Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-04 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 1 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting August 4, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on August 4, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Rawn called the meeting to order. Present: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, D’Andre Jones DHA, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, Mayor Molly Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Chanci Fondren, Chief of Staff Keith Macedo, Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson, Staff, Press and Audience. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: None City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: Recognition Awards Presentation for Fire Department Personnel for Meritorious Service to the Citizens of Fayetteville. Assistant Fire Chief Russell Hulse shared that on the morning of June 12, 2026, Fayetteville emergency services were dispatched to an apartment building on East Oaks Drive for a report of fire with the possibility of occupants trapped inside. When arriving to the location, they found a heavy fire on the exterior building that was rapidly spreading into the building. Fayetteville services were able to rescue five citizens who were trapped inside two apartments with no escape route. They provided emergency medical aid to the victims, and transferred them to Central Ward 3 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Min. Monique Jones Ward 4 Position 2 Mayor Molly Rawn City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton Ward 1 Position 1 Council Member Dr. D’Andre Jones Ward 1 Position 2 Council Member Sarah Moore Ward 2 Position 1 Council Member Mike Wiederkehr Ward 2 Position 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 2 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov EMS, where they were transported for further treatment. He wanted to recognize the firefighters that played a direct role in pulling people out of the building and started them towards treatment. Mayor Rawn thanked Christopher Boyd, Kyle Bradley, David Harrison, Michael Anderson, Ryan Powers, Brian Phillips, Zachery Crabtree and Brayden Wiley for their service to the community. Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council - Oaths of Office Administered by Judge Terra Stephenson Deputy City Clerk Treasurer Chanci Fondren stated there were 10 new members joining the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council for the upcoming year. She thanked Mayor Rawn for her continued support of the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council and thanked City Attorney Hannah Hungate and Department of Housing and Community Resources Case Manager Robert Bradley for their assistance in interviewing new members. She introduced the new members of the council; Eliza Stewart, Ellie Glass, Evan Thomas, Peter Bishop, Peter Malakhov, Rio Rains, Sophia Oshen, Tarannum Mila and Tyler Tran. Sales Tax & Monthly Financial Report - Chief Financial Officer Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson presented the May 2026 Sales Tax Report. He stated, “In May, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately $289.4 million, which was an increase of 7/10ths of a percent from May of 2025. Retail trade was essentially flat; it was only up around $380,000. Accommodation and food services was up around 4.8%, or $2 million. Within that category, we saw traveler accommodation up 35% and restaurants up 3%. We did note that manufacturing was up 25%, or $2.7 million, compared to 2025. But all in all, in looking at the month overall, we were pretty flat compared to 2025. Looking at the actual sales tax collections, the city one penny was up 6/10ths of a percent. The county portion was up around 8/10ths of a percent, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of 0.75%, or around $37,000. In looking at the tax revenues compared to what was budgeted in May of 2026, the city one penny was down approximately 2%. The county portion was down around 2% for a combined total for the month of March, down 2.19% compared to budget, or approximately $113,000. Cumulatively, that's going to put the city on a year-to-date basis down approximately 1% or $345,000, compared to budget through the month of May. And we are going to be entering some of our biggest months in terms of sales tax, so I do anticipate that we're going to be closing that gap as we approach the end of the year. With that, be happy to answer any questions on the Sales Tax Report. Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson presented the Monthly Financial Report. He stated, “This is for the month of June 2026. Starting off in the General Fund, our property tax was down 1% or around $35,000. Sales tax was also down around 1%. Our franchise fees were up 6% and alcoholic beverage fees were up 6% or around $52,000. Our building permit fees, once again, that's something that you know is really helping us out this year. We're up 50% compared to budget through the month of June, or around $1 million. Our turnback was flat, and charges for Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 3 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov services; those were down around 5%. All in all, in the General Fund, we're looking like we're up around 1% compared to budget through the month of June, or around $350,000. Moving over to the Street Fund, we're down around 2% compared to budget, or around $95,000. Once again, our state turnback is a little bit flat so far this year, and so I'm optimistic that that's going to be picking up as well. In the Parking Fund, we are down 5% compared to budget, around $61,000. Once again, most of this is due to budgeting for a lot that we took over this year in 2026, and we are looking to start to close that gap with some increased fees as we move into the new school year. In the Parks Development Fund, we're up around 1.3%, or around $37,000 through the month of June. In Water and Sewer, we're up 4.6%, or around $1.2 million dollars. In Stormwater Management, that fund is holding steady. We're up, continuing to hold at around 6% up through the month of June, or around $94,000. Recycling and Trash, we're up 3.7% or around $352,000. And last but not least is the Airport Fund. We are down around 7.2% for the year, around $191,000. Our number of flight operations is actually around 25 less flight operations in 2026 compared to 2025. But once again, this is another fund that you know, it's very cyclical in terms of when we see the revenue coming in, and over the next few months, we do expect that to turn around as well.” Council Member Stafford stated, “Yes. Just a quick question. It's probably a question you can't answer because I don't think any of us can. But I just noticed a lot of times that, and it seems like the last couple of years, our sales tax revenue, I mean, we're growing and growing by thousands of people a year, and our sales tax revenue is just like at a standstill. And I just, are we - is everyone sitting at home eating ramen, or like, just trying to wrap my head around how that works?” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “Well, I mean, that's one that is kind of difficult to predict. I will say though that you know, as I mentioned before, it is kind of cyclical, and we're about to enter some of our biggest months of the year. And I do expect you know, please don't hold me to this, and we'll see how the next six months bare out. But I do expect us to really close to what we had budgeted for the year, which was an increase. I mean, we do forecast an increase every year in sales tax revenue, but no. I think maybe council and the city overall got used to some of those really large years. We had a couple years, 12%, 15%, 18% and that was right after COVID. Coming out of COVID, there was just a lot of spending going on, but once again, we do have you know up and down years in terms of the sales tax. We are, I mean, we have got a lot of development going on in the city, and as you know, our population is rapidly growing here. So I do expect you know at some point we're likely to come out on the other side of this and have some increases.” Council Member Moore stated, “In regard to airport being down, and I think you stated we typically see an uptick in the fall related to university and sporting events, different events that are happening in the area. When we're loading in the budget, I know we plan, and the council looks at it at a year level. What does it look like when we're looking at the monthly budget numbers? Are those straight lined, or do we also have some larger budget months for the budget that we're expecting into the fall as well?” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “We take that into consideration. Our experience in looking at the last few years, on which months we have increases and decreases overall. One Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 4 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov of the things, though, I think that you know you can look at in the Airport Fund, and I've talked to you all about this before, in terms of our General Fund too. And one of the things that's kind of an outlier this year is the cost of fuel. You know, with that war going on over there in the Middle East, we are experiencing an increased cost of sales, or cost to provide that fuel for then us to turn around and sell it. And so, I mean, that's been something that's kind of been, you know, sort of a deflator in terms of the numbers that we're seeing this year.” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “I would like to follow up on one other thing, Council Member Turk. Last time that I came up here and talked, you had asked us about potentially comparing a few big events that we have in the city to see what kind of tax effect that those have, and we've been working on that. And the next time I come up and give a report, I'll follow back up with you on that.” Agenda Additions: None Mayor Rawn announced that item B. 5 and B. 7 had requests to table. Consent: Council Member Berna moved to suspend rules requiring Mayor Rawn to read the Consent Agenda. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Rawn asked shall the consent agenda pass. Upon roll call the consent agenda passed unanimously. Approval of the July 7, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved. Approval of the July 21, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved. Container Truck Replacement Purchase: A resolution to approve the purchase of a Peterbilt Container Carrier in the amount of $202,350.00.00 from TLG Peterbilt Northwest Arkansas, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges and delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price. Resolution 174-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Work Truck Replacement for the Water Sewer Department through National Auto Fleet Group: A resolution to approve the purchase of a work truck from National Auto Fleet Group in the Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 5 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov amount of $55,155.32, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price. Resolution 175-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Hydro-Seeder Replacement for the Transportation Department through Vermeer Midsouth Inc.: A resolution to approve the purchase of a Hydroseeder trailer from Vermeer Midsouth Inc. in the amount of $45,523.00, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable taxes, surcharges, freight charges, title, licensing, and delivery fees up to 10% of the original purchase price. Resolution 176-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk OPW Commercial Services of Arkansas, LLC (Amendment No. 1): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 1 to the contract with OPW Commercial Services of Arkansas, LLC in the amount of $47,000.00 for additional fire hydrant painting services. Resolution 177-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Adoption of Updated Emergency Operations Plan: A resolution to approve and adopt the updated City of Fayetteville Emergency Operations Plan. Resolution 178-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: Raze and Removal of a Dilapidated and Unsafe Structure at 20 N. School Ave.: A resolution to order the razing and removal of a dilapidated and unsafe structure on property owned by Stephen and Gretta Smith located at 20 North School Ave. 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 August 4, 2026 City Council meeting. Code Compliance Supervisor Billy Bryant presented on the item. Communication between and staff and the property owner was ongoing. The property owner applied for the grading permit with the Engineering Department. The grading permit was required to build a retaining wall to support the parking lot on the south side of the property. Once the permit was issued, demolition of the structure would be imminent. Staff recommended tabling the item to the September 1st City Council meeting. Council Member Berna moved to table the resolution to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 6 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov This resolution was tabled to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Ordinance to Amend the Definition of "Through Lot" Unified Development Code §151.01: An ordinance to amend the definition of a “through lot” in § 151.01 Definitions of the Unified Development Code. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. Chief Housing Officer Marlee Stark presented on the item. She stated her comments would not only apply to this item, but to the following ordinances as well. She reiterated that the set of ordinances were focused on supporting smaller scale residential development in Fayetteville. The three changes were recommended in the city’s Housing Action Plan, which was released in June. It was to clear known barriers for smaller scale home builders and have staff support across both Development Services and Housing and Community Services. All three were forwarded with recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission. Staff planned to bring subsequent set package of targeted changes later in the year, and they would continue to focus on supporting small scale developers as they look toward the 2027 legislation session. She believed that the focus of the three code changes aligned with the Housing Action Plan, particularly in its vision for greater housing diversity in Fayetteville and the flexibility required by prospective affordable housing developments they aimed to attract to the region. She was available for questions. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth explained what through lots looked like in both the code and in real developments, adding that they are lots with frontage on two separate streets. This pattern has created long stretches of privacy fencing and poor pedestrian environments. The prohibition created unintended problems for infill development in older neighborhoods, where water and sewer lines often run on different streets. Due to the current definition, property owners had to request variances to create through lots solely for utility access, causing delays and discouraging housing development. The amendment would allow through lots when needed for utility connections and not for subdivision efficiency. Staff recommended approval, and the Planning Commission unanimously forwarded the amendment without public comment. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance. During public comment, a citizen asked if all utilities meant that the power lines had the right of way to cut down trees. Jonathan responded stating that it was intended to apply to water and sewer specifically. When it came to private franchise utilities, they typically negotiated easements separate from the city and had policies and standards that were distinct from the city. Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan reviewed the changes. She asked Jonathan if the change would provide affordable housing; the changes were being made for developers, prompting her to question if the developers would then make changes to ensure properties became more affordable for the community. Jonathan stated he couldn’t guarantee it. He commented that with his familiarity of economics was that if the city didn’t accommodate it, the costs would be handed off to the end user. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 7 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore 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 unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7019 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk An Ordinance to Modify Lot Width Minimums in Some Zoning Districts from 18-foot to 12- foot: An ordinance to reduce the minimum lot width for residential dwellings from 18 feet to 12 feet in the Residential Intermediate-Urban (RI-U), Community Services (CS), Urban Thoroughfare (UT), Main Street/Center (MSC), and Downtown General (DG) Zoning Districts by amending §§ 161.12, 161.22, 161.24, 161.27, and 161.28 of the Unified Development Code. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. He explained that the topic was lot frontage, which in the development and zoning codes referred to the width a lot was required to have along a public street. This standard existed in every residential zoning district in Fayetteville because residential lots needed access to public streets for vehicles, utilities, and emergency services. Frontage requirements varied by district, from 200 feet in Residential Agricultural areas to 12 feet in the Urban Neighborhood district. Staff recommended reducing the lot width requirement from 18 feet to 12 feet in five zoning districts; Urban Thoroughfare, Community Services, Downtown General, Main Street Center, and Residential Intermediate Urban. The Planning Commission supported this unanimously, and no public comment had been received. The change would allow for narrower lots and units such as town homes and would support fee simple ownership by allowing narrow strips of land to provide access to homes located behind other units. The concept resembled tandem lots but explained that tandem lot regulations applied citywide, where this change was intended for the city’s more urban districts where denser housing was anticipated. The change would affect about 5.5% of Fayetteville’s land area and about 5% of its building footprints. The impacted districts were mostly in the urban core or in recently rezoned areas such as Drake Farms, Ruple Road, and the Marinoni area. He estimated this represented roughly 6,000 residential units, 12,000 to 13,000 residents, and about 1,700 business licenses due to the inclusion of downtown districts. He was available for questions. Council Member Stafford asked if the change would encourage or allow the building of smaller units and if it would encourage more affordable units. Jonathan stated ideally yes. Council Member Turk requested a highlight of the research Development Services had done on narrow lots. Jonathan stated that the timing of the previous item and this one informed each other, because under the current Water and Sewer Department policies, each individual unit had Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 8 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov to have its own service lines located on its own property. This made it essential for each unit to have a strip of land reaching a public right of way where water and sewer mains were accessible. Other communities often relied on alleys, which frequently contained water and sewer lines. That development pattern created opportunities that Fayetteville generally did not have, since alleys were not widely incorporated into the city’s built environment. Allowing smaller or attached fee simple units could help reduce those barriers by supporting less expensive construction types and lower sale prices. Council Member Turk then questioned what could limit development. Jonathan explained that none of the other zoning standards in those districts were being changed. Building height requirements still applied, and impervious surface standards remained in place even when a property was subdivided. Impervious area was measured across the entire site, not reset for each newly created lot. This approach had been adopted after the 2021 changes to imperviousness metrics, when staff had recognized the risk of unintentionally creating stormwater issues if impervious limits restarted with each subdivision. Imperviousness still had to be accounted for, regardless of how many lots were created. These zoning districts were intended to be more urban, the expectation was not that they would include large yards or significant turf grass. The purpose of the districts was to support additional housing in areas where increased density was appropriate. Council Member Turk asked how impervious surface limits would apply if a property owner subdivided their land in phases over several years. Jonathan explained that after the 2021 shift to using impervious surface standards, the city made an additional code change that assigned a specific date for measuring imperviousness. The purpose was to establish a consistent, citywide baseline so that all properties would be evaluated against the impervious surface that existed on that designated date. This approach also supported the stormwater utility, which used a similar concept. The intent of the date based measurement was to provide the safeguard described in the earlier question. The City Council received 2 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Dr. Jones requested Chief Housing Officer Marlee Stark’s opinion on the item. Chief Housing Officer Marlee Stark stated that lot width standards were a frequent topic in other communities across the country. She appreciated the Development Services team approach on taking national ideas and pressure testing them within Fayetteville’s local context. By the time a recommended code change reached the City Council, it had already gone through extensive conversation and been reviewed by various stakeholders. From staff’s perspective, the change could open housing opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable, which was important for meeting the city’s housing goals. She took comfort in knowing the development community, particularly smaller scale local developers, had responded positively. The smaller developers understood the community and the evolving need for more diverse housing options. Council Member Min. Jones commented she still hadn’t seen the housing prices match the changes the city was making, she hadn’t seen true affordable housing. She requested that in Marlee’s next housing presentation that she include the effects of the changes the city was making. Marlee explained that policy changes, when it came to housing, took time to see the effects spread throughout the housing market. Opening new housing opportunities could create filtering effects in the market, which increased available units over time, causing downstream impacts on affordability. She referenced recent discussion of the housing assessment and noted Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 9 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov that one under discussed strategy for improving affordability was reducing competition in the housing market, which could only happen if the overall supply increased. There was still a need to attract developers who specialized in affordable housing and who understood the financing tools required for those projects. She felt encouraged by ongoing conversations with developers, including those from outside Arkansas who were interested in Northwest Arkansas. The developers consistently stated the need for predictability in navigating Fayetteville’s development system. Giving developers more flexibility on the front end was appealing to all developers, but especially to affordable housing developers. She acknowledged the concern about how policy changes translated into outcomes and when those outcomes would materialize, noting that many moving parts were involved. Council Member Min. Jones agreed with Marlee, adding that she wanted the city to look at community benefit agreements made with developers. She would like to schedule future meetings to discuss how it benefited the community as a whole, not just development. Council Member Turk recalled that years prior the city created the Urban Neighborhood district with a 12 foot lot width, and that soon afterward many rezoning requests came forward using that standard. She asked what the city’s experience had been with that change and whether staff viewed it positively, since they were now proposing similar reductions in other zoning districts. She asked for more detail about how that earlier change had worked in practice. She also asked which other cities used 12 foot lot widths. She named Springdale, Bentonville, Rogers, and other cities nationally, noting that she had looked through the available documentation but had not found much information about where 12 foot widths were used or what outcomes those cities had seen. Jonathan began by addressing the second question. Staff did not include