Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-19 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 1 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting May 19, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on May 19, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Rawn called the meeting to order. Present: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, D’Andre Jones DHA, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, Mayor Molly Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Keith Macedo, Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson, Staff, Press and Audience. Pledge of Allegiance Council Member Bunch held a moment of honor and silence for former Council Member Sloan Scroggin who had passed away the week prior. Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: Mayor Rawn announced that items B.1, C. 2 and C.3 would more than likely be tabled for two more weeks. She then commented on how remarkable it was that the City of Fayetteville prioritized and centered resident comment. She asked that all members of the City Council listen to the public comment with respect and expected the same from the audience. If negative behavior continued to happen, there would be an invitation to leave the meeting. She asked that comments not question Council Member motives, as they had the best interest for Fayetteville at heart. She reminded the public that public comments had a strict 3 minute limit that would be enforced. Those we reside in the City of Fayetteville would be called upon first, adding that was the reason they requested the address of each speaker. Lastly, she added that the City Council Ward 3 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Min. Monique Jones Ward 4 Position 2 Mayor Molly Rawn City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton Ward 1 Position 1 Council Member Dr. D’Andre Jones Ward 1 Position 2 Council Member Sarah Moore Ward 2 Position 1 Council Member Mike Wiederkehr Ward 2 Position 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 2 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov meeting was not a town hall format, meaning it was not a question then answer format. It was not an opportunity to ask questions of staff and/or City Council. A Council Member could choose to respond to the question, but they would use their time as they wished. City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: None Agenda Additions: None Consent: Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rule that requires Mayor Rawn to read the Consent Agenda. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Rawn asked shall the Consent Agenda pass. It was approved unanimously. Approval of the April 21, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved. Approval of the May 5, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved. Construction Contract for Pavement Crack Repair: A resolution to award Bid 26-26 and authorize a contract with Emery Sapp & Sons, Inc. for pavement crack repair at the airport in the amount of $142,393.23, and to approve a 10% project contingency. Resolution 117-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): A resolution to approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to authorize continued installation, operation, and maintenance of FAA owned navigational, communication, and lighting facilities on airport property. Resolution 118-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Grant Application for Terminal Apron Rehabilitation: A resolution to authorize an application for an Arkansas Department of Aeronautics Grant in the amount of $300,000.00 to fund 80% of the costs for the Terminal Apron Rehabilitation Project at the airport. Resolution 119-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 3 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Grant Application for General Aviation Apron Rehabilitation: A resolution to authorize an application for an Arkansas Department of Aeronautics Grant in the amount of $200,000.00 to fund 90% of the costs for the North General Aviation Apron Rehabilitation Project at the airport. Resolution 120-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk SWEPCO General Utility Easement: A resolution to authorize Mayor Rawn to convey a utility easement to Southwestern Electric Power Company for the relocation of electrical infrastructure serving the airport terminal. Resolution 121-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Clabber Creek Bridge Replacement: A resolution to express the willingness of the City of Fayetteville to utilize federal-aid funds for the Clabber Creek Bridge Replacement project. Resolution 122-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval Request to Submit SS4A FY 2026 Grant Application to Pursue Supplemental Funding for Safety and Mobility Improvements on E. Joyce Blvd.: A resolution to authorize an application for an 80/20 federal-aid grant through the Safe Streets for All Program from the US Department of Transportation in an amount not to exceed $7,200,000.00 for the completion of the safety and mobility improvements on Joyce Boulevard. Resolution 123-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bruckner's Truck and Equipment Collision Repairs Contract Amendment: A resolution to amend the Professional Services Contract with Bruckner’s Truck and Equipment to adjust labor rates for heavy truck and fire apparatus repairs pursuant to Resolution 47-25. Resolution 124-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Fire Apparatus Replacement through Delta Fire and Safety Inc.: A resolution to approve the purchase of a Spartan Pumper Tanker Fire Apparatus from Delta Fire and Safety in the amount of $1,370,800.00, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges and delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 125-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Adoption of Fayetteville Fire Department Administrative Policies: A resolution to approve updates to Fayetteville Fire Department Administrative policies. Resolution 126-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 4 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Improvements to Lake Sequoyah Bridge: A resolution to award Bid 26-31 and authorize a contract with Mobley Contractors in the amount of $599,219.77 for improvements to the Lake Sequoyah Drive Bridge, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $100,000.00. Resolution 127-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval of a Contract with CARDS Holdings, LLC D/B/A Ecowaste Solutions for Processing of the City’s Commingled Recyclable Materials: A resolution to award Bid 26-28 and approve a two year contract with CARDS Holdings, LLC D/B/A Ecowaste Solutions Inc. for processing of the City’s commingled recyclable materials in the amount of $50,000.00 for the remainder of 2026, and an estimated monthly cost of $4,100.00 beginning in 2027. Resolution 128-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Commit ARPA Interest and Reallocate Unused FPL ARPA funds to Childcare Program: A resolution to commit $1,447.00 in returned American Rescue Plan Act funds and $7,518.00 in accrued interest to the Childcare Assistance Program, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 129-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk ADM-2026-0013: Administrative Item (Lots 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173 & 174 Magnolia Parks SD. PH. 5/Magnolia Parks SD., 244): A resolution pursuant to § 166.04 (B)(2) of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to approve the request to not dedicate additional right of way along West Lierly Lane. Resolution 130-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: 516 North Fallin Avenue Sewer Damage Claim: A resolution pursuant to §39.10(C)(4) of the Fayetteville City Code to authorize a payment of $100,000.00 to Chris Skrocki for a sewer damage claim arising at 516 North Fallin Avenue. At the February 17, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the March 5, 2026 City Council meeting. At the March 5, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting. At the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the May 5, 2026 City Council meeting. At the May 5, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the May 19, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Stafford stated the applicant contacted him because he hadn’t received final details and wanted the opportunity to address some technicalities. He then motioned to table the item for two weeks. Council Member Stafford moved to table the resolution to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 5 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov This resolution was tabled to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. New Business: Additional Positions to Improve Development-Related Service Levels: A resolution to authorize the addition of two full-time equivalent positions in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, and to approve a budget adjustment. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth stated the item was pulled off the Consent Agenda at the Agenda Session for a broader discussion about the positions. He did not have a presentation prepared but was available for questions. Council Member Moore explained she pulled the item to have a better understand from the administration around the thought that went into the request. She mentioned previous conversations on head count and statistics she had heard but not seen in reporting. She assumed the goal was to provide better customer service and reduce timelines but didn’t know the current baseline. Chief of Staff Keith Macedo explained that Development Services brought the need for the positions to his attention due to the amount of workload in their department. Due to the amount of revenue the department generates, the positions paid for itself. With the popularity of building in Fayetteville, Development Services was trying to keep up with demand and he thought the positions were a clear cut opportunity to improve services for the development services community. He commented that the Development Services department brought in business and housing and he felt it was worthy of addressing mid-year and not waiting for the budget calendar. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Resolution 131-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN-2026-0011: Rezoning (1002 N Hall Ave/ Central United Methodist Church INC, 443): An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026-11 for approximately 0.40 acres located at 1002 North Hall Avenue in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, four units per acre to UN, Urban Neighborhood. Mayor Rawn and Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Williams discussed the rules of order and procedure. Council Member Stafford moved to table the ordinance to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 6 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov This ordinance was tabled to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. RZN-2026-0010 North Hall Avenue: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-10 for approximately 0.31 acres located at 800 North Hall Avenue in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre, and P-1, Institutional to UN, Urban Neighborhood. Mayor Rawn stated the item also had a request to table by the developer. Council Member Bunch moved to table the ordinance to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This ordinance was tabled to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. Appeal: LSD-2025-0019: Large Scale Development (South of N. Marks Mill Lane and North of E. Ash Street/Ramay Jr. High School, 368): A resolution to grant the appeal of City Council Member Teresa Turk and deny Large Scale Development LSD-2025-0019. Council Member Turk stated she decided to grant the appeal on behalf of seven citizens, residents of Fayetteville, who were very concerned about safety. She stated a lack of clear understanding of the Planning Commission’s decisions on where some of the safety controls would be located. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. He reminded the City Council that staff supported the large scale development and recommended approval. He reminded the City Council that denying the appeal would uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval. He reviewed the location of the development and stated it was mostly within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District with a small portion in a FEMA floodplain. The project had last come before the City Council in December 2025. Since then, the school district and design team had converted that concept into engineered drawings for the large-scale development, which largely matched what the City Council had previously seen. The plan included two central buildings, a track and field on the southern side, a circular internal drive network with multiple access points and an emergency only entrance. The building would be around 150,000 square feet and multi-story. He reviewed key considerations, including five variance requests and required street improvements. The first variance was to reduce one way drive aisle widths from 12 feet to 10 feet. He was in support of this because it would reduce site disturbance on the sloped property and naturally slow vehicle speeds, improving pedestrian safety. The second variance requested the omission of sidewalks along Ash Street. He supported it because the project would provide a connection to the Fayetteville’s midtown corridor, adding that the trail connection would serve pedestrian needs more effectively and offer an accessible route to College Ave for those with mobility limitations. The third and fourth variance requests were tied to access management standards. The third involved the location of the main access Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 7 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov point on College Ave. Staff supported it, although it was close to other curb cuts, because it aligned with how the school district intended to use the site, coordinated with neighboring property owners and matched Fayetteville’s Safe Streets for All plans. The location was the safest and most functional option for vehicles, staff and buses entering the property. The fourth variance dealt with the requirement to prioritize access from the lower volume street. The standard was designed for corner lots with only two street options, not a property with three street frontages. He went on to explain Fayetteville planned to install a traffic signal at College Ave and Poplar, which would make College Avenue the safest access point. The final and fifth variance addressed parking pad standards in the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District. Code typically required parking lots to be broken into smaller sections to reduce hillside disturbance. The school districts linear parking layout reduced disturbance more effectively than the traditional rectangular design. He thought the proposal met the intent of the ordinance and he supported the request. He described the requirements for each street improvement and right of way dedications, which the school district did not object to. He reiterated staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval, including the five variances, street improvements and right of way dedications. He stated that the City Council could only deny the project for one of six codified reasons. He was available for questions. Attorney Rick Woods presented on behalf of Citizen Jennifer Cook. He stated the large scale development should be denied as he believed it created/worsened a dangerous traffic condition. The sites features and the design of the surrounding roads would compound an already dangerous situation, specifically at the Ash and