The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2026-07-07 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 1 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting July 7, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on July 7, 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, 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. Absent: Council Member Sarah Bunch. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: None City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: Sales Tax & Monthly Financial Report – Chief Financial Officer Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson presented the April Sales Tax Report. He stated, “In April, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately $285.9 million, which was a reduction of three tenths of a percent from April of 2025. Retail trade was up 3% year over year, representing an increase of $4.3 million. Within retail trade, we saw increases in building materials, which were up 14%. Electronics and appliance stores were up 29% and sporting goods stores were up 15%. We also noted accommodation and food services were up 1% around $364,000. Those gains, however, were offset by decreases, and some of those notable decreases were $2.9 million reduction in construction and a $3.9 million reduction in wholesale trade compared to 2025. The tax collection was pretty flat. The city one penny sales tax was down Council Member Scott Berna 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 Council Member Robert B. Stafford 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: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 2 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov three tenths of a percent, around $8,400 and the county portion of the city was up nearly half a percent, around $10,000, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of really, it was pretty flat, only around $2,000 for the month. Now, in comparing the tax revenues to what was actually budgeted, the city one penny sales tax was down approximately 3.2% compared to budget around $92,000. The county portion was down around 2.46%, around $55,000 compared to budget for the month. For a combined total for the month of March, down around 2.8% compared to budget, around $147,000. Cumulatively that's going to put the city on a year to date basis down approximately 1% or $232,000 compared to budget through the month of April.” Council Member Min. Jones and Steven discussed how building percentages increased but construction materials decreased. Steven stated that oftentimes the building materials didn’t correlate in the same month as the construction projects. Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson presented the Monthly Financial Report for May. He stated, “Compared to budget through the month of May, our property tax is up 1% or around $17,000 in the General Fund. Our sales tax is down 1% but our franchise fees are up 7% or around $219,000. Alcoholic Beverage Fees, those are up around 3%. Our Building Permit Fees continue to hold strong; those are up around 36% over budget, or around $645,000. Our turnback was flat, and our charges for services were down around 2% or around $16,000. All in all, in the General Fund, we're up around 1.2% compared to budget, around $365,000 through the month of May. Over in the Street Fund, our fund totals were down around 1% compared to budget around $37,000 through the month of May. In the Parking Fund, we're down around 4%, around $41,000. Once again, this is due to something that we've talked about before, that was our budgeting for the Bakery Building Lot that we took over. We are still down around $31,000 in that lot, as far as projected revenues were concerned, but once again, this is the first time we've budgeted for that, and so we'll make adjustments accordingly moving forward. In the Parks Development Fund, we're up 2% compared to budget through the month of May, around $47,000. In Water and Sewer our fund total is up around 4.6% compared to budget, around $993,000. In Stormwater Management we're up 6% around $77,000. In Recycling and Trash; we're up around 3% around $234,000. In the Airport Fund, compared to last year, through the month of May, our gasoline sales revenues are up around 44% but one thing to note about this is basically we're budgeting for the increased cost of the fuel, so we took that into consideration when budgeting our revenues, that the cost of fuel was going to be up, therefore the cost that we charge the customers was going to be up as well. So, when you look at that high dollar amount that we're up compared to 2025 that isn't necessarily realistically saying that we are up 44% it's basically taking into consideration the cost of fuel, and our flight operations are up 3% around 326 more flight operations through the month of May. Our fund total in the Airport Fund, we are down around 6.5% or around $144,000 but I will say we've got some of our biggest months coming up, so I'm not really too concerned about that. I wanted to point that out, because my slide that I presented last month, I said we were actually up, I meant to, it was a mistake on the slide, I meant to indicate that we were down, so we are down 6.5% in the airport fund, just wanted to make that correction.” Council Member Min. Jones and Steven discussed what was calculated into the Street Fund. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 3 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk and Steven discussed a potential future bump in the Airport Fund due to the upcoming football season. Council Member Moore and Steven discussed building permits and how they were forecasted for the year 2026. Agenda Additions: None Consent: Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules that require the Mayor to read the consent agenda. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Upon roll call, the consent agenda passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Approval of the June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved. Large Commercial Grade Mower Replacements for Parks Maintenance through Professional Turf Products, L.P.: A resolution to approve the purchase of two commercial mowers from Professional Turf Products, L.P. in the total amount of $205,512.92, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, or delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price. Resolution 158-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid #26-37 Millsap & College Int. Improvements: A resolution to award Bid 26-37 and authorize a contract with APAC-Central, Inc. in the amount of $3,568,811.20 for construction of the Millsap Road and College Avenue Intersection and North Hemlock Avenue Project, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $357,000.00, to authorize acceptance of a Surface Transportation Block Grant in the amount of $3,600,000.00 awarded by the Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 159-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Millsap & College Intersection - Supplemental Agreement #1: A resolution to approve Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the contract with Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. in the amount of $93,785.00 for additional engineering services associated with the Millsap Road & College Avenue Intersection and Hemlock Avenue Improvement Project. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 4 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Resolution 160-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Authorization for Mayor to Sign Tender Agreement for Bryce Davis Park Phase I Improvements: A resolution to waive competitive bidding and authorize a tender agreement with U.S. Specialty Insurance Company and ACS Playground Adventures to transfer project completion responsibilities for phase 1 improvements for Bryce Davis Park to ACS Playground Adventures, to authorize additional contract days to complete work, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 161-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Mission Boulevard Sidewalk Bid Award: A resolution to award Bid 26-36 and authorize a contract with Milestone Construction Company in the amount of $178,997.00 for 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 $17,000.00, and to recognize revenue in the amount of $50,000.00 from the Whistler Woods Subdivision Property Owners Association, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 162-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Deed of Declaration First Amendment for Parcel 765-14855-001: A resolution to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Deed of Declaration associated with city-owned parcel 765-14855-001. Resolution 163-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Adoption of a City of Fayetteville-University of Arkansas Memorandum of Understanding: A resolution to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas that establishes maintenance responsibilities on certain roadways and sidewalks through and adjacent to University of Arkansas properties. Resolution 164-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Sale of City Property to Reindl Properties: A resolution pursuant to § 34.27(E) 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 Reindl Properties, Inc. for the amount of $24,665.00, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 165-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Public Hearing: Raze and Removal of a Dilapidated Structure Located at 320 W Ila St.: A resolution to order the razing and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Steven and Cynthia Parette located at 320 West Ila Street in Ward 2 in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 5 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Code Compliance Supervisor Billy Bryant presented on the item. The property was a two story residential building at the corner of North Vandeventer Avenue and West Isla Street. A property nuisance code case was opened and the owners, Steven and Cynthia Parette, were instructed on the necessary repairs. In December of 2022, the case was forwarded to the prosecutor’s office once communication from the property owners ceased, and without the work having been completed. A building permit was applied for in February of 2025 to renovate the house. During the review process, staff was consistently provided with inadequate information and a lack of communication, slowing down the approval process. The permit was issued on November 3, 2025, approximately 7 months after applying. Staff paused further action to allow the owners to make the necessary repairs. Building permits could remain open for 6 months without activity; after that period, they expired unless extended due to verified hardship. Due to a lack of work on the property, and no hardship being identified, the permit was not extended and expired on May 2, 2026. With increasing dilapidation and unsafe conditions posing a public nuisance, staff opened a raze and removal case on May 4, 2026. By that time, the building was in severe disrepairs. Most siding had been removed, exposing structural components such as studs, wiring, wall panels and plumbing. Some areas had house wrap, but it had deteriorated and was no longer protecting the structure. The soffits, fascia, and window frames showed significant decay, and the building was no longer usable. Staff recommended approval of the raze and removal. He was available for questions. Mayor Rawn and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed the rules of order and procedure. Mayor Rawn and Billy discussed the timeline of the complaint. Billy explained there were complaints prior to 2022, but they dealt with accessibility issues with the sidewalk being blocked. Council Member Berna questioned what occurred between 2022 and 2026. Billy explained he didn't have a clear explanation for what occurred during that time period, once cases were forwarded to the prosecutor’s office, their team assumed responsibility. Owner Cynthia Parette asked the City Council to not approve the resolution. She understood why the property was up for a raze and removal and appreciated the city’s efforts to work with her. She explained the renovation plans had been submitted and expressed intent to restore the home to its former glory. They had to stop renovations mid-project as they were required to get a permit and were not allowed to continue their work by city staff. The timeline was affected because they had been scammed by their original contractor, who falsely claimed to be a reputable builder from Fort Smith. She intended to pursue legal action to recover a significant portion of the more than $100,000 they had invested. She was now working with builders they trusted after becoming extremely cautious due to her experiences. She requested the resolution be tabled to allow the opportunity to complete the renovations properly. Owner Steven Parette stated they had tried to renew the permit but stated city staff would not discuss that option with him and he was told to come before City Council. Owner Cynthia Parette stated they were trying to make improvements on the home but they were halted in their efforts. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 6 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore thanked the owners for attending the meeting and sharing background on the property. She then questioned the timeline for completion if the item were to be tabled. Steven said that two weeks would allow them to recover the house and seal it. They had attempted to do that previously but were shut down. Steven stated it would take 240 days to complete the project. Council Member Moore then asked if in two months they would have made substantial progress. Steven confirmed and stated they needed to get the permit and be allowed the opportunity to start the project. Council Member Berna asked if the owners had hired a new contractor and if they could provide a copy of their contract with them. Steven stated the contractor was out of state but they should have the contract by the 15th of July. They went on to review the sequence of events and why more progress hadn’t been made on the property. Council Member Min. Jones asked who halted the work the owners were trying to do. Steven explained it was the Fayetteville Code Department. Council Member Dr. Jones then asked if their attorney was present and could speak. Their attorney was present but stated they had a more passive role and their representation did not extend to the City Council meeting or the ongoing issues. Council Member Turk explained she received the first complaint against the home in 2023. She questioned when the home was worked on last as it appeared no work had been done at all. Cynthia explained it was originally a roof issue, which was replaced in December of 2023. When the roof was removed, there were multiple layers of sheet rock stacked on top of the house. Once it was torn off, there was too much damage for them to deal with alone. Council Member Turk commented that if she were a homeowner of a historic property she would have secured the outside area, as it was still very open and accessible to rodents. Adding that the owners had a bit of time with the building permit to secure the property. Council Member Stafford and Development Services Director Jonathan Curth discussed the process for renewing a building permit. Jonathan explained the building permit was applied for in February 2025, but not issued until November 2025, resulting in a seven month delay. Staff documented that in September and October 2025, Steven met with building safety staff, stating he had financing secured and reviewed each item needed for the permit with staff. When the permit was issued, it had a six month lifespan. Between November 2025 and May 2026, no inspections were requested and a building inspector reported that no demonstrable work had been completed. The building official did have the authority to extend the permit if a hardship was established, but he chose not to extend it due to the long duration of the case and the increased dilapidation of the home. Council Member Stafford confirmed that the delayed period from February 2025, when the applicant applied, to November 2025, when the permit was issued, was not caused by city staff. The delay was due to the applicant not providing the additional information that staff needed in order to proceed. Cynthia explained the contractor had applied for the permit and they had suffered miscommunication with them. In October 2025 they took over the permit process, which sped up the process. They went on to review the timeline on repairs to the home. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 7 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Min. Jones wanted to know what the owner’s goal were for the property. Cynthia explained she wanted to live in the home, to renovate and expand it. The home had been in her family since 1912 and she wanted to bring it back to its former self. They then reviewed when the home would be safe for the surrounding community, to which Cytnhia replied it wouldn’t take long for the home to be wrapped and sealed, adding that it would take till the first of the year to replace everything in the original home. The City Council received 4 public comments regarding this resolution. Council Member Wiederkehr shared his professional experience working in other municipalities, specifically in building and safety. The lot was more than likely worth more than the structure itself and rehabilitating a historic building with a long-term roof failure would be more costly than demolish and rebuilding. He noted the neighbors had been more than patient and demolishing the structure would be benevolent to the owners, saving them money, time and allowing visible development progress. He emphasized the situation had gone on far too long. Staff had not declared the structure uninhabitable lightly. He acknowledged there were property rights but added that the neighbors and community had rights to safety. He felt that the city would be doing a favor by removing the structure to allow a fresh start. Council Member Min. Jones asked how the cost of the raze and removal was applied. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth explained a lien would be filed against the property for the price of razing and removing the structure, costing approximately $17,200. They then discussed whether the home had any requirements when it came to rebuilding, as it was in a historic neighborhood. Jonathan stated it would not have any specifics requirements for a possible rebuild. Council Member Berna would be supporting staff in their recommendation to raze and remove the structure. Based on the timeline, the situation followed a pattern of no follow through. He felt that more than enough time had passed for the owners to make meaningful improvements to the building. He noted the property owners had inconsistencies when asked about a contractor and contract, he felt that showed there wasn’t a way they would be able to follow through with the 2 week timeline they provided. He felt the raze and removal was the best case for the neighbors and that it would ultimately be what was best for the property owners in the long run. Council Member Stafford agreed with Council Member Berna. Nobody took pleasure in a decision to raze and remove; it was difficult and heartbreaking. He felt there came a point with a structure where it would be cheaper to start anew. In the long run approving the resolution was the right decision for the city, neighbors and property owner. He would be voting in favor of the item. Council Member Moore shared that historically when the City Council considered the possibility of approving a structures removal, she approached the decision with hesitation, as she knew many residents struggled with income, health issues and other challenges. She acknowledged the neighbors frustration with the process but expressed appreciation for the city’s commitment to providing due process in code compliance cases. She thanked staff in Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 8 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Development Services and Code Compliance for their efforts to work with the property owners. She was familiar with the property, as she has lived in Ward 2 for over 20 years. She felt that the repeated hurdles and delays, along with what the seemed to be an unsalvageable building, outweighed her usual hesitations. Given the history of the property, she was prepared to support moving forward with the removal. She hoped the owners would continue to be a part of the neighborhood. She was sure city staff would continue to be supportive with future plans the owners might bring forward in the future. Council Member Moore moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Mayor Rawn thanked all and wished everyone the very best, expressing she was sorry the structure came to this point. Resolution 166-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Raze and Removal of a Dilapidated Structure Located at 3582 N Hwy 112: A resolution to order the razing and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by GRL 112 LLC located at 3582 North Highway 112 in Ward 2 in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Code Compliance Supervisor Billy Bryant presented on the item. A citizen complaint led to an inspection on April 9, 2026. Fayetteville Fire Department records explained the main structure had caught fire in October 2024. Staff opened their raze and removal case and notified the owners a notice of violation, receiving a signed certified mail receipt on April 24, 2026. A demolition permit for the structure had been submitted by the owners and approved earlier on July 7, 2026. The building was unsalvageable, noting that even though portions of the wall and roof bracing remained, they had been compromised by the fire. He recommended approval of the item and was available for questions. Council Member Stafford asked if there was a process in place for when a structural fire occurs that razes the building on its own; requiring it to be taken down sooner. Billy explained there wasn’t one currently and he was not aware of how long the structure was under investigation by the fire marshal. Council Member Berna then asked if there was an insurance claim that could hold up the process, or anything legal that would impede the owners from being able to move forward. Billy stated not that he knew of. He hadn’t had contact with the owners, other than the signed receipt previously mentioned. Council Member Berna questioned the process as the demolition permit had been issued earlier in the day. Billy explained the permit had been paid for and issued by Red Line Construction. The property was in the process of potentially being sold, he wasn’t exactly sure and didn’t want to speak to that. The demo would likely start on July 29, 2026 and would be completed by mid- August. Council Member Berna then asked for further clarification as it seemed the owners were moving forward with their own raze and removal. Development Services Director Jonathan Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 9 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Curth explained there was a clause at the end of the raze and removal chapter that specifically stated there was a period of 30 days after the City Council issued an order of raze and removal, where the property owner had the opportunity to do the work. If Red Line Construction needed more time to finish the demolition process, staff had the ability to extend the period to allow the work to continue. Council Member Min. Jones then questioned if after a fire and inspection, the fire marshal was required to issue a specific notice to the property owner stating the condition of the building and whether it could be removed. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth explained his office met with the fire marshal’s office often. The city did not pursue raze and removal actions while a fire investigation was underway. Staff waited until the fire marshal confirmed the investigation was complete. Council Member Moore questioned what would happen if unavoidable delays occurred within the 30 days of City Council action. Billy explained the July 29th date had setbacks worked into it. By approving the raze and removal, it ensured that regardless of what might happen with Red Line Construction, the structure would still come down. The cost of the removal from Red Line Construction was $84,000. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth added there were three options when it came to the resolution; the City Council could either approve it, vote against it or table it. Council Member Min. Jones and Development Services Director Jonathan Curth discussed the process for when the city ordered a raze and removal at the same time the property owner begins their own demolition. Council Member Turk moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Resolution 167-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: Raze and Removal of a Dilapidated and Unsafe Structure at 848 N. Jackson Dr.: A resolution to order the razing and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Born In a Barn, Inc. located at 848 North Jackson Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. At the April 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. At the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting. Code Compliance Supervisor Billy Bryant explained staff continued to have positive communication with the property owner who had completed repairs to the structure outlined by staff. Staff felt very confident with the owner and recommended tabling the item indefinitely. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 10 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk and Billy discussed the progress the owner had made. Billy mentioned the windows were no longer boarded and water and electric had been established. He noted it was trending upwards very quickly, which was satisfying. Mayor Rawn and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed rules of order and procedure. Council Member Berna moved to table the resolution indefinitely. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. This resolution was tabled indefinitely. New Business: VAC 2026-0005 West Cactus Place: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-05 for property located at 4307 West Cactus Place in Ward 1 to vacate 239 square feet of general utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. Staff received a request to vacate an approximate 2.5 foot by 90 foot linear foot portion of a general utility easement along the east side of one of the lots in the subdivision to accommodate the construction of a home. There were no issues identified with the request and the applicant contacted all franchise utilities and received no concerns or conditions of approval. The only condition staff was proposing was that any damage or relocation be at the developers expense. Staff recommended approval. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Ordinance 7011 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0015 NW of N. Deane Solomon Rd. & W. Vanike Dr.: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-15 for approximately 36.2 acres northwest of North Deane Solomon Road and West Vanike Drive in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single- Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 11 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Family, Four (4) Units Per Acre and COMMERICAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT, Commercial Planned Zoning District, to RMF-12, Residential-Multi Family, 12 Units Per Acre and RSF-8, Residential Single-Family, Eight (8) Units Per Acre. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. He reviewed the location of the property, noting the request was to rezone the western portion from Residential Single Family – 4 to Residential Single Family – 8 and the eastern portion from Commercial Planned Zoning District to Residential Multi-Family – 12. Staff found the request compatible with surrounding land uses, which were mainly residential, including single family home and various multifamily developments nearby. Long-range plans also supported development, which was designated partly for civic institutional use and partly for residential neighborhood use. The property had limited infill attributes but was near utilities, parks and a city trail that aligned with City Plan 2040’s goals for active transportation and diverse housing options. Staff did note some conflict on whether it represented sprawl or infill but emphasized amenities and infrastructure that supported rezoning. The Residential Single Family – 8 zoning would allow smaller lots and higher density, while the Residential Multi-Family – 12 increased density but kept the building heigh to three stories. He went on to address tree preservation changes, noting the majority of the tree canopy east of the trail was relatively young. The master street plan included an east/west connection that the rezoning would support, improving local connectivity. The bill of assurance offered by the applicant to limit attached structures to four units in the Residential Multi-Family – 12 area, adding that the City Council would have to have a separate vote to approve it. Public opposition was focused on drainage, tree canopy and traffic concerns. During the site tour, he spoke on questions regarding tree removal for future streets, explaining the developers must mitigate tree loss except where right of way already existed. Residents raised concerns about inconsistent streetscape conditions along Deane Solomon Road. Deane Solomon Road had inconsistent infrastructure, with a section of open ditch, curb and gutter, sidewalk and areas without sidewalk. Public Works had the corridor on its improvement radar and that future development could help absorb some of the costs, making it easier for the city to complete the remaining gaps. In addressing concerns about potential wetlands, he noted the area contained hydric soils, which indicated possible wetlands. Wetland studies were typically completed at the development stage rather than at rezoning, and that previous evaluation during the city trail construction found no need for wetland mitigation. Access would not be allowed directly onto Dean Solomon if internal street connections were available, consistent with access management standards that encourage driveways to connect to lower volume streets. In response to comments about flooding at the Underwood Park pickleball courts, he explained the courts were intentionally designed to flood rather than razing the site will fill, which could have caused negative impacts in the floodplain. The Planning Commission had forwarded the request with a unanimous 7-0 vote, with one recusal. Representative of DRP Holdings Will Kelstrom presented on the item. He explained the combination of zonings resulted from conversations with city staff about the most appropriate zoning mix, adding that both staff and the Planning Commission supported the request. The bill of assurance that had been submitted prohibited Use Unit 26. They gave up potential entitlements after hearing neighbors’ concerns about multifamily development. The Residential Single-Family – 8 zoning already existed in the adjacent neighborhood, making the request compatible with nearby development. The 9.6 acre portion was currently zoned for a Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 12 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Commercial Planned Zoning District , which allowed multifamily at four units per acre, approximately 40 units. Under the proposed Residential Multi-Family – 12 with the bill of assurance, it would eliminate the ability to build apartments and instead allow townhomes. Residential Multi-Family – 12 was important for creating a diverse mix of housing types and concentrating density along the trail corridor, making efficient use of the city’s investment. He acknowledged there were low lying wet areas between the trail and Deane Solomon Road and they were still going to complete environmental analysis. He was available for questions as well as their engineer from Crafton Tull. Council Member Stafford discussed what the Planned Zoning District currently allowed, to which Jonathan explained it was limited to only multifamily, up to four units per acre. Council Member Stafford and Jonathan reviewed the enduring green network. Jonathan explained the intent was to create a hub and spoke network of natural areas throughout the city. It was not meant to capture every square foot of the enduring green network on the map as an undevelopable piece of property, it was meant to call out areas based on a series of factors; such as flood plains, hydric soils and proximity or areas of canopy. It was done in conjunction with work started by the Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association. Council Member Stafford asked how Deane Solomon Road was designed under the master street plan. Jonathan stated it was a neighborhood link in Fayetteville. A neighborhood link was comparable to a collector in regard to a naming typology and was intended to collect the traffic from local neighborhoods and convey it to arterial streets like Mount Comfort Road to the south. Council Member Stafford and Jonathan touched on requirements the developer would be required to do to bring their side of Deane Solomon Road up to standards. Jonathan explained the city required the developer to construct all necessary street improvements from the centerline of the existing asphalt to the developers side of Deane Solomon Road. The improvements included street widening, curb and gutter, green space, street trees and either