comparisons with other cities because the goal was to calibrate standards specifically for Fayetteville rather than replicate approaches used elsewhere. Many cities struggled with housing production, and this proposal was a rare opportunity to adjust legislation in a way that directly expanded the amount of land available for housing. The proposal was intentionally local in nature, shaped in part by Fayetteville’s water and sewer policies, which required individual lots to have access for service lines. Not all cities had similar utility requirements, and some cities eliminated lot width standards entirely, relying instead on form based zoning that regulated the building form rather than the layout of the land. He then addressed the first question about Fayetteville’s experience with the Urban Neighborhood district. The city had seen that zoning applied in a few locations, representing only a small number of acres in a city of more than 50 square miles. The district had been used successfully, including an example where a duplex was built along the street with another duplex behind it. The layout allowed the owner to subdivide the property and sell each half of each duplex as fee simple units rather than renting them or using a condominium structure. Council Member Dr. Jones questioned what inspired the item. Jonathan explained there were four prompts that led to the ordinance. Mayor Rawn had prioritized housing as part of her agenda; staff had perceived that was the City Council’s direction. With the passing of the housing crisis resolution, staff heard that there was a want to build. Lastly, the housing assessment showed that Fayetteville had increasingly smaller households and a need to accommodate with housing types suited the prompted need. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 10 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford did not believe the city would see true housing affordability until enough homes were built to stabilize the market. If demand continued was still outstripping supply, the housing prices would remain high. He felt the ordinance was a great step towards building missing middle housing. He ended with a motion to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore appreciated the conversation around the ordinance, expressing appreciation for staff. She pointed out that the housing market could manipulate itself to keep prices artificially high, and that many units around the city remained empty even as prices stayed elevated. Arkansas law prevented cities from legislating locally in certain areas, which limited the ability to directly influence market behavior. She said it was important to identify where the city could “thread the needle” and help shift the market. One major opportunity was accelerating the Unified Development Code update and rezoning the city in ways that opened the door for more housing types. The lot width proposal was an aggressive reduction compared with many cities, based on what she had seen online, but it was similar to cities such as Washington, D.C., and Baltimore; places known for iconic, walkable, urban neighborhoods that Fayetteville hoped to emulate in certain areas. She applauded the efforts that went into the proposal and hoped it would help lead the way for other communities to consider similar solutions. Council Member Turk stated there needed to a focus on affordability. The lack of substantive research gave her pause for concern and she would not be in support of the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-2. Council Member Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Turk and Min. Jones voted no. Ordinance 7020 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk An Ordinance to Amend Residential Parking Requirements: An ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to grant additional parking reductions for residential uses by amending § 172.05 Standards for the Number of Spaces by use of the Unified Development Code. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item, covering the history of parking standards. Since those changes, staff had received many inquiries from different types of developments, older buildings proposed for conversion where additional parking could not be Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 11 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov added; sites downtown or near transit and trail networks, proposals for small single bedroom units where current parking rules required more spaces than seemed appropriate and projects where developers chose to build the maximum possible parking rather than risk a variance or appeal. He showed an example of a site plan on Leverett where a large portion of land was paved solely to meet parking requirements, despite its proximity to transit and trails. Demographic trends showed that households were getting smaller, even as market pressures continued to produce large homes with two- or three-car garages. Staff identified an opportunity for a minor change that would allow the Planning Commission, in appropriate cases, to grant an additional parking reduction through a variance. The proposal would allow the Planning Commission to grant an extra 35% reduction beyond the by-right amount. In tabular form, this would produce maximum possible reductions of 70, 55, 50, and 45% for the different project tiers. The proposal did not change minimum parking requirements or by-right reductions. It only allowed developers to apply for further reduction if they could demonstrate hardship or alignment with city goals such as affordable housing or active transportation. He reminded the City Council that the Planning Commission must evaluate variance requests using guardrails like transit proximity and non-vehicular storage. Staff recommended approval and noted that the Planning Commission forwarded the proposal unanimously, with one public comment in support. He acknowledged the comments that staff had not produced substantive research and said that was difficult because staff was being asked to demonstrate something that could not exist under current rules, essentially to show outcomes that could not occur because the ordinance did not yet allow them. He summarized the four main types of requests staff had heard; more single bedroom housing, redevelopment of surface parking lots, adaptive reuse of commercial buildings and development in locations intentionally chosen for transit and trail access. Council Member Min. Jones commented on the 70% reduction, stating that it could lead to overflow parking on the street. She questioned the larger max reduction as it gave her a concern of general safety and safety with children with on-street parking. Jonathan explained that the reduction was largely based on the feedback received from the development community about what they were able to support, market and what people were interested in as homeowners. Council Member Min. Jones then asked if he had received feedback from the community about the possible changes. Jonathan had received a positive statement of support at the Planning Commission meeting. He elaborated that what the item was proposing was the ability for a developer to request a variance, which would go to the Planning Commission, which would require a public notification and public hearing; allowing the community to participate in the request every time it happened. Council Member Turk commented that in 2025 the Ordinance Review Committee spent a lot of time working on the parking ordinance only for the Planning Commission and development community to be asking for more parking. A lot of the 2025 ordinance was centered on safety concerns. Many people drive cars in Fayetteville, very few were walking. It was hard for her to believe that circumstances had changed dramatically in one year. She believed staff had only heard from one segment of the community so she would like the item to be tabled and sent to the Ordinance Review Committee as the issue was very complex. She commented again that she couldn’t believe that circumstances had changed dramatically in a year after the careful discussion and consideration last year. She asked for Jonathan to demonstrate that circumstances had changed significantly, prompting more parking reductions. Jonathan explained that bringing Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 12 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov the item forward to the City Council did not prevent it from being considered by the Ordinance Review Committee. The City Council was not prevented from exercising its authority and the process followed the amendment procedures in city code. He did not have the ability to demonstrate what was not happening, as it didn’t happen necessarily. It was inherently difficult. He reiterated that it was not a by-right reduction. It afforded the ability for a developer to request the Planning Commission for special consideration to demonstrate they had a specific site specific, or project specific, hardship that merited the consideration. The Planning Commission would have the ability to evaluate the surrounding street network, which was codified in 2025. Council Member Turk followed up asking for an example of a project that would need the extra reduction. Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick highlighted a provision added in the 2025 ordinance that required applicants seeking variances or parking reductions to submit substantial documentation supporting their requests. The requirement did not exist previously and was credited to the Ordinance Review Committee meetings as well as the fire department’s contributions. At the time of the discussion, the city did not have the conditional use permit requirements for student housing that Council Member Moore introduced two weeks later and did not have the new provision requiring applicants to justify reduced parking. Although the provision was not part of the parking counts themselves, it was central to how the city regulated parking. Council Member Moore and Jonathan discussed current parking regulations and how a developer would go about asking for parking reductions. The City Council received 5 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr provided a brief slideshow presentation. He noted that more than 130 places worldwide had eliminated parking minimums, most of them in the United States, while this approach was not a cure all, it had enabled certain projects to be built, using Austin Texas’ experience with an apartment building that lacked parking and later struggled to lease units. According to the Arkansas census, Arkansas was a car dependent state. He applauded the doubling on bus services on College Avenue, adding it was a great step in the right direction. Currently, Fayetteville did not have a system to track on street usage, and he wanted to advocate for it. He discussed resources from the American Planning Association, Smart Towns, and the Congress for the New Urbanism to understand what conditions were needed to eliminate parking minimums. Walkability required more than just trails; it required destinations, shade, lighting, and a sense of safety. While Fayetteville ranked highly as a bike community, topography and busy streets posed challenges, noting that e-bikes helped. About 1% of commuters used public transportation, the city had a density of three people per acre and Fayetteville invested $11 per capita in transit. He supported public transit and argued that eliminating parking minimums citywide could dilute the city’s ability to incentivize development along College Avenue, where transit investment was focused. Census data showed that only 1.9% of working residents lacked access to a vehicle, while most households had 1 – 3 vehicles. Staff faced a difficult task as the city had no tool for tracking on-street parking that had been used or committed to development. He suggested adding a GIS layer to show where parking was used so staff could understand the impacts. He also suggested that instead of applying the exemptions citywide, perhaps selecting a Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 13 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov portion of the city that was supported by walkability and bikeability data, where greater parking exemptions could be tested. Council Member Min. Jones questioned if developers were using the 30% by-right reduction, to which Jonathan confirmed that was correct. Council Member Min. Jones expressed her appreciation for Council Member Wiederkehr, as she was passionate about transit. She questioned how Fayetteville could develop area that did not have access to transit, adding the idea of a development transit tax. If an undeveloped area did not have walkability, then Fayetteville needed to start developing its transit. A neighborhood shouldn’t be built and not have access to community services. She wanted the city to speak with developers about what it looked like to support the community, the missing middle, the underserved and marginalized community members that didn’t own a vehicle, to build affordable housing. She did not have an issue with development; she was in support of density. Her issue was in overdeveloping and not providing access to community services, as there was an impact to the underserved and marginalized communities. Council Member Berna noted that the Ordinance Review Committee spent a lot of time on the 2025 ordinance, taking in multiple considerations. When reviewing the changes in 2025, they acknowledge there was going to be problem spots and they requested it be brought back to them to review and evaluate. He was disappointed that was not done by the administration. He felt there was a significant issue with parking in Fayetteville. He understood the item had been through the Planning Commission but felt there needed to be further conversation and additional thought about it. He was not in support of the item. He would be fine to hold it on the first reading, but he would not support the item as he felt is was too big of a step without concrete ideas. Council Member Stafford expressed he knew he wouldn’t be on the winning side of the item, sharing his regret on voting for Ordinance 6864. He felt the tiered parking reductions went too far and that the reduced Planning Commission authority was too much. Council Member Bunch valued staffs input on the item and had on many cases relied on Jonathan and Britin for their input to help guide her decision, adding she trusted them very much. She thought that if the item did not pass, it could end up hurting smaller projects that could be built. Adding to that, she did think that Fayetteville streets were a valuable asset and that at times, Fayetteville gave too much. She felt torn on the item and agreed with the idea to test the reductions in an area of Fayetteville before applying it to the city as a whole. She shared her experience of living in an area of the city that was not walkable. Council Member Moore questioned how much a regular paved parking spot was on average. Jonathan did not know the exact amount for surface parking but added that structured parking tended to be closer to $30,000 - $35,000. Council Member Moore explained that the financial impact of parking requirements was substantial and directly tied to housing affordability. If the proposed reductions were by-right accommodations, she could understand the fears people expressed, but the key difference was Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 14 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov that each request would go through a public hearing process where conditions could be set. The City Council frequently discussed its frustration with having too few tools to improve affordability, and this proposal offered a real opportunity to articulate, on the record, what they wanted the Planning Commission to seek as concessions, such as units at specific AMI levels or set-asides for seniors in areas with good accessibility. She reminded the City Council that, just as with changes made a year earlier, they could revise this policy if it didn’t work as intended. She was interested in seeing whether “the sky fell,” because the proposal was not by right and would allow the city to carefully evaluate individual projects. If problems emerged, the City Council could quickly refer the matter to the Ordinance Review Committee and adjust. Drawing from her four years of experience on the dais, she said the City Council had spent significant time discussing parking and housing affordability without seeing major progress. She noted that the costs were real; $35,000 for some spaces, $10,000–$20,000 for others and pointed out that parking did not support the city’s sustainability goals. At the same time, she acknowledged the legitimate concern that an accumulation of vehicles in certain areas needed to be monitored and regulated, though such