Walnut intersection as he felt the roads were insufficient for the increased traffic the project would bring. He described the effects of the projects topography as the school sat on the side of a mountain. He went on to review the traffic studies, noting the initial study showed a majority of the traffic going to College Avenue, but a later study had shifted more traffic towards Ash Street, adding that the traffic impact analysis showed approximately 88% of vehicles approaching from the east during peak hours. He believed East Ash Street would not be capable of handling the increase in volume. He mentioned a letter from Crafton Tull to Planning Director Jessica Masters from February 3, 2026 that stated two thirds of school traffic would arrive via College Avenue, but he believed the traffic study contradicted that claim. The community’s primary concern was traffic safety and spoke of potential children’s safety and inclement weather concerns. He disagreed with the traffic impact analysis’ stating that a new signal at Poplar Street would not cause backups on College Avenue, adding that College Avenue was already difficult to navigate. He felt the speed cushions on Walnut and Ash Street were more of an afterthought rather than a studied safety measure. He then referenced visuals of a bus navigating the area where the West Ash Street entrance would be, mentioning the tight turns and lane control issues, which he felt would worsen with increased traffic. He reviewed more safety concerns regarding the navigation of both pedestrian vehicles and busses. He felt there needed to be something safer for the citizens of Fayetteville but most importantly, for the children that would have to cross the street. Prism Design Studio Representative Hunter Adkisson spoke on behalf of the Fayetteville School District in response to the appeal filed by Council Member Turk. The project had undergone extensive collaboration with city staff and had both staff and Planning Commission approval. The concerns mentioned in the appeal, traffic, stormwater and pedestrian safety, had been discussed for over a year through multiple public processes, grading permits, rezoning, Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 8 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov large scale development hearings, school board presentations, Environmental Committee meetings and a town hall with neighbors. He felt the project had not been rushed due to the level of due diligence and public engagement. He went on to review the details of the site circulation. He explained that parking was limited to a single row along flatter portions of the drive to minimize disturbance to the hillside. He said that each variance was to reduce site impacts and improve pedestrian and vehicular safety. He reviewed signage and sightline exhibits along Ash Street, emphasizing the attention to pedestrian safety. The traffic study showed Ash Street was capable of handling the projected traffic and that the sight distances met American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines. He explained that the sidewalk variance improved safety by separating pedestrians from traffic, reducing site disturbance, and offering a more manageable grade and went on to describe curb-cut changes. Each variance addressed a site specific difficulty and improved the project by reducing environmental disturbance and enhancing safety. He stated that the appeals claims were thoroughly reviewed by staff and publicly discussed. He then added that Fayetteville School District Superintendent Dr. Mulford wanted to address the City Council. Fayetteville School District Superintendent Dr. Mulford refuted the claim that the large scale development plan was not the actual plan. The presented plan was official and had to do with potential acquisition of additional property. There were 10 acres to the Northeast that had come available as a possibility to acquire. The Fayetteville School Board had not decided on the purchase, but it was being explored. Council Member Stafford and Dr. Mulford discussed feeder and traffic patterns for Woodland Jr. High. Council Member Moore and Hunter discussed the entrances to the project, including the emergency only gateway, which was a gate with a lock that only the Fire Department had access to allow them access to the site even if there was a blockage elsewhere. Council Member Moore then specifically addressed the option of a right turn/right turn out. Hunter stated that was reviewed by staff and if it did pose any traffic issue, it would be addressed and easily adapted. He called on Trent Wessner with Crafton Tull to add anything that may have been left out. Trent stated the school district was open to the right/right out option and that was discussed with the Planning Commission. If the City Council wanted to make that a condition, they would be open to it. They then discussed the flow of automobiles and the crosswalk accessibility. Hunter stated the project was open to whatever city staff requested of them. Not reflected in their plan was a trail connection from the project to Old Wire, which may be completed by the time the school opens. That would eliminate almost all students crossing the crosswalk as they would come in on the north side. They anticipated crosswalks having limited use in the area and when the trail was finished, it would be even less. The project was willing and ready to have any supports necessary to ensure students were safe as they came to school. Attorney Rick Woods responded that one of the highest safety concerns he had when reviewing the project was that a student could be right in the path of an automobile when using the crosswalk. His biggest concern was the threat to life for pedestrians. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 9 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna added that in watching the Planning Commission meeting, the subject of pedestrian safety was brought up and it was mentioned there would be crossing guards at every crosswalk during the transition of students. He then confirmed with Jonathan that the light at Poplar Street was planned, whether or not the school was built or not. They went on to discuss whether the number of variances associated with the project was unusual for similar unique properties. It was added the staff’s position that the variances were requested to make the project overall safer. Council Member Bunch and Crafton Tull discussed a slide image that was used that showed a large gap between the trail and Ash Street. Hunter stated there was a tree preservation sliver they were maintaining that was approximately 40-50 feet. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan went on to discuss the variance for the proposed trail in the property. It would be narrow and typical standards would apply to it; allowing 6ft for trees to be planted to provide a buffer. Council Member Dr. Jones confirmed with Jonathan that the variances were to make the project better and safer. Council Member Turk stated during the last Planning Commission meeting, there were several recommendations made quickly and she was extremely concerned about safety, questioning whether a bus would be able stop within the distance of 500 feet due to the steepness, the grade and shortness of the stop. She questioned if any analysis had been done by Crafton Tull. Trent stated the American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials Green Book 2018 was used to do the site triangle analysis and site stopping distance analysis. There were tables and equations that helped determine site stopping distance for both the passenger car and a larger vehicle. Council Member Turk asked if there was specificity for school buses and if the American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2018 was the most recent version. Trent explained the 2018 version of American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials was what city code