a sidewalk or a trail; adding that a trail would be more likely as one already existed. If a project were too small to justify constructing the full street section, the city would at a minimum require dedication of the right of way so future improvements could be made. Given the scale of the property, he anticipated that the full street section would be built along the Deane Solomon Road frontage. Council Member Stafford noted that when touring the area, he noticed the road seemed to naturally collect water and observed the presence of willow trees, hydric soils and a generally mucky ground. He asked if the listed conditions would create potential development challenges since the ground would likely need to be built up. He also asked if the stormwater ordinance accounted for the impacts of adding fill, including the additional runoff that would result when foundations were elevated. Jonathan explained that the city’s drainage criteria manual was meant to account for the difference between how property was today compared to how it would be after being developed. In response to concerns about wetlands, Jonathan stated it was important to distinguish the difference between what a lay person might understand as a wetland versus what the Army Corps of Engineers defined as a wetland. The Army Corp of Engineers defined that wetlands must be connected to a larger network of waterways and meet a specific criteria, where some areas might simply be low lying ground that held water and supported moisture loving Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 13 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov vegetation without meeting the regulatory definition of a wetland. The project engineer was required to submit a wetland delineation study. The study was typically completed by the engineers in coordination with professional biologists. If the study indicated wetlands, and if the wetlands were a part of a broader waterway network, the findings often had to be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for further review. Council Member Moore and Jonathan reviewed the history of the Planned Zoning District on the eastern portion of the property. Jonathan did not have the exact year on hand but stated it had been around for a significant amount of time. The developer at the time sought the Planned Zoning District as a way to incorporate development of the area while preserving as much green space as possible. The portion being considered allowed multifamily development up to four units per acre. Council Member Moore noted that during the tour she noticed a significant natural water collection in the area. She asked if the area was already on a stormwater assessment or project list, given the concerns raised by nearby residents. City Engineer Justin Bland stated he was not aware of any projects in the queue for the area. Council Member Moore followed up questioning if cost share was a possibility when future infrastructure improvements were needed. Justin confirmed cost sharing was a possibility and would be something his team would look into during the development phase. Council Member Moore asked if by removing multifamily by bill of assurance changed the impervious surface requirements. Will explained it was difficult to speculate. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed the timeline and funding for improvements on Deane Solomon Road. Council Member Turk expressed confusion surrounding the access management portion. She asked whether access management would prevent driveways on Residential Multi-Family – 12 portion from connecting directly to Deane Solomon Road, meaning the driveways would have to connect to the internal street instead. Jonathan explained that was correct. He did not have the survey with him but stated there may be potential to have one or two driveways. The access management standards were set up to minimize the number of connections onto major streets for traffic safety purposes. Council Member Turk questioned the enduring green network, asking when the area was first designated as such. She felt it was misguided in some ways there were no additional protections for the area. Jonathan did not have the information available but believed it was the City Plan 2020. Council Member Turk requested clarity regarding the wetlands evaluation and asked how long the delineation process would take, the current status and what the overall procedure involved. Will explained a wetlands delineation study wouldn’t be submitted until they were actually preparing the large scale development, so they were currently in the process of figuring out what it looked like. The development engineer explained there were several factors suggesting the site might not have wetlands. Publicly available databases that mapped known streams and likely Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 14 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov wetland areas did not identify the location as a wetland. When the property was rezoned 25 years ago, wetland studies were completed and the site was not classified as a wetland at that time. Once the development process began, they would be required to submit updated studies with their plans. If a potential wetland was indicated, city staff would require them to go through the Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting process to determine next steps. No additional investigation would be done until the rezoning was approved, denied or modified due to the expense development risk of the study. Council Member Berna confirmed with Will that tabling the item would not cause significant delay to their project. Council Member Berna asked City Attorney Kit Williams if it was advisable to amend to the bill of assurance now or possibly hold it. City Attorney Kit Williams advised to hold the amendment, as he hadn’t reviewed it yet due to when it was received. Since the ordinance would have to be amended, making it subject to the bill of assurance, it made more sense to wait until the applicant met with the neighbors and then amend at a future meeting. The City Council received 15 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Turk requested the item be held on the first reading. Council Member Wiederkehr expressed interest in splitting the rezoning request into two separate zonings. The request to rezone the 26 acre portion from Residential Single Family – 4 to Residential Single Family – 8 did not concern him. The area was mostly an open field, already zoned for development and the neighbors were understanding. He did have significant concern with rezoning the 9 acre area to Residential Multi-family – 12. He worried that the building on the low lying land would require removing most of the existing trees. The difference between potentially small multifamily buildings and 100+ units was substantial. He strongly preferred separating the rezoning into two distinct requests. Council Member Moore agreed with Council Member Wiederkehr. When the Planned Zoning District for the area was created in 2003, it had intentionally included multifamily, which caused her to feel less inclined to accept the proposed bill of assurance removed multifamily entirely. The area would still include impervious surface regardless of the zoning and emphasized the importance of providing a variety of house types, especially for gentle infill. She encouraged the applicant to consider incorporated mixed use elements, adding that residents might prefer a more walkable neighborhood. She appreciated the discussion and hoped they would explore alternative project designs. She looked forward to seeing what the revised project might look like when returned to the City Council. Council Member Stafford agreed with Council Member Wiederkehr. He then requested accident data from Jonathan regarding Deane Solomon Road. Council Member Stafford and Chief of Staff Keith Macedo discussed adjusting filters on the City Council Members’ email to prevent citizen emails and presentations from going into a junk folder. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 15 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk requested a topography map of the area from Jonathan. She then added that the item still had a lot of work to be done to it, adding it was always good when the developer and neighbors worked together to come to a happy medium. Council Member Min. Jones confirmed the infill score of the property was 2.5. She then questioned if the property was in line with the City’s 2040 Plan. Jonathan explained that staff found it did not have perfect consistency across the board, noting that not every request met the six goals staff reviewed when considering a zoning. He explained the misalignment with the current rezoning was due to the establishment of an enduring green network with the eastern portion of the property. Council Member Min. Jones restated many of the concerns mentioned by the public; transportation safety, safe bike trails and walkability were especially important to her. She asked Jonathan at what point the city determined that road conditions had become too unsafe to continue approving development in an area without first address the surrounding road conditions. Jonathan explained the city used many factors when recommending street improvements to the City Council or proposing projects to the administration through bonds or the annual street budget. These factors included equity, concentration and pace of development and safety. There was no single element that rose to the top of the list, but safety was among the top and was one of the main reasons the city was successful in winning a sizable grant, Safe Street for All, that allowed the city to target high injury network streets. Deane Solomon Road was not among the high injury streets. She asked again at what point does the city decide to update the road for safety reasons when there was an obvious desire to do it. She felt there was no heightened awareness around unsafe road conditions that were creating safety hazards. Jonathan appreciated the feedback and felt providing the accident data requested may assist the City Council with their evaluation of their perception of safety. He clarified he was not suggesting residents were wrong or staff was right, but that safety concerns varied across the city’s street network. In some areas, an unsafe situation might mean frequent serious injuries or fatalities while in others it could mean something completely different and lead to different outcomes or prioritization of transportation funds. Council Member Min. Jones address another concern regarding the area becoming a food desert. She noted frequent conversations discussing creating walkable neighborhoods in line with the City 2040 Plan, yet development kept moving farther away from commercial areas that provided essential access to food. The census data did not classify Fayetteville as rural and highlighted that distances over one mile were considered significant for access. The nearest Walmart was on Black Forest Drive, roughly 3.3 miles from the development. The Razorback Transit system did not reach that far north, meaning residents would have limited transportation options. This consistently pushed neighbors farther from access to food, noting that Arkansas was ranked number 1 in food insecurity. Jonathan thanked Council Member Min. Jones for bringing up the concern. He felt it brought forward concern with building at lower densities as Fayetteville sprawled further away and the fact that the retail markets require a certain number of households to support business such as grocery stores. When developments were built at lower densities and spread out, there were fewer groceries stores dispersed at fewer intervals. Transportation access did become more difficult when developments were built at such a low level, such as four units Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 16 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov per acre, and cannot justify spending money on transit. Council Member Min. Jones then asked how the city could expand transportation access without continuously needing more funding. She urged a more visionally approach that aligned development patterns with the tax base needed to extend transportation service into outlying areas. Council Member Min. Jones discussed tree canopy preservation, asking how much the city should allow in escrow without securing onsite canopy and whether planners should identify areas where further clearing should be prohibited. Jonathan explained the city had aspirational goals for tree preservation, including an urban forestry plan that aimed for roughly 40% tree canopy citywide. The zoning districts also included minimum canopy requirements ranging from 10 – 25% and comparing those percentages to the 40% goal highlighted an inconsistency. The gap created opportunities for larger scale tree planting efforts, such as planting in parks, acquiring land for conservation and similar initiatives. It was a reality of development that projects were not always able to meet tree preservation percentages, which occurred for a variety of reasons on a property by property basis. There was no simple answer to the issue. Each property had unique conditions and the city foresters had to evaluate tree preservation on a case by case basis. Council Member Min. Jones then asked if staff looked at zoning districts by ward. Mayor Rawn stated that Council Member Min. Jones was out of time but she wanted to be respectful and give her as much time as needed. She provided the option to have a separate meeting to discuss her concerns. Council Member Min. Jones stated the entire area was categorized as a 2.5 on the infill score but was being described as meeting the City 2040 Plan goals despite numerous issues raze by residents. She questioned how the city planned to begin solving issues rather than repeatedly discussing them without progress. She shared how when she was first elected to City Council, her first question was about improving streets before they became unsafe. A year and a half later, she was asking the same question. The concerns she listed; transportation safety, food deserts, walkability and tree preservation, were real issues affecting residents. She questioned why the city was saying the 2040 goals were being met when the statement was not true. If it were, none of her concerns raised would have needed further discussion. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. RZN 2026-0016 East Mission Boulevard: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-16 for approximately 2.5 acres located at 1905 East Mission Boulevard in Ward 3 from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and RSF-4, Residential Single- Family, Four Units Per Acre, to CS, Community Services. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The property had been used commercially for decades and was currently used for medical outpatient services. The rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Services was more appropriate as it allowed a mix of residential and non-residential uses while excluding what could be considered as ‘noxious’ to the neighborhood, such as gas stations and drive-thrus. The property was currently split between Neighborhood Commercial and Residential Single Family – 4, even though the area was entirely developed for commercial use. Rezoning would correct Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 17 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov inconsistences; improve tree preservation standards and open the possibility for additional housing while still allowing neighborhood services. Staff and the Planning Commission were recommending approval, no public comment was received. Council Member Stafford and Jonathan discussed the tree canopy requirements of the area. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Ordinance 7012 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0017 North Old Wire Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-17 for approximately 3.53 acres located at 3105 North Old Wire Road in Ward 3 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre, to P-1, Institutional. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The property was an undeveloped 3.53 lot with a portion of Flynn Creek located just west of it, with some associated 500 year floodplain extending onto the site. Earlier in the year, an 8.7 acre proposal was considered for redevelopment as a childcare facility. The Planning Commission denied that request, stating a preference that it return as a rezoning focused on only the portion intended for the facility. The request was to rezone the property from Residential Single Family – 4 to Institutional. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission forwarded the request with a vote of 7-1. The Institutional zoning was compatible with surrounding uses, noting that it allowed for schools and education facilities, which aligned with the applicants plans. Due to the property’s’ location near the city’s eastern boundary, it had fewer infill characteristics and had a strong fire response due to the proximity of a nearby fire station. The tree preservation standards remained the same, there were water and sewer connections that were viable through a complex and the site topography ranged from 12 - 13% slopes near Old Wire Road down to roughly 7% in flatter areas near Crossover Road and Flyn Creek. The average grade across the site was between 6 - 7%. Public comments were primarily focused on traffic concerns related to Old Wire Road and its interaction with Crossover and Skillern Road. Council Member Stafford questioned if a neighborhood would be less or more intensive to build on the property. Jonathan stated it was difficult to say, citing it depended on the institutional Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 18 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov proposal. Residential and non-residential uses didn’t always have the same traffic impacts at the same time of day. Council Member Turk verified with Jonathan that the new zoning would have the same criteria as the existing zoning to address the floodplain area on the property. She also verified the culverts and ditches in the area were not included in the rezoning area. Council Member Berna expressed concern with development in the area before the road was improved due to traffic concerns. Jonathan explained that if the City Council decided to approve the rezoning, the city’s minimum street standards outlined when a traffic study would be required, usually based on the number of anticipated trips generated by the proposed use. The city engineer also had the right to request a traffic study if there were existing traffic issues. It was unclear whether or not the proposed rezoning would generate more or less of a traffic impact compared to what was already allowed under the existing zoning. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-2. Mayor Rawn, Council Member Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones and Turk voted no. During the vote to suspend the rules and go to the third and final, there was an initial tie of a vote of 5-2, the motion needed 6 affirmative votes to move forward. City Attorney Kit Williams asked Mayor Rawn if she would like to vote on the item. She stated she would like the item to move forward in the process and asked the Council Members who voted ‘no’ if they were against the issue or were they voting no due needing more information. Council Turk stated during public comment, information was brought forward that she would like more guidance on. Mayor Rawn felt the item was straight forward with staff recommending approval. She did decide to vote yes on suspending the rules and moving to the third and final reading, adding that the item could be left on the third reading. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore asked the applicant if delaying the item would impact their timeline. She was a proponent of additional after school care and how it was direly needing in the Fayetteville community. The items representative, Ben Sherman, stated it would not cause any issues. Council Member Turk wanted to know the number of students and busses to provide insight on the possible traffic affects. Ben explained he couldn’t speak to the capacity as it would be determined in the large scale process. He did go on to explain there was an existing after school program in Bentonville called Mobius After School Academy. The busses would pick the students up after school and take them to the facility to have structured curriculum that also included a small recreation and outdoor space. The capacity ranged from 100 – 300 students. The Department of Human Services had requirements on square footage of a building and how many students could be hosted inside. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 19 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Min. Jones felt there should be a traffic study done when discussing children and safety. She then verified with Ben that parental pickup from the facility would be between 5:00 – 6:00 pm. Council Member Dr. Jones then verified the number of students and the various bus sizes. He felt confident in staff’s findings that the program wouldn’t impose on current traffic conditions. Mayor Rawn clarified with Jonathan that public comment had been received by staff. Council Member Dr. Jones then questioned the type of public comment was received. Jonathan explained traffic was a large concern as was the adequacy of the road infrastructure and concerns about bicycle and pedestrian safety. Council Member Dr. Jones and Jonathan then discussed how long a traffic study might take. Jonathan defaulted to the applicant for the response but did explain that a traffic study would be required with the development submittal and was a likely requirement of any development application. It was a question of whether the City Council felt they needed it in advance of making a zoning decision. Council Member Berna stated when he came into the meeting he had every intention of keeping the item on the first reading as he was very concerned about the traffic. In hearing that the highest traffic times in that area were at 7:30 am, 8:10 am, 2:30 pm and 3:30 pm, he was far more comfortable. He would be okay with the item moving forward and as a representative of Ward 3, he had not heard any complaints about it. Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan discussed the entrance and exit of the property. The lower volume traffic streets would be where staff would prioritize the entrance, which would be on the east side. Council Member Moore had a point of information. She stated it seemed a couple of City Council Members wanted to do more diligence before the item advanced. She asked if the item could be left on the third reading and voted on at the next meeting. City Attorney Kit Williams explained the City Council had to either vote on or table the ordinance. Council Member Stafford motioned to move forward with the vote on the ordinance. There was a discussion that a vote wasn’t needed as it was on the third reading but that some City Council Members might want to hold the item. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed how sidewalks would be required as it related to child safety. Jonathan explained there not currently sidewalks. He could not guarantee that a sidewalk would be constructed, but given the scope of the project, he had a hard time imagining that sidewalks would not be a requirement. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Ordinance 7013 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 20 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Sales and Use Tax Bonds (Issuance Authorization): An ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the City’s not to exceed $191,220,000 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 system, 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 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 thereto; and declaring an emergency. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Deputy Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Walker stated “Thank you for letting me speak tonight. We have a very thorough bond ordinance that was just read, and now we want to talk about it. We introduced this item last week at the agenda meeting, and last week we focused on the mechanics of the financing and the legal action. Tonight we're going to expand that presentation to share the initial plans for spending the issue 2026 bond funds. Some quick facts that most of us are familiar with. The total bond issue was $375.5 million. There were nine categories, and that includes eight project categories that we just read through. On the right hand side, you see a 5% and an 85%. There are some requirements for spending down these bond funds that impact how we develop the issuances, and we touched on these last week. It's 5% has to be committed or contracted within six months, and 85% has to be spent within three years. We're looking at two to three year spending cycles, and that's how we go from a $375 million bond dollar bond issue, I'm sorry, bond election down to about $190 million bond issue. Our commitment is to provide clear current information on every bond project that is easy for the community to follow, and that's a tall order because this is a complicated program, but we are here to do it. We're building out a communication system that keeps the public up to date on plans and actions at every phase of each project. This includes project web pages that are updated regularly, financial dashboards that are in sync with our accounting systems, and regularly updated reporting. So, tonight we'll cover the 2026 issue project plans, and we'll discuss how we intend to share that information with the public. I do want to reiterate, we are going to talk about specific projects and spending projections tonight, but that is for context and understanding only. The ordinance in front of you covers these specific items on the left-hand side of this slide. It sets the outer parameters; that's the max maximum value of bond that we can go out for. It's about $191 million that sets a maximum interest rate at 4.5% and it sets a maximum length of term at about 20 years. It also includes some financing documents that were named in the ordinance, and that includes the trust indenture that assigned Simmons Bank as our trustee to act on behalf of the bond holders. It includes an official statement that includes everything you need to know about the bond packet that gets shared with potential bond holders and is also available for any interested parties. The escrow agreement includes holding accounts to set aside funds to pay off the bonds. It's kind of like our savings account dedicated. And then Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 21 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov the continuing disclosure agreement lays out the things that we agree to report on in the future, things like annual financial reports is a good example. It also authorizes Mayor Rawn to execute documents at final sale. What it does not do is on the right-hand side. This ordinance tonight does not approve any specific projects, even though we're going to talk extensively about them. It doesn't approve sites or designs; it doesn't award construction contracts. All of those will come back to council at their regular time when we're ready to move forward with projects. It also does not commit future issues, so we do have a planned schedule of every two-ish years to go out for issuance, but that could be shorter or longer, and those dollar amounts aren't set yet. We have a timeline. This timeline covers the activities related to this issue schedule, and you can see the activity will start to ramp up after this parameter ordinance is approved. The last meaningful action was in March of this year during the election. Since then, city staff has been in planning mode internally. We've been determining issue size, how best to split apart the bond into reasonable chunks of funding that we can spend within a timely manner. Most of July is ordinance activity, and then in August these bonds go out to the market. We get our rating, and the bonds go up for sale. In early September, we receive those funds, and we begin the work. This means you can expect to start seeing contracts and more specific project plans coming to council in August and September timeframe. Okay, this is a snapshot of the first issue. We're going to get into each of these details in the following slides. It's approximately 45% of the total project funds in this first issue. The biggest pieces are the refunding the prior bonds and the utilities projects, which shouldn't come as any big surprise. We met with departments this spring. We broke down the total bond program into smaller pieces. The way we identified this first issue was we identified priorities, such as fire trucks that have long lead times; utilities, that is a massive project, and it's ready to go enter its next phase. We determined how much we can reasonably spend in two to three year cycles because of those restrictions that I talked about earlier. Don't worry, we're going to revisit each of these numbers. Okay, so the first issue, prior refunding $40 million this refunds the 2022 and 2024 bonds. It does not refund the 2019 bonds, because we have already paid those off. So, this essentially refunds all bonds that are outstanding that are sales and use tax related. This is up to $40 million. We'll be bringing some cash to closing, as it were, because we're still collecting sales tax during the year, so it will likely be less than 40 million, but up to that amount, pretty straightforward. Next up is utilities, $89 million, so we have two projects. In the first issue, the bulk of this $79 million is for the Noland Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrades. This is what they, the engineers, reasonably believe they can accomplish within two years. It's phased out into phase one, and that's $79 million. We also have a 36 inch water line repair. Repairs up to $10 million, I know that 36 inch line evaluation is underway right now, and by fall we will know how much of that we need to use on the if there's any critical repairs that need to be done. And this $89 million is about.. I'm just going to do quick math for you here.. it's about 60% of the total funds set aside for utilities. Next up we have Parks and Recreation, $11.5 million. We have four projects listed here for the first issue. I'm sorry, and I should have mentioned, the total is about $25 million so it's about 50%. In the first issue, we have land acquisition for $3 million and my understanding is that's likely reserved for future fields and athletic fields. Then next down we have current athletic field improvements and park maintenance improvements, that's $1.3 million We have $4 million set aside for Kessler Regional Park improvements, and we have $3.2 million set aside for Combs Park improvements. That Combs project includes other grant funds. This is just the portion that will come out of the bond funds in the first issue. Okay, moving on. We have animal services; $17.5 million. We are asking for the entire allotment for animal services in the first issue. The reason for that is that we Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 22 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov have conceptual renderings, we're working on the site selection now, and within the next two years we believe we will be able to be ready to move into design and complete this project in a timely manner, so $17.5 million plus the cost of issuance. Okay, next up, pedestrian trails; $1.2 million in the first issue. That's about a third of the total funds that are reserved for trails. We have three projects in this first issue, and that's Mission Boulevard Trail Phase Two, and that includes Rush Drive to Maple Street. We have the Highway 62 side path, Lefler Lane to Rupple Road, and we have Midtown Trail Ash Street side path. I'll give you a little indication about what's coming later in the presentation. We are going to have some map-oriented reporting that goes with these projects that would be much more helpful than just seeing a description that says Rush Drive to Maple Street. So that's something we're excited about. Next up, transportation. This is our most complex funding formula. Transportation gets funding from a lot of sources, they don't just have one big source that includes a mix of Capital Improvement Project funds, grants, both national and state level, and bond funds. This is a picture of the next two years, how we intend to use the bond fund specifically, so total amount $13.77 million. That is about 25% of the total transportation funds. We're trying to string these out very evenly, and the primary reason for that is so that we can use these funds as match on grant funds. It just helps stretch our dollars a little better. You will also note that several of these projects have an asterisk next to them that denotes that there is additional grant funding assigned to that project. The dollar amount you see there is the bond funds that we intend to commit to this project. They are, in all likelihood, match for a much bigger project. There's 13 projects on the list here. I am going to read them all, in case someone's listening, because I think it's important. So, North Street Corridor, Garland to Greenway, and that's just right of way acquisition $300,000; North Street Corridor, Greenway to college, that's $150,000 that's match on a larger project, Town Branch bridge improvements design only, that's $870,000. We're going to have a project to upgrade signalizations, and this is the first phase, study and design, $250,000; that will get us started, and then hopefully we can utilize some