impacts would not occur overnight. Accessory Dwelling Units had produced fewer than 20 units per year and wondered whether this change might help generate additional projects and expand housing options. She also responded to concerns about vehicle ownership data. While she valued the information presented by Councilmember Wiederkehr, she questioned parts of it because lived experience mattered. She recalled knocking on more than 3,000 doors during her campaign and observing apartment complexes, particularly smaller ones with around 40 units, where parking lots consistently remained underused. Years later, those areas looked the same; large impervious surfaces providing neither stormwater benefits nor housing, and many residents did not own cars. Many families she knew lived with only one vehicle and that many people sought housing in areas where they did not need to rely on a car. She believed there was real potential for improvement. Council Member Turk appreciated the conversation. She noted that the Ordinance Review Committee did not rush the ordinance in 2025. There was a lot of discussion and data. She hadn’t seen the data on why this change needed to be made. She felt it would be rushed to vote in favor of the item. She was a fan of pilot programs and felt the ordinance could be moved to the Ordinance Review Committee to analyze areas where they might incentivize a pilot program. Mayor Rawn confirmed with Jonathan that if the item passed, parking reductions would have to go to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Dr. Jones was in support of the item going to the Ordinance Review Committee. Council Member Moore pointed out there may have been a consensus around piloting the reductions in a particular area. She questioned the possibility of leaving the item on the current reading and have staff determine an area to implement the pilot. Council Member Wiederkehr stated the city did not want to waste square footage that didn’t generate revenue, whether it be property or sales tax. He was an advocate for public transit and wanted to see it succeed every time. He closed his comments with expressing love for small incremental developers. He stated they were doing good work but could never have the power to Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 15 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov change the price of housing. If the city wanted affordable housing, the affordability needed was for clean, safe and affordable rental property. The person working at a certain wage could not afford to buy a house. The most powerful things that could be done for affordability was to drive a large number of rental units to be developed on the College Avenue corridor and to give them parking reductions. Council Member Berna feared that tabling the item for two weeks was not enough time and wasn’t considerate to staff time. He would like to motion to table the item indefinitely with the intent to send it to the Ordinance Review Committee to acknowledge staff concerns and incentivize for College Avenue parking regulations. Council Member Stafford questioned if it should be tabled to the beginning of December to ensure the item came back to the City Council. Mayor Rawn stated it wouldn’t be necessary as the item would be prioritized. Mayor Rawn clarified with City Attorney Kit Williams if tabling the item indefinitely prevented staff from bringing it back to the City Council until it’s through Ordinance Review Committee. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that any member of the City Council, and Mayor Rawn, could make a motion to take it from the table, it would require a majority vote. Council Member Berna moved to table the indefinitely. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-1. Council Member Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Moore voted no. This ordinance was tabled indefinitely. ADM 2026-0024 West Center St & South Gregg Ave: An ordinance to amend Ordinance 6957 regarding the conditional removal of 279 linear feet of Tanglewood Branch from the Streamside Protection Zone and allow the developer to submit a revised site plan for the property located South of 576 West Center Street. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. Council Member Berna moved to table the ordinance to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. This ordinance was tabled to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. RZN 2026-0021 North Hughmount Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning petition RZN 2026-21 for approximately 3.78 acres located at 2445 North Hughmount Road in Ward 4 from R-A, Residential, Agricultural and NS-G, Neighborhood Services - General to RSF-8, Residential Single-Family, eight units per acre. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 16 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. Previously, the City Council had expressed concern about rezoning the entire 378 acre property from Neighborhood Services General to Residential Single-Family – 8, including areas within the floodplain. The applicant took the feedback seriously. The revised request limited the rezoning only to the portion zoned Neighborhood Services General. The remainder of the site would retain its existing zoning that had been applied when the subdivision was annexed previously. Staff continued to recommend denial, expressing concerns about removing the possibility of neighborhood serving uses that had been planned for the area. The Planning Commission had forwarded the proposal to City Council with a 4-3 vote. Applicant D.R. Horton stated he had no intention of encroaching on the floodways of the property. He understood that the Planning Department wanted to see commercial buildings on the property, but he was a home builder. Their intention would be to build homes on the property, and to replace the home that was currently on the property with a new one. Council Member Berna moved to accept the amendment as presented, including the map and exhibit. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Council Member Min. Jones asked why even with the amendment, that staff was opposed to the ordinance. Jonathan explained their concern revolved around the potential that the Neighborhood Services General zoning district could potentially allow, now or in the future. They had concerns that rezoning even rezoning apportion would put staff in a position that was inconsistent with the long-range plan. Council Member Stafford then asked that if the rezoning was approved, another developer in the future could bring an item forward to reinstate the current zoning; Jonathan confirmed. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore would not be in support of the item. She understood the intent behind the item but was concerned it was contrary to some of the policy the city had been wanting to enact. Council Member Stafford thanked the applicant for returning to the City Council and addressing their concerns. He acknowledged staff’s concerns but the city couldn’t force people to build commercial properties. He would be in support of the item. He felt the applicant was responsive to the City Council’s needs, which he appreciated. Council Member Min. Jones and Jonathan discussed how the decision was made on where zoning districts needed to be and where it didn’t. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 17 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn confirmed that a property could be built as the zoning was. The developers greatest concern was that the Neighborhood Services General zoning district required buildings to be built at the streets as opposed to a set back in a more conventional way. The single family home would have to be built within 25 feet of the adjoining street. Applicant D.R. Horton explained there was an existing house that was set back, with an almost grove in front of it. Their intent was to replace the house in the back section, leave all the growth and not remove any of the trees and green space that already existed. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 4-4. Council Member Berna, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Bunch voted no. Mayor Rawn declined to vote. During the vote the item was tied, prompting City Attorney Kit Williams to ask Mayor Rawn if she wanted to vote. She stated when it came to a tie, her inclination was to support her staff. She would not vote. This ordinance failed. RZN 2026-0018 West Wedington Dr. (Appeal of Planning Commission Denial): An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-18 for approximately 0.55 acres located at 1845 West Wedington Drive in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre, to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban. At the July 21, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Council Member Moore moved to table the ordinance to the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. New Business: Council Member Moore called attention to previous Rezoning 2026-0015. She motioned to reconsider the item, with an intent to make a motion to table. She had spoken to many community members who had brought forward additional questions and information that she felt could be valuable to the City Council. Council Member Moore moved to reconsider Rezoning 2026-0015. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-2. Council Member Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Bunch and Stafford voted no. City Attorney Kit Williams stated the item was now back to right before it was voted on. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 18 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore moved to table the ordinance to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This ordinance was tabled to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. ADM 2026-0021 Amending the Oak Grove Local Historic District: An ordinance to add the property located at 515 North Park Avenue to the Oak Grove Historic District by amending § 33.321 Historic Districts of the Fayetteville City Code. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Long Range & Preservation Planner Kylee Cole presented on the item. She began the discussion of Fayetteville’s three local historic districts with a refresher on what historic districts do. Arkansas law allows local historic districts to protect historic properties, provide predictability for owners, and ensure transparency through a public review process. Historic districts do not change zoning or regulate land uses, and they do not govern paint color, ordinary maintenance, or repairs. Likewise, property owners were not required to make any improvements. Fayetteville’s ordinance further limited what was reviewed; interiors were not reviewed; ordinary maintenance was not reviewed and work not facing the public right of way was not reviewed. She showed a snapshot from Oak Grove to illustrate that only facades visible from public streets were subject to design review. Design review relied on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic properties, unless a district adopted its own design guidelines. Oak Grove had done so. Applicants could meet with staff in a pre-application style process so staff could help resolve design issues before submitting for staff approval or Historic District Commission review. Most minor projects could be approved administratively, while major exterior changes, new construction, and demolition required commission approval. Fayetteville was one of 22 certified local governments in Arkansas. Across the state, certificate of appropriateness applications had high approval rates. Even Eureka Springs, considered one of the most challenging historic districts, approved more than 99% of its applications in the previous year. Fayetteville approached its role collaboratively and worked with owners to adjust plans rather than deny them. She went on to explain the item was an amendment to the Oak Grove district. The property owner had requested inclusion in the district because the lot had not originally been included. She described the historic connection, noting that the parcel was platted by Noah Fields Drake and sold to the Davis family in 1945. The house’s plain traditional architecture with craftsman details created an important bookend to early neighborhood development. Staff, Planning Commission, and the Historic District Commission all supported the request. The State Historic Preservation Office also supported it, and no public comments had been received. Council Member Min. Jones and Kylee discussed the perimeters of the Historic District Commission. If someone wanted to do major exterior renovation such as a major addition, major change in materials or adding second story popup, it would have to be approved by the Historic District Commission. Council Member Dr. Jones then asked if the restrictions applied to all entities in the district, homes and business alike. Kylee explained any building, or prospective Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 19 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov building, was all subjects to review. Council Member Stafford questioned if empty lots were included. Kyle explained the Historic District Commission would review new constructure to ensure it was in alignment with the character and general pattern of development. Council Member Bunch then questioned how it would effect a home that was in a poor condition, causing them to tear down the home and rebuilt. Kylee explained if there was a demolition, prompting a new build, it would go through the same design review process with the Historic District Commission. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7021 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk ADM 2026-0022 Establishment of the Fayetteville Black Historic District: An ordinance to establish the Fayetteville Black Historic District by amending § 33.231 Historic Districts of the Fayetteville City Code. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Long Range & Preservation Planner Kylee Cole presented on the item. The process had been underway for several years, beginning in mid-2023 with early nonprofit work to create a local historic district. Former Mayor Lioneld Jordan had signed a petition to include city property in that proposed district. In March 2024, her office received a certified local government grant to develop a historic context statement for the historic Black community, and she led community meetings and archiving activities to understand the community’s boundaries. That document was published in January 2025, after which neighbors chose to move forward with a local historic district by collecting petition signatures. She and her staff conducted extensive outreach, including meetings in the neighborhood and presentations to the Historic District Commission and the Black Heritage Preservation Commission. The commissions reviewed the material multiple times before giving final approval in January 2025. In December, a property owner submitted a petition to create a local historic district, which the City Clerk Treasurer’s office verified. The petition and map then went to her office for review. She researched each property’s chain of title, deeds, and historical ownership using census records, directories, and obituaries. Her findings showed that more than 65% of properties in the area had historically been Black owned, though several properties did not, and the Jefferson School site had a mixed history of use. The Historic District Commission then requested that the original area be split into two distinct districts. The Black Historic District included 78 parcels with the highest concentration of historic Black ownership. The district aligned with the goals of preserving existing historic buildings and matched earlier survey recommendations. Within the area, 85% of buildings were Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 20 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov at least 50 years old, and 19 had high preservation priority. 