required and was the requirement for street standards. It referenced three design vehicles; passenger car, single unit truck or a combination truck. A school bus would be in comparison to a combination truck. It would take 11.5 seconds, referenced in table 96, adding that the site stopping distance was 200 feet up Ash Street. Council Member Turk then questioned if they had visited the site or only relied on the manual. Trent stated they had been on site several times and stated there was plenty of site stopping distance from their onsite observations and from calculations from the reference book. The City Council received 25 public comments regarding this resolution. Council Member Dr. Jones stated he was approached by a member of the school board about his role as a City Council Member. He clarified he does not receive any compensation from the Fayetteville public school system. His employer was Next Steps, where he saw students who received Medicaid services, meaning he was paid by the state of Arkansas. He reiterated he didn’t receive payment from the Fayetteville school district; they did not supervise him or his schedule. After his conversation with a member of the school board, he contacted Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington about the comments received. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 10 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Williams went on to explain that the Fayetteville Rules of Order and Procedure stated that no member of the City Council with a direct, or indirect, financial interest in any items before the City Council should participate in the discussion of or voting on such matter. A mandatory recusal only occurs if a City Council member had a direct financial interest in the passing, or failing, resolution or ordinance and it is the City Council members’ decision whether there was a conflict of interest. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan discussed if the stormwater storage that was planned for underneath the ball field would be required if the ball field wasn’t built. Jonathan stated the storage requirement would be the same, it was based on the amount of imperviousness proposed on a piece of property. Council Member Bunch then questioned why the crosswalks were push button and not motion censored. City Engineer Justin Bland stated it was an option but the city had found that at times citizens rely on the motion censored exclusively and don’t check for vehicles. Council Member Moore followed up on the prior discussion by acknowledging that the site was incredibly challenging which had been why she was a “soft yes” during the rezoning process. She had been concerned about the site related difficulties, especially when wanting to improve pedestrian safety. She mentioned a conversation she had with a teacher from Washington Elementary and expressed appreciation for teachers who stepped in to keep students safe. As a parent whose child would attend the new school, she was aware of the challenges in accomplishing driver compliance in areas that involved children and families. She asked that the city look for strategies to improve safety and consider possible additional measures. Justin stated is absolutely was possible and he knew that Mobility Coordinator Dane Eifling had the Safe Routes to School plan coming up. Council Member Wiederkehr stated the City Council was not going to relitigate the rezoning, which he had not supported months prior. He explained his intention had not been to oppose the school but to urge the school district to count the cost before beginning the project. His concern had been that the project would start only to find that it could not be completed, which would have been catastrophic for the community. He stated that once the rezoning was approved, he committed to treating it as a unanimous decision as he trusted the other 7 members of the City Council. The current issue was simply about safety and cost, which he believed could be mitigated. He was confident in city staff to address the technical details and he would continue to entrust those responsibilities to the professionals who handled them daily. He would not support the appeal. Council Member Min. Jones stated as City Council member she tried to stick with the facts and the reasons for denial that had already been outlined on whether it could be denied or not. Her and Jonathan discussed safe paths and safety measures for particular entrances. Jonathan explained there were two crosswalks proposed with the project and speed cushions. She then questioned where the stormwater overflow was on north and south Ash Street. Justin Bland responded stating the way the site was designed was so everything within the site was going to be collected, including the areas along Ash Street, routed through a detention pond or water quality treatment. It had been designed per the drainage manual for the 100 year storm event. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 11 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Jonathan then clarified differences in the original drawing versus the Planning Commission approved drawing set design, mentioning grading work and contour lines. Council Member Berna shared a recent interaction with a citizen regarding his vote on the rezoning regarding this project. He supported the school district when the rezoning was being voted upon and he couldn’t support the appeal because he felt the variances requested made the project better. He acknowledged it wasn’t perfect because there wasn’t an easy site left in Fayetteville to build on but he felt the project addressed some of those issues. He couldn’t remember a project that had been this scrutinized and felt it wasn’t fair to say the Fayetteville School District hadn’t been transparent in their process. He would be supporting the school district until they gave him a reason not to and he would not be in support of the appeal. Council Member Stafford understood the concerns about Walnut and Ash Street, and shared the concerns, independent of what the school was planning to do. He felt it was the city’s responsibility to make improvements to that section of road and would push for it in whatever way he could. It seemed to him that the appeal was giving citizens another chance to air their grievances, and he appreciated the time that went into presentations to better express their feelings, but he felt the variances improved the project and made it safer. He would not support the appeal. Council Member Turk expressed thanks for the opportunity to discuss the item. She argued that the Fayetteville School District had changed their mind and design multiple times and felt that was not transparent. She also felt the safety concerns many citizens mentioned had not been discussed. There still wasn’t a traffic study that documented correct information, including an absences in tables five, seven and four. There was a lack of information about the 40 foot retaining wall and the safety concerns around retaining walls. There was no conversation on ADA access and how the standard would be met. She stated there would be a child injured or killed and felt the sight distance was inaccurate, the slope wasn’t calculated correctly and didn’t believe school busses could stop as quickly as they said. She would be supporting the appeal based on safety. Safety was always her top consideration and felt it should be everyone’s’. Council Member Moore agreed that some issues would be worked on in the development. She mentioned a public comment that said there was state statute that would reduce speeds on College Ave. Justin explained the state law that required posting of a school zone within 300 ft of either side of the school grounds, which meant it was a reduced speed limit when children were present. It would be similar to how Fayetteville High School operated on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. With the Safe Streets for All project, the city was looking into doing traffic calming in the projects area and were hoping to reduce the speeds through the design features of the project. Council Member Moore then questioned access through a connection point in the Summit Terrace subdivision. Jonathan stated the plans did show a pedestrian access way from the north side of the school to the south end of Marks Mill Lane, which was a development code requirement. The school district had not requested a variance to remove that currently. If they wanted to, it would require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. There had been discussions about real estate agreements that may impact access to it, but the city was not a party in those discussions. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 12 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore reiterated comments from Council Member Wiederkehr. She did have reservations and concerns about safety and there were still issues to work on with the school district and the city. She would not be supportive of the appeal. She appreciated the conversations in the community and felt it was important to continue to ask questions, it’s what made Fayetteville a great place to live. Council Member Stafford motioned to go to a vote. Council Member Bunch and Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington clarified what a vote for or against the appeal meant. Council Member Stafford moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution failed 1-7. Council Member Turk voted yes. Council Member Berna, Bunch, Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore and Wiederkehr voted no. This resolution failed. Continuing Alignment of Development-Related Fees with Service Costs: An ordinance to align development—related user fees with the costs of associated services by amending Chapter 51 Water and Sewers, Chapter 94 Fire Prevention, Chapter 110 Telecommunication, Chapter 116 Door to Door Solicitation at Private Residence, Chapter 118 Business Registry and Licenses, Chapter 157 Notification and Public Hearings, Chapter 159 Fees, and Chapter 178 Outdoor Vendors of the Unified Development Code. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Council Member Moore questioned if the increases going forward would incrementally change over time based on inflation. Blake stated his office did have a concern about that and stated if it was tied to a particular index, it may not match up to every point in the future. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 6998 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Appeal: BOA-2026-0002 South School Ave: A resolution to grant the appeal submitted by Swarm Aero and determine that Use Unit 22 Manufacturing is the most appropriate classification for this business. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 13 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn stated that allowing the amount of public comment that Fayetteville allowed was something she was very proud of as it was a core value. She thanked everyone for being at the meeting and stated all at the dais would treat the public with respect. She reminded the audience that the City Council meeting was not a town hall meeting, it was not a question and answer format. There would be zero tolerance for disrespectful behavior and if a member of the public was repeatedly disrespectful, they could be asked to leave. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth started his presentation stating that staff supported the appeal to uphold the zoning determination that Swarm Aero was correctly classified as Use Unit 22 Manufacturing at 3660 S School. He went on to explain the city’s business licensing process. An application was submitted in December 2025 by Autonomous Defense Tech Corporation, doing business as Swarm Aero for aerospace research and development. After reviewing the proposal, he found four main activities; research and development, material storage, assembly and fabrication. The property was zoned I-1 and the activities he identified aligned with three use units; warehousing (21), manufacturing (22) and office/studios (25). Due to manufacturing being the most prominent activity, he applied Use Unit 22. Code did not specifically list drone manufacturing he emphasized that Chapter 162 authorized the Planning Director to interpret the closest applicable category. Several listed manufacturing types align with drone production. Use Unit 22 covers a wide range of fabricated metal and manufactured products, from general machinery to transportation equipment, including body shops and structural metal products. It also includes items like fabricated wire products, electronics, and finished cooling or air conditioning apparatus. As drone fabrication was similar to what was listed, the Planning Department approved their portion of review. After that, the Fire Marshal inspected the site and confirmed the activities underway, allowing the business license to be issued. Staff also checks for consistency with past decisions to ensure business are treated fairly. Fayetteville had approximately 30 businesses under Use Unit 22. When the zoning determination was appealed by a resident to the Board of Adjustments they approved it with a vote of 3-1, overturning staff’s determination. In responding to questions from the City Council, he reviewed the property’s prior uses which included Cooper Power Systems, Hannah’s Candle and Keytronics. All of the more recent businesses at that location had been classified as Use Unit 22. He went on to address if high level permitting, such as Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality permits, could guide the City Council’s decision. Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality permits don’t align cleanly with zoning categories, since they applied broadly to air and water impacts across entities. He was available for questions. Vice President of Swarm Aero Spencer Rodriguez was grateful for the opportunity to address the room; he appreciated and admired the commitment to Fayetteville and civic duty. He believed the business was properly zoned. He went on to address two of three concerns; safety and environmental. The process was highly safe and was using advanced manufacturing techniques. There were no toxic or harmful gasses used in the processes, including a very low risk of fire. There would be no data centers and they had very low water use as most of their off gassing was water vapor. He moved on to the benefits of the business, mentioning investment opportunities and resilience. They were investing in the facility and equipment and bringing opportunities to the area. They would never have jobs overseas; the jobs would always remain the in the United States. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 14 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Robert Rhoads read a letter from the Chancellor of the University of Arkansas, dated from May 19, 2026, expressing support for Swarm Aero to remain in the Fayetteville area. Workforce Director for Springdale School District Rodney Ellis explained his role in the community was to connect career and technical education students to industries and business partners in Northwest Arkansas. He deeply cared about the future of the students in Northwest Arkansas. He believed Swarm Aero should be allowed to operate in Fayetteville as companies like Swarm Aero provided real opportunities for students pursuing STEM careers. The students were learning industry skills and could partner with Swarm Aero for opportunities. He believed the concerns about Swarm Aero could be addressed through collaboration and education. He was proud students were able to graduate into a community that welcomed innovation, opportunity and supported the industries of tomorrow. Mike Malone stated Swarm Aero picking Fayetteville was the perfect example of an economic development match that would benefit the city. It would