future issue bond funds when that study is complete to actually improve those signals. We have a big one, I-49 Steven Carr Interchange. This is $1.2 million of match on a much larger project. Correct, same Wedington Drive is $160,000 of matching funds. Then, on the right-hand side, at the top, you see kind of a larger bucket, that's $6 million of existing projects matching funds for Safe Streets for All grants, and that includes College Avenue, School Avenue, Joyce Boulevard Phase One, and Greg Avenue. These are projects that already have awarded grant funding, and we just need to come up with a match for these projects, and so that's what that $6 million will be split across. Next up, we have Joyce Blvd Phase Two, which will be another $1.72 million of match. Then we have a railroad pedestrian crossings project at both University and Frisco. That is also match of $1 point, I'm sorry, $1,120,000 and then we have $500,000 set aside to further the paving, the paving plan, and the Rolling Hills extension to Oak Bailey is another $1.2 million. Then we have two smaller projects: Township 265 intersection widening, $150,000 and the Huntsville Road Martin Luther King Jr Blvd corridor improvements, which includes Highway 265 to School Avenue, that's $150,000. This leaves about $42 million for future issues, and I expect that you will see very steady amounts of $13 - $15 to $20 million at a time for transportation and future issues. All right, we've gone, but I can definitely send this out, so that you have this sustainability and recycling. We have $600,000 in the first issue, that total is right at a million dollars, and so that's about, you know, 60%; this is for the West Side Recycling Facilities project. And then we'll save the $400,000, that's for the hazardous household waste project for a future issue. The aquatics facility, we have $1 million out of a $61 million project, that's about 2% of the total, and that Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 23 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov includes $1 million just for design and stakeholder engagement. We plan to spend the next year continuing to scope this project, discuss this project, receive feedback from the community on this project, and engage with council. And last, but certainly not least, we have fire facilities, $12.2 million. In the first issue; this includes about two thirds of the total funding, and it includes Fire Station 10, just the design, engineering, and land acquisition, $1.4 million. We will reserve all of the construction dollars for that project in the second or third, the second issue. Then we have two fire apparatus, two engines, those are $3 million. They have a very long, multi-year lead time, so we're asking for funding for both of those. In the first issue, those are ready to go and easy to spend right away. We have $7.8 million reserved for the fire training building, and that's all the notes I have on that one. Okay, let's talk about how we're going to keep the community informed on this. We are going to create a web page for every project, and I'll get into more details about that web page on the next slide, but every project gets its own page, what the project is, where it is, what it costs, all of those details, and what phase that project is in. We will also have a live program dashboard on the website that's an ESRI-based product. If you're familiar with it, it's a financial dashboard, and it also is a city-wide map and contains dashboard information. It shows committed spending progress on the project, and it's linked to our city's financial system, so we're getting, you know, up-to-date information. It's not a month old; it's not three months old; it's up to date. We also will provide regular status updates. Departments are going to report every two weeks on every active project in the bond fund, and that will be that will allow us to update those that dashboard on a predictable schedule, and a quarterly published report will be presented to council and published on the website, so our goal here is to provide a variety of mediums of communication. Whatever the interested party's communication style is, they have something that they can either explore, read, check when they want to, or get lots and lots of details on. These will be linked from our website, and you may recognize some of the characteristics on this page. You know, we have some older, some previous bond project pages on our website. Are they super easy to find? Maybe, maybe not, but they have really good information, and so our goal is to take that good information, make sure it's up to date, and make it easy to find. Those are our goals with these web pages. On every page, every project gets its own page. On every page, we will include the current phase of the project at the top, so you can glance at it and know where we are. Right under that, we have in a colored box we have traffic and access updates that will be updated as we have traffic closures specifically for those transportation projects. We'll have a description of the project, and that will be updated every two weeks on what the current status of the project is. We'll have current pictures showing there's a lot of piece tonight, project progress, and then at the bottom we have a what's next section, and that shows us what's coming up, what items are coming to council, what RFPs are about to go out to bid, and what community engagement opportunities are coming up. This is kind of a look ahead at what comes next for this project. I don't think I missed anything. On the right hand side we have just kind of a call out box if you need a quick glance that includes the project budget and most importantly a link to that dashboard, and so that will take you right into the dashboard that's really nice for projects specifically, like in transportation, where we have multiple funding sources. When you go to that dashboard, you'll be able to see all of the funding sources associated with that project. So that's exciting. And these are under construction right now. We're building these out right now. These are not finalized, so if there are elements of the project that you would like to see on these pages, by all means reach out to me. Nothing is finalized here, and we're definitely open to feedback. Okay, here's the goal: we have a communications process with clear roles and a regular rhythm. We have departments that update progress biweekly in a Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 24 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov standardized format. Finance is responsible for collecting and publishing those updates, and the public can then get a current update anytime they check the website. In addition to that, we don't want you to have to go hunt it down on the website. We will regularly schedule communication with the council and with the public in the form of reports that we push out. So tonight, let's circle back to the ordinance that was a lot of information, and we felt like it was important to share, but what we're actually here to adopt is the parameters bond ordinance authorizing the series 2026 Sales and Use Tax Capital Improvement and refunding bonds not to exceed $191,220,000. Currently, project pages are being built and the dashboard is under development this summer. Those public pages will go live prior to the September closing. That's our commitment. And on an ongoing basis, we're committed to providing regular updates and a clear ask for each item that comes in front of the council. When an item comes in front of council, you are going to know it's bond related and you are going to understand what's being asked. And I think that is all I have. Thank you.” Council Member Min. Jones asked City Attorney Kit Williams to explain a trust indenture. City Attorney Kit Williams stated a trust indenture was the city’s commitment that all the monies collected in the sales tax would be held in trust and paid off to the people who purchased the bond. Council Member Min. Jones appreciated that a webpage would be built but did stress there was digital poverty in the Fayetteville community. She brought forward an idea to have a kiosk of information in all directions of Fayetteville. She stressed the importance of providing access to the community. Council Member Dr. Jones questioned other opportunities for outreach within the community. Council Member Moore stated “First I just want to acknowledge and really say thank you for hearing feedback and understanding there was a level of frustration. I know when we came out of the bond election, it was stated that we continue to get those updates, and so I know that there's probably been a lot of internal, like, inner workings to try to figure out all the minutia. I think this marries together getting the details and getting the fiscal side, and we've got residents that are really interested in like all those different facets of it. I'm really appreciative, because I know it's taken a lot of effort. I do have specific questions on projects, and so, Bob, I'm sorry to steal your thunder, because this is one of my questions I had on transportation. I actually think it's kind of interesting, and really smart that we've landed on putting some of our paving plan into the bond. I say that because, as someone who's really dug into historically, how did we arrive at our breakdown of how we give our transit funding and what’s kind of happened into pulling part of the Street Fund. I get that look every time we want to expand transit and I know we're working on a dedicated transportation funding like our Ozark Regional Transit and Razorback Transit; it’s always this balancing act we’re playing. I think it's really smart to think about paving and the potential that helps us short term to maybe extend and be able to spend on our transit lines with our bus lines. I'm curious if there are any conversations or exploration to go even further potentially? We are getting feedback that there's a desirability to try to close some of getting to fixed routes with on demand, which would be additional monies we maybe need to free up in the budget, and so I'm just curious if there's any wiggle room to try to look at that. I don't know, you may not be able to answer that tonight, it might be a follow up, but I didn't Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 25 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov realize that I hadn't seen in any draft that we were maybe looking at putting paving in here, and I think that actually is really smart, and maybe we could lean into that more. Anyway, I don't know if you have any feedback. I just think it's smart.” Deputy Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Walker stated, “I know I heard a conversation, I think it was just this morning about transit, and we're thinking about how that funding strategy looks as well. So expect to hear more in the near future, hopefully.” Council Member Moore stated “Yeah, no, absolutely. Thank you. Then I wanted to check in on the aquatic center, the million dollars that we're looking at. I heard it talked to about a yearlong design process and conversation with the public. Can we get greater information on what that looks like? We've got residents that are asking about concerns about the location and possibly looking at the top locations, you know, the top three or five with greater depth. I know we've presented something to the district, but I know you know there's a lot of moving parts. I've talked to a school board member about other land the school board owns, or the school district owns, and there's just so many things at play. I'd like to just better understand what we're doing with that million, how many things are at play that we're going to be able to have the public be a part of. I'm seeing a strong appetite that folks want to dig into that more, and then also better understand too, with the different budgets that have been floating around, what that really achieves at the 60 million. A lot of us saw like the base pool, base 10 lane, 25 yard pool that has practice lessons and meets was kind of that, like what voters voted for, and I know there's been some additional money, so just trying to understand what does this million do.” Mayor Rawn stated “I can absolutely speak to that and then Keith can weigh in if I don't capture it all. So, first and foremost, that is a great question. A big portion of it is paying back and replenishing our General Fund with the money that we all already voted to spend last year in doing the initial preliminary design. So, that is a big fund. A big chunk of it is paying back that General Fund, and we can get you exact numbers on that. Beyond that, it is keeping the design team engaged and moving more towards a preliminary, like beyond just conceptual design, and moving closer and closer to having a really solid baked-end design. The reason why that slide says stakeholder engagement is really speaking to exactly what you just mentioned, is that we do know there are a lot of people in the community that want to understand this better, that want to have ongoing conversation about that, and we heard that loud and clear from the community, and frankly, loud and clear from you all this council last week at agenda session. That allows us to continue to move forward on the project and have those conversations without, while still honoring what the voter intent was of passing it, and then to your - not to go do too far down a rabbit hole on the aquatic center, because that is like, you know, the smallest item in here - but to your point about the 61.9 million, the city can build an aquatic center for what the voters approved. No more. We can and will do that if the school district wants to add in additional things, larger deck space, increased space for competitions that do the type of regional meets that are coming from multiple states. Or a, I heard somebody mentioned the other day, you know, what would it look like to add a deep well diving, you know, diving pool. Those are great things that we can talk about, but we don't have them in our budget, and we can't build them unless there's another source of funding. And so, we're going to be a good listener and a good partner. If there is another entity, in this case the school district, that wants to talk to us about that, we'll consider it. If not, it just means we don't add those things on, but there is no scenario in which we Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 26 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov aren't equipped to build the aquatic center that the voters voted on for the amount of money that they voted to approve,” Council Member Moore stated “I mean, obviously, you know, I would have had concerns about the aquatic center, but I obviously know voters voted for it, right, it's just really in how we execute. I guess that's where I want to get clarity too, is from what I understand from the study that happened. We had the feasibility study, and then we were told that a consultant was going to come through, and then they were going to give us like kind of a final recommendation as we got through the bond vote. I came out to the other side when I was inquiring about where's the next step for figuring out where the location is. I was basically told where the consultant already looked at it during the time that the vote was happening. They've already said it's Lewis, and I think the public felt like in that process, and myself, too, that there was going to be additional conversation about the location. I think that's really why there's all this kind of energy that you're seeing around the location. It may be that it's Lewis, I guess. My question is just, is there potentially monies that we're looking at for study or additional looking at other locations, or is this design money in the process you're talking about set at Lewis at this time? I just.. I don't think we have clarity.” Mayor Rawn stated “I'll answer that as best I can. And I think it's.. it could be both. And so that is the recommendation that we, that Lewis Field site is the recommendation that we have received through the work that that Alison did, and the Parks Department did, is the best location. However, we want what's best for the community, and so if another location that is feasible and affordable and that meets the criteria were to come up, fantastic, that relieves a lot of us from a, you know, that takes the pressure off. If that makes the community happy, and that makes us happy. That's fantastic. We are not actively seeking that. What we are actively seeking is a design that delivers what the voters voted for, that doesn't exceed the bond amount, and also stakeholder engagement, because we do understand that we haven't done the job as well as we want to, and that's on me in communicating out what this process looks like. And so that's why I think Jennifer mentioned that I think there are a lot of people that are under the misunderstanding, and I don't blame them, I would be too. This is complex, that this passes tonight, and that you know, like Keith's out there tomorrow with a hard hat and a shovel, digging the footings for the aquatic center, and so I think the, you know, we're asking for 2% of that money, that million dollars, to keep us in the game, to be able to continue to talk about it and work on it. When the reality is, is that it's years in the future before we get to a point where we can execute that.” Council Member Moore stated “And then a follow-up, and this is probably my last question, I'll get back in the queue. I want to just check on the $3 million that is in parks for like field acquisition, is that directly related to the aquatic center?” Chief of Staff Keith Macedo stated “Yeah, we have a huge need for additional athletic fields. And that's, you know, our intent is to get that done ASAP.” Council Member Moore commented that she was told Fayetteville Public Schools had additional land of Deane Solomon that city might think about. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 27 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford stated “Thank you, Jennifer, thank you for a great presentation. And I apologize, because I think I may have just, like, zoned out for a quick second. It's late, but on the transportation page, and you, you, I'm probably asking a stupid question, because you probably went over this clearly, but on these projects, is this the total amount from the bond going on these projects are just the initial amount?” Deputy Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Walker stated “This is the total amount, and I did state this is the most complex funding structure we have, and it warrants extra discussion. So, thank you for asking the question. The amounts on the page equate to the amount of bond dollars that we are contributing to the project. If there's an asterisk at the end of that project name, that means that that this amount is match on a much larger project that's grant funded. So, as an example, the first one listed North, I'm sorry, the second project listed on the left-hand side, North Street Corridor Greenway to College is $150,000. That is $150,000 of matching funds to be contributed to that project, which has a much higher budget, but it's primarily grant funded. And so, this is just the match for that.” Council Member Stafford expressed concern with the Huntsville Road/Martin Luther King Jr Blvd corridor, which only had $150,000 reserved for it. Public Works Director Chris Brown explained there was actually $400,000 in grant funding they had been awarded. There was not an agreement in place as there were still steps that still needed to happen that would get his department started with design. The phase of work would be a traffic study, conception design and reviewing the intersections. He expected the project to be similar to the Midtown Corridor, which was a 14 million project. Currently, they were working on the first phase. 80% of the funding would be through federal money, explaining there were plenty of opportunities for funding. Mayor Rawn clarified with Chris that there was potentially $450,000 with the pending grant, but phase two would have to come back to the City Council. Council Member Turk stated “I'd like to go back to the $1 million for the aquatic center, and so my understanding from talking with Keith earlier today was $200,000 of that was to pay for bills that we've already encountered on that project, and the other $800,000 is for the design team engagement. Is that going to be a contract that we approve, because if not, I'd really like to make an amendment tonight and reduce that funding amount to $200,000 so that those bills can be paid by the city.” Mayor Rawn stated “So, the first part, I don't know the exact number, but you are correct, it is a little bit, I think it's like $200,000 and change, but yes, that remaining $800,000 we couldn't actually spend any of that without coming back to you. So, this is where I want to make sure the finance team and the legal team that I'm saying this correctly, but this is enabling legislation. We still can't do anything with the money until we brought back, for your approval, for the council's approval, any expenditures with that remaining $800,000.” Deputy Chief Financial Officer Jennifer Walker stated “That's correct. So, I've pulled back up one of these previous slides that has what this does do on the left and what it does not do on the right, and your question squarely, aside from that, $200,000 squarely falls within the future dollars spent future contract, so that would be on the right. This does not approve any design Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 28 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov contracts, it doesn't approve any construction contracts, it doesn't really approve much of anything other than banking and some legal items.” Council Member Turk stated “Thanks for that clarification because there are a lot of people within the community that are extremely concerned about this, especially the site location. Speaking from a lot of constituents, would really like that money to be used for another alternative site to investigate that, to look at different possibilities, to different purchases, to different collaborations with others, other partners, potential partners. I think the site is a real issue for a whole lot of reasons, all the downstream flooding, the impervious surface. We already bought a house there for $225,000 about a month ago, so this, the current site location, will just compound these problems as we go forward, so I won't make that amendment tonight, since there'll be some kind of future contract coming back. I wanted to make sure that that the council heard and the staff understood what I'm hearing, and I think others are hearing the same thing too.” Council Member Min. Jones stated “Ms. Moore bought a great issue, and transit is huge in our community, people are really worried that they're not going to be able to get to work, to school, to stores. We're talking about reducing three of our own demand transits down to one, changing the 20. I've had conversations. I even talked to a gentleman that's relocated out from Northwest Arkansas because of how poor our transit is, and he's moved back to New Orleans. I just like to see something, and I asked you this, Chris, because I've asked this, and I just still haven't seen it. What does it take for us to keep transit and build it up versus removing, and maybe that question needs to be asked of Razorback Transit, what it needs to be asked of Ozark Regional Transit, so we can determine what we need to put in here. I feel like we're going backwards with our growth and we're hindering our community to be able to access the essential needs in order to survive in this community.” Public Works Director Chris Brown stated “Yeah, and I would just say this, this bond issue is for capital improvements, capital costs. So, you're talking about operating costs, and you know, finding the right funding mix for that. It was mentioned earlier that the current transit funding is taken out of the Street Fund, so it does compete with sidewalks and paving and other things that we need to do to maintain our streets. So, I think continuing to look at other, other sources of funds, other opportunities, there's a lot of regional discussion about that as well, but really that's a, that's a different conversation than what we're talking about tonight.” Chief of Staff Keith Macedo stated “I think you know, I live on the west side, and I think that this regional transit authority conversation is really brought home to me when you see the change in traffic was being school out and school in, and what transit can do. I think that that was something I wasn't necessarily drinking 100% of the Kool-Aid that Chris and Peter were telling me until, you know, I really started observing that myself, and what a West Side Transit can do. This year, or in 2026 we increased transit funding by 40% but as we talked earlier, Council Member Moore, and I believe Council Member Stafford, about the paving plan, how we have that in here, and then how do we also fund transit. And I think that that really is a regional transit authority, you know, the region is looking at that, we've been involved, and there may be some more enabling legislation at the state level to help us with that, but we really need to find that as a funding, because it's a big expense. I think that there's a lot of activity going on in the area, and Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 29 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov we've stepped up to the table with that significant increase, but we need to find a better sustainable revenue stream for that.” Council Member Moore stated “I appreciate the conversation that's been had so far, got rid of some of my questions. One of the things that I was hopeful to better understand as we're getting underway and we're seeing the details of the projects that are going to occur is what the Stormwater Fund utilities impact might potentially be. In particular, I mean, obviously, the aquatic center location, it becomes Lewis Park. I mean, this has been an area for a number of years before I even started this. I'm doing this five years with that neighborhood, and it was having issues previously trying to solve for with Hamstring Creek. As we continue to kind of go to sites, and we're hearing from residents as they're seeing changes, they're talking about, you know, water concerns and the potential ethics say of these products that are not even in our project list for storm water. I'm curious, with the fields that we're looking at, some of these locations or different projects, if we're potentially starting to look at our storm water utility and the potential that might have to be there to absorb something, or if there might be storm water mitigation that has to be absorbed somewhere within the bond funding. Um, all right, that's kind of an all over. I don't know who could answer that. I mean, maybe I don't know if Alan's here?” Chief of Staff Keith Macedo stated “So, are you asking, are we looking at leveraging stormwater utility funds?” Council Member Moore stated, “My concern is that stormwater utility might have to actually be tapped into, where it might have to delay other projects to be able to support some of these bond projects, and if we've looked at that, we have that concern.” Public Works Director Chris Brown stated “So, when we talk about facilities, whether that be new park facilities, the aquatic center, whatever the case may be. Those facilities are designed to meet our stormwater ordinance, so they will have detention, they'll meet those requirements, so that they're not increasing the downstream, that'll be part of the project cost, and is part of the project cost.” Council Member Moore stated, “So we're not anticipating any kind of, you know, potential where we already know there's been sensitivity in those particular areas we're looking at.” Public Works Director Chris Brown stated, “We're not shifting priorities in the, in the Stormwater Fund, we're still looking at the same priorities that we have based on flooding and structures and trying to improve those, so, yeah, there's no, no funds that are being reallocated to any of these projects.” Mayor Rawn verified what Chris had said. Council Member Moore stated “I just want to say, kind of on the record, because I know I've said this individually to different folks, that I mean, my experience with those neighbors in that area. You're taking on water, and how much effort that Allen and, you know, the Public Works teams have applied to FEMA grants and looked at all these models we've continued to really bump our head, you know, with what's possible with the way it's built up there. I think that's Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 30 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov incredibly challenging to think about putting in a large amount, possibly of impervious surface, and being able to mitigate the issues at hand that already exist in that particular area that encompasses all of Hamstring Creek. I think that's only going to continue to be an issue ongoing. I continue to get neighbors that I go and walk properties with, and so I just wanted to at least flag that that I'm concerned that could be much more substantial amount of money that that project would have to absorb if it were to go in that particular area for any of our projects, and just, just a little concerned about that.” Council Member Wiederkehr stated “Thank you, Mayor. We're getting down in the weeds a little bit. I don't want to debate every single project, if I understand correctly, all we're voting on is an ordinance to authorize the issuance of bonds, and so I would beg my fellow members to request a work session or anything other than to debate individual potential projects. These are just earmarks, and so you know, for the love of God, let's think about voting on the issuance of the bond, which is what the item is, and I'm sorry that I didn't go first, Mayor.” Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Ordinance 7014 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Wiederkehr moved to declare an emergency and pass the emergency clause. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. An Ordinance to Promote Transparency: An ordinance prohibiting the City of Fayetteville from entering into nondisclosure agreements that restrict disclosure of public records or public business beyond that authorized by law, and to declare an emergency. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore stated, “To kind of restate a little bit from agenda session for those, maybe that might be new joining. I was surprised as many were, I think, on council and our residents that there had been, you know, use in the city of non-disclosure agreements. Talking to city staff, talking to people in the community who have set policy and been in spaces in regard to non-disclosure agreements, I had crafted the current ordinance. Really understanding that sometimes there needs to be the ability for there to be something signed, but just trying to set Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 31 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov something in place. I'm very thankful, and I really appreciate the Mayor's leadership of putting in place a policy. We know policies, though, are not an ordinance, and those can just change and vary over time and so trying to make something really clear by codifying. On the next slide I'll kind of go through what happens with this change. So, it codifies a policy on end date NDAs in the City of Fayetteville. Currently, we just have the Mayor's policy that was recently put in place. It does not fully prohibit the use of NDAs. That was something that was stated that was needed to be available in our toolbox, but it does set out a rigorous review process before the city proceeds with an NDA. It also really defaults to the highest level of doing the people's business in front of the people of Fayetteville, and then it allows for those possible needs that arise in the city for the use. Also, really relying on those FOIA protections that I vetted with many attorneys that were in agreement that FOIA does allow for sharing the information necessary from businesses and industries; but then it's not releasable because of that competitive advantage and the exemptions that FOIA applies to that relationship. Additionally, what that does is storage and ability for the public to view records. The City Clerk Treasurer is a person who's elected, who is our member that's tasked with managing the records, including our agreements and contracts for the city, and meeting whatever our retention policies are. So, just looking at storing copies ongoing within that office, because it is a public interface that residents rely on ongoing. It's kind of the front door to the city, they go there for the notary, kind of any questions, kind of how they maneuver through the city, so it's really the least intimidating place to go. Next slide, please. There were potential challenges mentioned. I've heard doing business could require the need for NDAs, it could slow down, it could prevent businesses from coming and so going to give a shout out to Mr. Ryburn with Fayetteville Flyer. Thank you for your work. He did FOIA the major four cities across the last five years, and what he reported, you can trust his reporting, and what he reported was that you know Fayetteville, in that time, had signed 8, Springdale signed 1and Rogers signed 1 with Bentonville at 0. I think we all could recognize and would say that these are places that are thriving, places that industry is going, that they're seeing development, that they're seeing opportunities, and so I don't, I don't think that them not signing NDAs has prevented that. Next slide, please. So, just the difference to kind of what the Mayor's policy to kind of point that out, and obviously you've got the language. There would be approval for signing. It moves from the Mayor to the City Council in the public hearing setting. The records are kept with City Clerk. I think the way that it currently states, you know, they would be with the City Attorney and with the Mayor, and think we told them for five years, but it would just be following the ongoing retention schedule managed by the City Clerk's office and just trying to align it to state statute. Just because that things can change over time and not wanting to potentially get out of alignment with what the state law would require, because we let her do all that business, and I don't want to keep up with that personally. And then the ordinance makes this obviously an ongoing law versus city policy that can fluctuate and be changed. That really is it in a nutshell. You've got the language in front of you, and I'm really happy to take any questions or comments or feedback. I know that Council Member Stafford, has an amendment that he's proposing, but I hope we'll stick with this language, just based on the vetting and months of talking with folks and arriving at this language as kind of a middle compromise too, to be able to take care of all those different areas.