is auditor speak for a clean opinion, which is the highest level of assurance an auditor can give.

Uh Forvis Mazars also noted no material weaknesses, significant no significant deficiencies or no issues of noncompliance on the internal controls over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on the audit of the financial statements performed in accordance with the governmental auditing standards.

And lastly, as part of the engagement, four of us Mazar is reviewed the city's compliance with major federal programs and have that have been awarded.

These awards can uh vary each year, the ones the awards that are audited.

And in the current year, the major federal award programs that were audited are the highway planning and construction program, the recreational trails program, and the Safe Streets for All program.

For VS Mazars issued an unmodified opinion on their report on compliance of each major major federal program and report on internal controls over compliance, noting no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, and no issues issue.

Sorry, no instances of noncompliance.

Overall, it was another successful year for the city.

And on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank Stephen and team, uh, Aaron with the Internal Audit Department and the City staff for the work throughout the year to make this a successful audit.

Any questions?

I ran through that very fast.

I guess I just have one comment.

I know Steve uh he doesn't get too excited, but he was pretty excited when he uh finished this audit.

So if you ever want to see Steve in a very good mood when he finishes the audit, he's in a really good mood.

So I just want to thank I have one comment too.

I I guarantee you uh both myself and our bond counsel out here are happy with the work that you all do to make sure that we stay completely clean and do everything right.

So thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Thank you for your service.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

It's um affirming um reaffirming to to hear uh that we have such an opinion, and I know will be uh meaningful to the taxpayers as well.

Thank you.

And I apologize, I can't see Keith or their lights on questions for Miss Uh Gardy.

Uh Councilmember Turk.

Uh I just wanted to say we still have one piece of business with uh scheduling the tour.

Yes, I have not forgotten that.

I just wanted to get through the agenda first.

Um, and do we want to wait?

Um, Miss Turk and and and Jesse, do you all want to wait until Jonathan does he need to be a part of scheduling, or do you want to go ahead and do that now?

Um so Jonathan is out through the end of this week, and then I will be out next week.

But um like I have access to his calendar of mine, so I think good.

Yeah, okay.

I think we can work it out.

Um I would suggest Monday, um, because we're you know a lot of people are gonna be out of town on Friday.

And so I know that we have the ordinance review uh committee meeting.

Um but is that okay we delay it that a little bit?

I'm fine with move uh moving the meeting, might give us some extra time to uh gather the information that we were uh kind of tasked with.

Okay.

I'll look at see what availability is later that we're so if we could do that at at four, if that's not too early or 4 30 um on Monday, that uh that would be great.

I think there's a lot of interest from the public that they definitely want to tour out there.

I think 4 30 would be uh better for me for we'd kind of eat into the workday.

Okay.

Is that okay with everybody?

Okay, and it just so I'm clear.

This is just the the one site, the Dean Solomon location.

Okay, that's the only one I'm I'm suggesting at least.

Okay.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

Do we have anything else?

Keith, do you have anything else?

Just the only thing I have is that uh on Friday city officers are closed for the July 4th week, and then on Saturday, we will not have residential trash and recycling.

Um transfer station will be closed on Saturday, which includes our uh compost um facility.

So that's all I have, Mayor.

Okay, great.

Thank you all so much.

And Transportation Committee.

Tell me again, you cut out.

I didn't I said Transportation Committee, Transportation Committee.

Keith, is that on the same Zoom link?

On a separate Zoom link.

Separate Zoom link for transportation committee.

All right, good night, everybody.