benefit the University of Arkansas and the city residents. He then stated there would be a chilling effect on Fayetteville’s efforts and ability to attract companies that pay high wages. He acknowledged concerns about raising income levels and expressed a need of mixed jobs within Fayetteville. Swarm Aero’s wages would help alleviate it. Swarm Aero planned to hire 8-10 employees in 2026, 24 – 50 in 2027 and potentially 350 as more orders came in. He felt it was the best move to increase Fayetteville’s per capita income levels. Council Member Stafford and Spencer discussed specifics to Swarm Aero’s business practices. They would not produce ammunition or explosives and would not be testing the drones in the area; they would be tested in a different aerospace. The aircrafts would be finished and assembled on an airport, never in a factory. There would be ground testing but no flight testing. Council Member Stafford then asked Fayetteville Economic Development Director Devin Howland the economic consequences if the appeal was denied. Devin stated he had concerns for economic development as it related to the appeal not passing. It would severely damage Fayetteville’s reputation as a city open for employment and investment. They then discussed how many businesses were opened in Fayetteville on average, which was 20 businesses per month in the first quarter of 2026. Council Member Wiederkehr requested clarification from Jonathan on the difference in Use Unit 22 and Use Unit 23. Use Unit 22 covered industrial activities that may create adverse environmental effects, which is why it had to be located away from more sensitive land uses. Use Unit 23, which was a heavy industrial category, was reserved for creating the greatest environmental impacts such as strong odors, loud noise, air pollution, unsightliness or risk of explosions. The current Use Unit 23 businesses included two concrete plants and White River Hardwoods. He added that if a business handled explosives, it fell under Use Unit 31, which was for heavy industrial facilities with explosion risks. He reiterated that Swarm Aero aligned most with Use Unit 22 and staff stood by that classification. Council Member Dr. Jones asked how many jobs Swarm Aero would bring in their first year and what the education requirement would be. Spencer anticipated a full rate of production of employing over 600 people in Fayetteville, a majority of jobs would not require a four year Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 15 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov college education, which was important to a community that less than half adults have a college education. They were looking to expand to 8-10 employees by the end of the year and slowly add from there. The average salary would be above the median salary for Fayetteville and would have engineers in an attractive six figure range. Council Member Dr. Jones then asked if Swarm Aero had alternatives to Fayetteville if their license didn’t work out. Spencer stated they looked across the country but they were very committed to Fayetteville. Council Member Dr. Jones went on to address that the biggest concern from the community was fear and he wanted to know how Swarm Aero planned to address that concern. Spencer stated that Swarm Aero could have done a better job of communicating. It was partly his fault, as he was out of town during the Board of Adjustment hearing and was recently coming into town. He was no committed to finding ways to engage the community and hoped the town hall help the week prior helped ease concerns. Council Member Berna questioned the process by which Swarm Aero was going to create their product. Spencer stated in Southern California, where he was from, surfboard manufacturing was very common and it used similar processes as Swarm Aero. He also provided the example of golf club heads and bicycle frames. Council Member Berna then asked Fire Division Chief Jeremy Ashley about the safety of Swarm Aero. Fire Division Chief Ashley explained the Fire Marshal’s role in determining the building’s occupancy type under fire code. When Swarm Aero first applied for their business license, they were only using the front office area, so he classified that portion as a standard Business Occupancy, the same category used for dentists or tax attorneys. He informed them they would need to conduct additional inspections to determine the correct occupancy for the rest of the building. After visiting the site, reviewing their operations and discussing their intended activities, he determined the facility included multiple occupancy types; Business for the office portion, F-1 (Factory, moderate hazard) for manufacturing activities and S-1 (Storage, moderate hazard) for materials storage. A single building can legally contain multiple occupancy types and the three times he mentioned accurately reflected how Swarm Aero was utilizing their space. Council Member Berna and Jonathan then discussed how the decision on the appeal didn’t just affect Swarm Aero or the building but could have multiple effects throughout the city. It was announced that the City of Fayetteville’s YouTube livestream was experiencing technical audio issues. Media Services was working to resolve the problem, but the Zoom audio feed was still working. Council Member Turk thanked Swarm Aero for their town hall they hosted the week prior. She wished everyone had been more polite and respectful, but she felt there were great questions asked. Council Member Turk, Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington and Jonathan Curth discussed the process if Swarm Aero did not follow through on their processes as advertised. Jonathan explained it could be identified in a few different ways and there were potential checkpoints built into the system. If for any reason they continued to operate illegally, their business license could be revoked and the city would go to the city prosecutor. Council Member Turk then asked Spencer the processing procedure for the drones. Spencer explained the drones would be assembled at the airport and there would be another facility to assemble the drone components north of the assembly. The current space was not large enough to support the Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 16 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov 600 employees mentioned, so they would need to expand onto the airport for final assembly and testing. This would be accomplished in the span of three years. Council Member Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington and Jonathan discussed the correct due process if a decision was made that a use unit had been misapplied. Council Member Berna then asked if Jonathan had ever seen a business with an active business license that had to go through what Swarm did after being approved, to which Jonathan replied he hadn’t and was not aware of any record of it happening. Council Member Berna and Blake then discussed the grounds of which the city could discriminate against a specific business and treat them differently. Blake stated to avoid any kid of equal protection claim, the city would have to treat like businesses similarly. They then discussed how the decision to approve or not was not to be decided upon who Swarm Aero contracted with but was a zoning issue. Blake stated the City Council should be focused on the activities occurring on the property and whether they fit within the Use Unit as was interpreted by the Planning Director. Council Member Berna clarified the City Council could not use zoning to regulate who a business contracted with and if they did, could potentially be at risk of violating state law. Council Member Berna then asked Devin Howland if he had any additional comments about the potential economic development issues he foresaw. Devin stated that if Fayetteville developed a reputation of challenging business licenses on companies they didn’t like, it set a dangerous precedent. A great deal of the employment leads came from state and federal partners. If the appeal was not granted it would send a signal to the Arkansas Economic Development Commission that Fayetteville was not open for business. Council Member Turk and Devin discussed if there were any other businesses that were using military applications in Fayetteville. Devin stated Department of Defense contracts were not new in Fayetteville. He did not have any defense related inquires in the pipeline currently and Swarm Aero was the first he’d seen in Fayetteville. Council Member Stafford and Devin then discussed the previous tenant, Keytronics and their five market voter verticals, which included aerospace and military. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules to allow the applicant who went to the Board of Adjustments to give their presentation for ten minutes as it was not information the City Council had heard. Council Member Moore moved to allow for the original citizen who filed the appeal 10 minutes to present. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Rawn stated the members of the public did still have time for their public comment which would follow the upcoming presentation. Citizen Jesse Buchanan provided his presentation he gave to the Board of Adjustments to the City Council. He asked that the City Council uphold the Board of Adjustment’s finding that classified Swarm Aero as a Use Unit 22. He stated the issue was fundamentally about zoning and thanked the City Council for keeping the focus there. He argued that Swarm Aero’s operations Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 17 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov belong to I-2 General Industrial rather than I-1 Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial as I-2 was designed for uses that create more significant environmental impacts. I-1 districts were meant to remain compatible with nearby residential areas and excluded uses that create objectionable environmental influences. The Board of Adjustments proposed Use Unit 23 (Heavy Industrial) and a member had also raised Use Unit 31 (Facilities emitting odors of handling explosives). He provided examples of businesses in both the use units to demonstrate the difference in environmental impact. He then mentioned Swarm Aero’s public statements where the company describes plans to mass produces thousands of UAVs at a scale not seen since World War II. He was personally worried that Swarm Aero was not an appropriate fit for Fayetteville. He went on to describe the size of the drones being built and stated it was not light manufacturing. He further reviewed the variety of use units, stating that Use Unit 31 aligned clearer with Swarm Aero. He referenced materials disclosed at the town hall the prior week, noting that two chemicals used in the facility were rated 3 out of 4 for flammability and that carbon fiber, a core material, produced highly combustible dust during trimming and fabrication. He felt those hazards aligned with use Unit 31’s criteria. Adding that carbon composite aircraft materials qualify as miscellaneous plastic products which Use Unit 31 included miscellaneous plastic products which further supported the reclassification. In the Unified Development Code 160.1.3it stated zoning regulations were intended to ensure compatibility with nearby residential districts. The facility sats near the Country Club neighborhood and was less than half a mile from Greenland public schools. He felt the scale, materials and potential environmental impacts of Swarm Aero were not compatible with the surrounding area. The objectional environmental influence was not specifically limited to environmental factors such as how it affected trees and waterways. It was anything that affects the environment around it, including the surrounding community. Suspension and revocation of a business license in Fayetteville code was possible for a threat to peace, health or safety of neighbors or other Fayetteville citizens. He believed the applicant should go through reapplication and rezoning, as would any other business who was found to have an inappropriate use unit designation to their property. Council Member Berna asked if Swarm Aero could come and speak to what the appellant stated as it contradicted several of their operational procedures. Blake stated it would be better to address the concerns after public comment. Due to a public comment mentioning how to properly handle non-disclosure agreements, Mayor Rawn called on Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington to overview the process. Blake stated that in the non-disclosure agreement he reviewed, and the ones he had created, there was always language included that states the city could release information that’s required to be released under state law or court order, which included the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. During public comment, Mayor Rawn announced that the IT department could resolve the audio streaming issues on YouTube by restarting the system, which would take ten minutes. The City Council took a ten minute recess to allow the reset so viewers at home could hear the remainder of public comment. Chief of Staff Keith Macedo also clarified that the meeting would continue through discussion and would not pause at 10:30pm. The City Council received 63 public comments regarding this resolution. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 18 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna referenced the public comments spoken that had questioned the City Council’s integrity and accused the council of receiving money for the project. He went on to clarify that he had never received funds for this project, and he took offense against those accusations being made. Mayor Rawn thanked Council Member Berna for his comment and apologized for the accusations. Council Member Berna requested that the applicant explain the process of how the product was developed, and whether the material would be rubber and if there would be fluid discharge. He mentioned that he would also like to speak to someone regarding the non-disclosure agreements as well. Spencer gave a brief description of plastic and carbon manufacturing. He went on to explain how the process involved a combination of carbon fiber along with resins. He then clarified that they did not use solvents in significant quantities, they only used them between manufacturing steps to clean tools, a quantity of which they had shared with the Fire Marshal as well as the City Council. Council Member Berna requested that the applicant explain why they would use the non- disclosure agreement. Spencer stated they used nondisclosure agreement for two purposes; to protect their proprietary research when working with different industry partners or research universities and, as in the case of the city, it was used as a regular real estate practice for a large site selection to keep speculators from driving up prices or trying to come in front of them. Council Member Wiederkehr spoke of how tonight’s display of democracy in action was part of the rationale for he and his family wanting to live in a place like Fayetteville. He went on to describe the rule of law and how the rules were the same for everyone based on what was currently in place, and those rules couldn’t be changed tonight and retroactively applied to someone who was already here. He then addressed public comments that had been made that he deemed untrue about the City Council and felt those comments were inappropriate. He went on to explain how the City Council was dealing with a process that in most states was considered a ministerial permit, which meant that the rules were the rules, and there were no grounds for government to withhold that which someone was entitled to. He clarified that his job was to review the rules and how to apply those rules consistently over time. Council Member Turk spoke of how the City Council had