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “First, I want to say thank you to Council Member Moore for her diligence, as always. And this has been - I'm sure you all have been aware of this - has been a constant. This has been a great concern. Our citizens have asked a lot about this, and so Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 32 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov my question is, I didn't quite understand this. I know what the end date in NDA is, of course, but I just never understood why did we ever sign them in the first place. What kind of got us here, and which kind of, again, I know what it means, but when I look at Fayetteville, opposed to the other cities, and I'm, I'm really concerned, I'm like, well, if they're not signing them, then why are we signing them at such an alarming rate? Then I'm having to explain, and I'm saying this because I'm having to explain this to the constituents, because they're asking, and transparency is huge, and I have a responsibility, and I think it's fair to say that we all do, and so I'm just curious. How did we even get here? Because this is something, and the conversation is continuing, where we keep having the same conversation. People are saying, why are y'all signing NDAs? What are y'all hiding? And I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but I do want to be able to ask to be able to enter. This is why we are participating in this process.” Mayor Rawn stated, “No, it totally does. I think this would be a good time, if it's okay. And I know we'll have others that have questions as well. Is it a moment to ask Devin Howland, our Director of Economic Development, to come up? I also learned something new that I think not to sway anybody one way or another, but I think it's helpful context and some nuance in the excellent reporting from our, for our own Stacy Ryburn, that maybe got lost is that that article was counting the number of NDAs, not necessarily the number of projects. And so it was, I don't know, that it's necessarily any more projects, but I have learned since then that other municipalities sign if they have four employees signing one NDA, they count that as one, and they all sign on the same page, to whereas Fayetteville had signed each employee signs one, and then it counts as one for each. I don't know that, just to be fair, I don't know that Fayetteville is actually that isn't inaccurate. I think there's some nuance there that maybe got missed that I do think is worth us talking about.” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “Thank you for the question, Council Member Jones. And I want to talk about two things. First, into the how we compare Fayetteville to the other cities. Fayetteville has one distinction that those other cities do not, they have an economic development staff member on their staff, that is me. Traditionally, you'll see this role in a chamber, and way back in 2016/2017 when the Fayetteville first plan was passed, Fayetteville stepped forward and said we're going to have some internal too, and I think, like, to think we've done great work with that. Yeah, in Economic Development, my profession, NDAs are extremely common. They're done by the companies, never by us, because companies are people. Projects change. These are extremely sensitive decisions, and they change greatly. Sometimes, even in the own company, those that there's.. they don't know which was why, when we had one of the largest manufacturing expansions in Fayetteville's recent history, folks celebrated it, and so in and of that, that's where they come from, and that's why there's that distinction. And so, I hope that's where they are. An NDA for a company, they may sign up for a plethora of reasons, it could be so that their competitors don't know, as was iterated, that's why there's not, that's why the competitive advantage, or the competitive disadvantage provision, is in the FOIA law to protect those decisions. It's why the Arkansas Economic Development has a blanket exemption inside of that. It could cause price escalations, you've heard, but again, you could even have terminal inside the company, plans change. You could hear a plan is going to stay open, and then it closes. You've got 800 disappointed families on the other side of that. And from an NDA standpoint with me, it enables me to be at the table to at least hear about an opportunity to try and retain a company, to secure a company, or to expand a company when Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 33 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov those conversations are very, very sensitive, but it doesn't change the public process review process or anything. It enables us to hear about an opportunity that may come. That's where they play in my role in Economic Development, and I can only speak to that.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “Devin, thank you for that. The question comes in, I think, for us it's your role being your role. I think the question comes in as Council Members, because we are elected by the people, and the people are asking us questions. I understand what your role is, but I think it comes down to transparency among the community members. Because then they're asking y'all, it's almost as if we've given you permission to enter the city into an agreement and what I'm hearing is about optics. It goes back to transparency, and so I think for me, knowing your role, it.. I understand that, but for us, we have a responsibility, and we have to answer to the public, and to the voters. And so, they're still asking, even though you said what you said, they're still wanting to know why. ‘What's in the NDA? Why do y'all still have that?’ We understood, we get your role but is it still necessary to have an NDA with the city? The council not being involved in what's in the NDA, if that makes sense. I mean, this has been a very convoluted process, and a lot of questions, and I'm.. I really appreciate Council Member Moore bringing this, because we have an opportunity to address it, and I'm just sharing what's been brought to me, and I wanted to, you know, bring this to you and the council, so we can have a conversation, and so we can do what we need to do to rectify it. But it's a lot of, it's just a concern about transparency, and where do Council Members fall in as city representatives, as individuals that they voted for and that they selected. They elected transparency, it is very important, and so when you see NDA, even though you are leading it, what about us? And so, then when it gets back to us and it goes to them, they're asking all of these questions, and so that's where that's the concern, where what role do we play in the NDA?” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “In regards to what role the council plays in the NDA presently in regards to Mayor's policy, I can't speak to that, in regards to my projects, the council will play all the roles that it always will with every single public approval, every single public process. Again, the NDA does not change any of that. It's why the business license process was public, etc. And so, it does not change any of that.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “Okay, that's a great point. So, when you mentioned business license, that's a separate issue. I think we all know that we can't stop a business from coming. No one really said anything to me about the business. It was the fact that the NDA, and how that popped up, and then they were asking questions that I couldn't answer those questions. I was like, whoa, I didn't know that. So that's where the problem was, and pardon me if I kind of explained it wrong. It is late, but it wasn't the business license, I think they understand how that works. The issue was this NDA, this contract that's coming up, and then they're asking Council Member Moore and myself, and others, and we can't speak to it.” Council Member Stafford stated, “Thank you, Mayor. I think I can ask some questions that maybe bring some clarification, hopefully, so you, I mean, your job is basically meeting with businesses and talking with folks, and trying to create economic development, trying to drive economic development, trying to bring jobs to the city. Would that be a fairly correct statement?” Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 34 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “Correct, that is a focus of mine, and that has been an explicit focus of mine for the past, I would say, since under the Rawn administration, jobs and raising the median household income of Fayetteville residents and folks on the expansion of those jobs has been my highest priority.” Council Member Stafford stated, “So, Conagra, I believe there was an NDA there, and they brought us 100 and some odd jobs?” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “It was a retention project of a very long time employer that decided to expand, and their capital investment was the one I was referencing, that was the largest in the city's recent history.” Council Member Stafford stated, “And then this year we had another big company here that I went to, a ribbon cutting for Givingtons, and now they did not need an NDA, but if they would have asked for one, it might have been because they do a specific sort of, they're in a specific sort of industry, and they may have reasonably asked for one to again keep trade secrets, keep business plans. It wouldn't have been unreasonable for them to ask for one, they just happened not to.” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “It would have depended upon the nature of their business, and if at that point in time there was anything sensitive, whether they were looking at other sites, whether they had a market moving announcement that sent investment news around the world. In the case of Conagra, investment moved markets around the globe. It would just depend on the nature of their situation. Givingtons has long held property in our commerce district and tried to expand. I actually met them back in 2018 when I first started here, and so we're really happy to see them open up that facility they have long dreamed of.” Council Member Stafford stated, “And as far as unintended consequences, and the potential for unintended consequences, when we look at in I say this because I have to sign NDAs in my business, and I know that if I don't, that business, even though in all our contracts we have confidentiality, you know, kind of baked in, but a lot of businesses we deal with want that extra bit of security. Any consequences to, like, is there potential? Do you see potential for a company just saying, ‘You know what, I don't feel safe sharing my trade secrets if I don't have an NDA. I don't want to look here.’” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “Yes, and I can give some framing examples, because I've now operated under a different guise. Now that Mayor Rawn has instituted a policy over NDAs in regards to establishing that process, I do think it would have an unintended consequence if in order for the city to have a seat at the table with a company to even request the opportunity to obtain information about that potential expansion or retention, we have to do, you know, full court press, we come have public hearing. We do all that just to see ‘Can Devin have the privilege of sitting down or the opportunity to sit down with this company to find out what they want to talk about and why they need this NDA.’ Then, yes, I think that would be extremely consequential to economic development.” Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 35 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk stated, “This has been a real hot water issue for all of us that accountability one is huge. I mean, I, and I think my other Council Members really did not like being caught flat-footed with what was going on with Swarm Aero, that was, that was challenging. And so, we're struggling with how to kind of manage that, because obviously we want economic opportunity to come to Fayetteville, but when I read Stacy's article about virtually no NDAs being signed with our other sister cities, and we had signed eight, and maybe there is some nuance that I'm that I did not pick up on, I kept thinking, is it the University of Arkansas, you know, is that why there's so many NDAs that we've signed here? Is it because we have agreements with the University of Arkansas that the other cities don't have?” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “No. In regards to, I can only speak to economic development, of which there have been two non-disclosure agreements that have been mentioned: Swarm and Conagra. I don't think that's the case. I truly believe the answer to that is the fact that the City of Fayetteville is the only city that has an economic development professional on the payroll.” Council Member Turk stated, “So if we looked at the Chamber of Commerce, like in Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, they may be having a whole lot of NDAs.” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “I don't want to speculate, but I have a feeling you might find.” Council Member Turk stated, “Maybe that's the metric, are our Chamber of Commerce, and your Economic Development Department, you, and then we also look at Chamber of Commerce in the other cities to see where that, if we're kind of out of whack, or if we're really about in the same game.” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “I don’t know that that’s something what could be obtained.” Council Member Turk stated “So I think you just kind of answer this with Bob's question, but do you think if you, because our FOIA laws, I really appreciated Kit's really excellent opinion about our FOIA laws. And I know some of these companies are probably national companies, and they're not very familiar with our FOIA laws, but it seems to me like the FOIA pretty much covers all of the trade secrets that you can't release or discuss, and the NDA is just kind of like, I don't know, I don't see what else it provides, other than they're more familiar with NDAs than they are with Arkansas FOIA laws” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “An NDA, in my opinion, provides an opportunity for us to be at the table to have a conversation with them, whereas the exemptions that exist in the FOIA law provide redaction measures that can be done should we get a FOIA. I'm going to return to our city attorney, though I don't want to interpret that law.” City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “I should note, though, that the FOIA is documents. I think some of these companies are just used to trying to get a non-disclosure agreement because they're afraid if they're moving into an area they don't want their competitors know that they're Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 36 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov thinking about moving in here, it's not just like Conagra, I know that when we had Kum and Go and Casey's, they were moving into this area, and, and kind of trying to fight with each other, and so obviously they don't want their competitor to know. And that FOIA will keep the government cannot release any written document, but they could speak. I have confidence that Devin wouldn't speak because he's not stupid, and he's going to treat that confidentially, because it's in the best interest for that company to come in and move to Fayetteville, and he's not going to try to broadcast that to the world, but many companies don't know that they don't know that we're trustworthy, that's why they want an NDA, and usually it makes no difference one way or the other. This one got caught up in politics, and so it made a difference. I mean, we couldn't stop that company from moving in. They weren't going to; we didn't sell them any land or anything like that. All we did is agreed not to reveal that they're coming into thinking about coming into town.” Council Member Turk stated “Well, it was still quite a surprise, I think, to most of us. And, and so, I, the feedback from the public is, you're my elected official, you guys are supposed to work together with the Mayor's office, with the staff, and, and we're all supposed to work really well together, but you didn't know, and you didn't prevent this, and so we are hearing a lot of concern about the lack of accountability. I appreciate Council Member Moore bringing this forward. I'm trying to figure out how Council Member Stafford's proposed ordinance is different. I'm trying to see the nuance difference between those two, because this is really this is a real challenging situation. We don't want to lose any, any great employers here. We don't want to lose a really incredible opportunity. We also want to be, we also want to know about it and be accountable to the people.” Council Member Berna stated, “Thank you, Mayor. Devin, just for clarification, an NDA gets you to a seat at the table to discuss potential companies that might come to Fayetteville are interested in coming to Fayetteville. But any contracts that you would enter into with that said company would have to be approved through this body, right?” Economic Vitality Director Devin Howland stated, “If it was a traditional large scale development and or an incentive or a land sale or an agreement or an easement or an access, then yes.” Council Member Berna confirmed that contracts that had to be approved through City Council would be fully disclosed to the Council Members and the public. Council Member Berna stated, “Okay, I think in reading Council Member Moore's ordinance, I personally think it goes too far, because as Council Member Wiederkehr said the other day, it turns a non-disclosure agreement into a disclosure agreement, and I think it does add confusion if you have to bring it before council and you redact everything, but except for the company's name. I mean, what's that do? That just creates a bunch of questions, so I've got no problem with everything that happened with Swarm, and all the questions about the NDAs. You know, I've got no problem with the policy that the Mayor put forth, and I have no problem with codifying that, and I think that's what Council Member Stafford's ordinance does, and that that eliminates one of Council Member Moore's concern was that the policy, Mayor's policy, was just that, a policy, it wasn't an ordinance. So, I would be fine with that. I think this particular ordinance that we're Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 37 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov talking about now, from Council Member Moore, just goes too far, and it does, considering we do our economic development for the most part in house and not through the chamber, I think it does put us at a disadvantage that I think that we are not going to see until, you know, in essence it's too late. I don't want to put us, I want us to put guardrails up for public disclosure and transparency, but I don't want to put roadblocks up for our staff, and I think it's the Mayor's job to direct her staff, and it's our job to, you know, provide legislative ordinances, and that are good, solid ordinances, that it's her job to administer through her staff, so that's what I'm thinking.” Council Member Wiederkehr stated, “Thank you. Thank you. I had, I worked in a previous community, and we had eight Disney headquarters, and you couldn't go on Disney property without signing a non-disclosure agreement, and so I, as a city employee, signed them for Disney just to even go into their buildings. For me, from my professional experience working, there's nothing unusual about them. From my experience, I think I guarantee that the chambers in the communities north of us have signed them, as well as every chamber in the state of Arkansas. Part of the difference is the business environment. Bentonville has one major employer, Lowell Rogers has one major employer, Springdale has one major employer, Fayetteville is higher education, regional medical, and startups. We even have a contract with Startup Junkie that puts us in a little bit of a different situation where people starting small businesses don't want their proprietary information disclosed, and that would be the nature of the business or their criteria that they're looking at, and they have the reasonable ability to request that that information not be disclosed while they're doing just research. Is there a location in Fayetteville that would work for them? I feel for a company that does not want to disclose prematurely, that they're just looking at Fayetteville for them to be able to accomplish anything. Everything sees the light of day. So, I like the fact that the Mayor adopted a policy. I like the fact that we're wanting to codify something. I think Council Member Moore is right, that policies change. So, I appreciate the idea of codified in this, making it an ordinance that we acknowledge that we follow FOIA, and whatever FOIA says in the state of Arkansas, so all of that I'm comfortable with. The reason - Mr. Berna stole my thunder - is that I don't think you can hold a public hearing on a nondisclosure and have it be a nondisclosure, it becomes a public disclosure. So, I'm not comfortable with that, but I'm very comfortable with the idea of codifying the Mayor's policy and ensuring that those records then are subject to whatever FOIA says regarding them. Thank you.” Mayor Rawn had a point of clarification and asked if there was an amendment on the floor as an amendment had been passed out by the City Clerk Treasurer, Kara Paxton. Council Member Moore had a point of information as procedurally discussion and comments were made after public comment. She wanted to be conscious of anyone who wanted to speak on the item. Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “So I'm just curious to know, what did Fayetteville do? Did the Fayetteville Chamber sign NDAs before you got here? And I'm also curious to know what businesses in North have probably turned away since, if, if there have been any businesses that have turned away, because any businesses that decided that they didn't want to do business there because there was no NDA. That was one of the things that I was wanting to ask. And a third thing was this, the chamber, the concern is, is because we are elected officials in the NDA, it's Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 38 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov not with the chamber, it's the as Council Member Turk said, the accountability that was the issue. I think that's been the concern since we started this whole conversation. If the chamber is going to do it, the citizens aren't. I haven't heard any citizen voice any concern about the chamber's process, but when it comes to the citizens of Fayetteville, and they're seeing what they saw with Swarm, and they saw NDA, they were concerned, and then they're asking us questions the way that she explained it, that that is exactly what happened. I'm very cautious about that. I'm concerned about that, and so I think hopefully my other Council Members are too, because at the end of the day, you were hired, we were elected, we have to answer to the people.” Mayor Rawn stated, “I hear your, your concerns, but back to Ms. Moore’s point, I do want to make sure that we can do public comment, and so do you, did, and I don't mean this in a rude way. Do you have a question still for Devin that he didn't answer? Okay, he answered that. Okay, all right, great. Does anybody else have questions, either for our City Attorney or for Devin?” Council Member Stafford asked if the amendment should be made before or after public comment. Mayor Rawn explained there was no rule regarding when it could be brought forward. Council Member Stafford stated, “I'd like to bring the amendment in. So, I'd like to present it, and I think Scott, Mike and Kit's memo basically touched on the points of why I brought this amendment. You know, the concerns are overreach for me and a separation of powers between the legislative branch and the administration. I had some great concerns about, you know, the level this went to, and where I saw City Council kind of going into the role of what is basically the administration's job when it comes to economic development and such. So, you know, NDAs are not evil by design, and my wife and I's business, we regularly are asked to sign NDAs, even though in our terms and conditions we have paragraphs on confidentiality, and that we won't share things. A lot of companies, just as Kit said earlier, are more familiar with the NDA process. They feel it's more of a safety net for them when they discuss, I mean, for us, we have access to a lot of companies' information. We help them with strategy. There are a ton of reasons why an NDA is legitimate. A lot have been brought up already by Devin and Kit, you know, and if we say we want jobs, I think we need to not be a roadblock to that, and if disallowing this outright becomes that, you know that's an issue for me. We talk at length about how wages in Fayetteville are the lowest of the area. What my amendment does is it basically takes, you know, I felt the Mayor was very responsive, and it basically takes the policies that the Mayor put in place and codifies them into law, and so that way I think it addresses a lot of Council Member Moore's concerns. Section one deals with accountability, you know that this needs approval from the Mayor and the City Attorney. Section two deals with protocol. Section four kind of deals with the hierarchy and guidance, and you know, section six deals with retention, so that we are fully compatible with FOIA, and go beyond that, and section, yeah, and kind of goes into, you know, double checking the accountability part. So basically, again, what this does, and I hope everybody's had time to read it, is it codifies the Mayor's policy, but it's still an NDA. Should be a rare tool, but they are sometimes a necessary tool, and I believe it is up to the administration and the legal department to decide when and where that tool is used. We're legislators, we make laws when things come to us. We, we pass ordinances, we pass resolutions, and so with that, I'm.. would I do a motion to amend Council Member Moore's ordinance?” City Attorney Kit Williams read Council Member Stafford’s proposed amendment. Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 39 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford moved to amend the language of the ordinance to what City Attorney Kit Williams read. Council Member Wiederkehr seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-2. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Moore and Turk voted no. Council Member Bunch was absent. Council Member Dr. Jones asked if he could change his vote. City Attorney Kit Williams stated Council Member Dr. Jones could motion to reconsider. Council Member Dr. Jones moved to reconsider the prior vote. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 5-3. Council Member Min. Jones, Dr. Jones, Moore, Turk and Mayor Rawn voted yes. Council Member Stafford, Wiederkehr and Berna voted no. During the vote to reconsider, there was tie, allowing Mayor Rawn to vote. Mayor Rawn clarified what voting yes or no meant for the reconsideration and stated that if Council Member Dr. Jones would like to reconsider his vote then he should be able to. She voted yes for the reconsideration. At this point in the meeting, the City Council could choose to either continue to discuss or vote immediately on the item. Council Member Moore moved to vote immediately. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 3-4. Council Member Min. Jones, Dr. Jones and Moore voted yes. Council Member Stafford, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted no. During the vote there was discussion on what voting yes or no meant for the motion on the floor. Mayor Rawn stated that when an item goes to an immediate vote, it shuts down all discussion, halting public comment. City Attorney Kit Williams explained the item was procedurally back to before the vote took place on the amendment. Council Member Stafford’s amendment was still on the floor. Council Member Stafford, stated, “Yeah, I'll keep my comment short. I do think that, again, I do believe that the policies the Mayor put in place address our issues with NDAs. They keep a clear separation of power, and they have accountability and we have a retention policy, and we don't overstep our bounds in, in our economic development advisor is able to do his job effectively and openly. And again, well, Kit, you had mentioned in your memo about separation of power, can you go into your concerns about that really quickly, so people understand?” City Attorney Kit Williams stated, “In my memo, which I believe I pointed out that the Mayor certainly has power over her staff, like she did for her policy in saying staff, you can't sign a nondisclosure agreement unless I've looked at it and see it's legal. So, the only approval really comes from the Mayor, and Mayor has that right to do it, because the statutes say that she's not only the Chief Executive Officer, but also she's responsible for the conduct of all the city Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 40 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov officers. She definitely has power over all the city employees, and so they must follow her policy, however, as was pointed out by Council Member Moore, it's only a policy, it's only a city policy. The Mayor can change it the next day. So, what he's done is put that policy into an ordinance, which can't be just thrown away, it's permanent until the City Council goes back and repeals it. The only problem I see with you all saying that no employee can sign an NDA, which is what the original ordinance said, is that it seems like you're trying to step between the Mayor and the employee. Say you got to follow our directions, not what the Mayor tells you, you got to follow us, you can't do that, and it seems like that's a little bit, I'm not sure how the court would decide that. You all have the power of contracts to approve contracts, but whether you can actually go ahead of that power and disapprove them before they've ever been presented to you, and tell employees they can't sign them, that's where it gets a little gray area to me. So, I'm not certain, and as City Attorney, I would like to be certain. I would like to have something that is clearly legal, which I can say that Council Member Stafford's proposal is legal, and I can't say exactly the same for Council Member Moore's. It could be legal. I'm just not sure.” Council Member Turk stated, “Procedurally, I don't know if I'm stepping out of bounds here. It's really late tonight. This seems to me, I think there might be a middle ground between these two. I personally would really like to be able to kind of look at Bob's a little bit more than and just hold this until we are, I mean, a little bit more rested, because this is a big one, and it's there's a lot of, there's a lot of things going on here, so I just wanted to throw that out.” City Attorney Kit Williams clarified that a motion to table the item took precedence over the motion to amend. Council Member Turk moved to table the ordinance to the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna and Turk voted yes. Council Member Bunch was absent. Mayor Rawn clarified that although the item was just tabled, the City Council would still hear public comment. A member of the public requested to have 7 minutes for their public comment. Council Member Dr. Jones moved to allow the member of the public 7 minutes for their public comment. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Turk voted yes. Council Member Berna voted no. Council Member Bunch was absent. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance . This ordinance was tabled to the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting. Announcements: None Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0 City Council Meeting Minutes July 7, 2026 Page 41 of 41 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: Agenda Item D.2: RZN 2026-0015 NW of N. Deane Solomon Rd. & W. Vanike Dr.: Date & Time: July 6th, 2026 at 4:30 PM. Address: Meet at the trail at Vanike and N. Deane Solomon. Parking: Street parking is available on Vanike. Adjournment: 11:53 p.m. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Courtney Spohn, Senior Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Docusign Envelope ID: F49B967B-3A7C-8C5C-82B3-9977D4F967D0