not been aware of the non-disclosure agreements being signed. She questioned that if the City employees had been prohibited from signing the agreement, would that have influenced the company’s decision to come to Fayetteville. Spencer stated they did not have any non-disclosure agreements with where they were based in California, and that they had not experienced any issues with non-disclosure agreements in other cities they had worked with in the past. He went on to explain how in this instance, they had Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 19 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov wanted to be able to share the real estate transaction they had been working on. He stated that alone would not have precluded them from coming to Fayetteville. Council Member Turk shared her concerns regarding the carbon fibers and their suspension in the air and how the company planned to handle that. She went on to question the toxicity and or explosiveness of said fibers. Spencer stated carbon fiber was not flammable, but that the carbon fiber dust at high concentrations could be combustible. He went on to explain how carbon fiber particles were released during two processes; when trimming and sanding, which typically occur in self- contained environments and therefore the concentration of said carbon dust in the air would be very low - far below the levels that would lead to a risk of combustion. Council Member Turk questioned how an increase in their production could impact the amount of combustible carbon fiber they would be producing. Spencer spoke of how the goal was to minimize the amount of additional trimming and sanding being performed to the parts, and as they refined these processes, it would reduce the amount of dust released. Council Member Moore clarified that the current issue before the City Council was regarding what went before the Board of Adjustments and whether staff’s determination of Use Unit 22 was accurate. She applauded staff for their work and expertise, but went on to explain how the City Council, as the city’s policy making body, could interpret things differently than how staff interpret it. She expressed confusion regarding the project, which was for airplane manufacturing, and how it was not considered a heavier industrial use due to the materials being used and its impact, than other areas of the City zoned that way. She felt that the project fell under general industrial zoning at this time and hoped that this would help the city update its development code moving forward. She then brought up concerns regarding the business staying compliant and how that could be monitored. She hoped that the City Council would stick with the decision of the Board of Adjustments and look for the project to go through a different process to move forward. Council Member Stafford understood and respected the concerns citizens had raised regarding military defense work and the moral questions regarding war. He shared a brief personal history. He clarified that the City Council was being asked to decide a zoning question, and their responsibility was to evaluate the land use and determine whether the use fit within the standards. He spoke of how the City’s Unified Development Code had been written many years ago and needed an update. He went on to describe carbon fiber manufacturing and how there were businesses that operated under light industry zoning, such as hobbyists and bicycle repair shops, and that he considered the proposal to be light industry as the project would not be creating carbon fiber, they were only installing and assembling pieces of it. He went on to clarify that if the City changed this to heavy industry, they would be setting a precedent for other businesses using these materials. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 20 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Minister Jones clarified how the appeal was for the project to stay Use Unit 22, which was light commercial, and not be Use Unit 23. She then questioned that if the appeal was lost tonight, would a Conditional Use Permit need to be done, or would the business have to go back before the Board of Adjustments. She wanted clarity on what the process would be after tonight. Jonathan stated this had not happened before, so he did not have a clear answer, and that it all depended on how the City Council decided to act on the matter. He then stated that if the appeal was turned down, and found to be Use Unit 23, the business would need to rezone the property to I-2. Council Member Bunch thanked everyone for attending the meeting and for speaking on the matter. She addressed public comments that had been made by members of the business community and acknowledged how businesses fuel Fayetteville’s job growth and economy. She went on to clarify how the City Council was being asked to look at the City code, how it was being applied, and if staff did their due diligence on coming up with the right decision. She did not fault staff on their determination, and after putting a lot of thought into the request, she would be siding with staff on this item. Council Member Berna requested verification that staff had reviewed the businesses application, the zoning, and had determined the zoning was accurate for what the business wanted to operate under. Jonathan stated that was correct, both the zoning district I-1 on the property and the Use Unit 22. He then asked Jonathan if there had ever been 3 reviews on a business license, to which Jonathan stated there hadn’t been. Council Member Berna then verified with Blake that they could only consider the zoning and could not take into consideration any contracts the business might have. Council Member Berna stated the issue was fundamentally a zoning question. The City Council’s responsibility was to follow what the law required, not to weigh in on moral debates about war or the publics opinion. Staff had been thorough and conducted repeated reviews, following the proper process. He no longer had concerns regarding the non-disclosure agreements, stating they were standard and necessary. He would be voting in support of the appeal. Council Member Stafford didn’t think the city should abuse the laws to get the outcome it desired and it shouldn’t justify the means. Businesses should have the confidence that if they follow the rules and comply with requirements, they will be evaluated objectively. He would be in support of the appeal. Council Member Wiederkehr reviewed the various outcomes if the appeal was denied. Staff had determined the current facility was appropriately zoned for the company’s processes. He added it would likely be years before an aircraft was built, allowing time for compliance monitoring. He felt the city was obligated to take the application at face value and staff analysis and would be in support of the appeal until proven otherwise. There was a discussion on what a vote yes or no meant for the resolution. Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Page 21 of 21 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk stated this was a tough decision for her as it set a precedent. She thanked all of the citizens for coming to voice their opinions and staff for their due diligence. Staff was operating off of what they were told and there wasn’t much to observe physically yet. Given the unknowns, she would not be in support of Swarm Aero. She wanted to ensure she made the correct decision. Council Member Berna moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 5-3. Council Member Berna, Bunch, Min. Jones, Stafford and Wiederkehr voted yes. Council Member Turk, Dr. Jones and Moore voted no. Resolution 132-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Announcements: None City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: None Adjournment: 1:47 am on May 20, 2026. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer Docusign Envelope ID: 56E3B042-A1E5-86AB-8350-9E8FDA398C3F