53% of property owners had signed the petition in support. Both the Historic District Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office recommended approval. The Black Historic District had received inquiries but no stated opposition, with several individuals speaking in support at commission meetings. Council Member Min. Jones complimented Kylee’s work on the item. The Black Historic Preservation Commission would move forward because of the work Kylee and her staff had put in and she wanted to thank her for her work. She would love to support the item. Council Member Dr. Jones echoed what Council Member Min. Jones had said. He shared a personal conversation he had with City Attorney Kit Williams. He couldn’t help but noticed the history represented in the room, mentioning multiple community pioneers such as Dr. Johnelle Colbert and Ms. Betty Smith. Fayetteville was once again leading the way, expressing pride for the city. He was in support of the item, saying that establishing the district was something he committed to when he first took office. Fayetteville continued to lead and he felt the City Council should be proud of its work, especially during challenging times. He thanked Kylee and Britin for their work. The City Council received 4 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Min. Jones commented that in a time when Black History was being erased, she applauded Fayetteville and staff in preserving the history and lifting a community of people that contributed to Fayetteville. She praised the community that continued to do the work to stay and hold steadfast in supporting the work, environment and community of Fayetteville. Council Member Stafford stated the item had been a long time coming and a lot of hard work. He was excited it had come into fruition and was happy to vote for the item, to which he preemptively seconded Council Member Dr. Jones’s motion to approve. Council Member Dr. Jones thanked the City Council for considering the item. He thanked the City Council for supporting the items he had brought forward and for their support. He then motioned to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Dr. Jones 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 unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Moore acknowledged and thanked the community grown effort. She was thankful to live in a community that committed to things, even with bumps and hurdles along the way. She was excited to have something to be incredibly proud of and also be able to uplift the truth, as the community did not want to repeat its history at times. She appreciated the work of both the community and staff. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 21 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7021 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk ADM 2026-0023 Establishment of the South Fayetteville Historic District: An ordinance to establish the South Fayetteville Local Historic District in § 33.231 Historic Districts of the Fayetteville City Code. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Long Range & Preservation Planner Kylee Cole presented on the item. The decision to split the area into a separate historic district had two main justifications. First, the neighborhood had historically been more racially diverse than the Black Historic District. Over time, families from various backgrounds lived there, and the common theme tying the area together was its identity as a working class 20th century neighborhood. She noted that blue collar residents, those working in industrial and manufacturing jobs, banking, mail delivery, police, and fire services, had lived there because of its proximity to downtown and its affordability. The modest homes and diverse architectural styles still reflected that history. The recommended district contained 54 parcels centered on working class 20th century neighborhood history. This aligned with the purpose of a local historic district and matched recommendations from the Phase One survey, which had identified an even larger potential district. Establishing this district could help that larger area expand in the future. Within the district, 74% of buildings were of historic age, many with high or moderate preservation priority due to underrepresentation in the National Register and development pressure. She reiterated that 54% of property owners had signed in support. She highlighted notable properties demonstrating the neighborhood’s diversity, including the Ralph Betty Hayes home, a highly intact bungalow on Rock Street, several Ozark giraffe homes on South Willow, and the 1932 Jefferson School, which was integrated in 1965. She stated that outreach and engagement for this district mirrored that of the Black Historic District, and that the Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, Black Heritage Preservation Commission, and State Historic Preservation Office all recommended approval. She summarized public feedback; general inquiries, one request to include a property outside the boundary, and requests from representatives of the Potter’s House to exclude the Jefferson School property. She had received two letters of opposition from one individual. She addressed the Jefferson School request directly, stating that her role was to evaluate historic significance, and the school was undeniably significant for its ties to public education and integration. The neighborhood had identified the 1932 school building as a priority for protection, and a secondary building on the site was also historically significant. The Phase One survey assigned the school a high preservation priority. She noted concerns raised about the lack of district specific guidelines but stated that clear direction already existed through the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, National Park Service guidance, and preservation briefs. Removing the Jefferson School site would leave a single residential property isolated at 619 Willow Street, which was neither best practice nor administratively feasible. Excluding the school would necessarily remove that adjacent property as well. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 22 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford and Kylee discussed the possibility of home designs that would not fit the character of the historic district, highlighting there could be copying of historic styles while doing an infill project. Kylee could not give assurance, as there would be a process in place where the builder would have to go through a review process with the Historic District Commission. Only new phases of a project that were affecting the exterior that were visible from the public right of way would have to be applied for through the process. Council Member Stafford mentioned ADA compatibility, mentioning the modernization of Potter’s House. Kylee stated is was clearly accounted for in the Secretary of Interior standards. There was a lot of leeway for historic buildings, but also an understanding that public building would have to make accommodations. Council Member Bunch questioned if Potter’s House was taken out of the historic district, would there be any protection for the building if it was eliminated from the historic district. Kylee stated there would not be. Council Member Bunch followed up commenting that if the building was sold, and not included in the district, there were no protections to save it from being torn down or redesigned to not fit the neighborhood. Council Member Dr. Jones and Kylee discussed the non-profits in the area outside of Potter’s House. Council Member Berna appreciated the work done on the item. He questioned if there was a way to leave Potter’s House out of the district but still have historic building requirements on it. Mayor Rawn followed up asking if there could be a sort of letter of intent that could be created. City Attorney Kit Williams did not believe staff could go in that direction. The rules for the historic district cover all buildings in the district; stating you can’t say ‘all buildings’ but leave one out. Potter’s House could be removed from the district, removing protections on the building. There couldn’t be special rules for a single person, or building, in the historic district. Council Member Berna stated Potter’s House had made a tremendous investment in the building and the community. He felt there needed to be a way to figure out how to keep Potter’s House in the historic district but give them assurances and acknowledge/work with their concerns. City Attorney Kit Williams stated the Historic District Commission made the decision on renovations, it was difficult to provide that kind of assurance. He did believe that in the future, if something catastrophic happened, they could revisit the historic district and remove Potter’s House from the district. Council Member Berna responded stating if Potter’s House was having issues with the Historic District Commission, then it was more than likely contentious on multiple party levels. He felt Potter’s House was a great organization, doing a lot of work in the community, and they had zero assurances. Council Member Moore thanked Potter’s House for an amazing tour and understood their level of concern. She then asked City Attorney Kit Williams what options were available beyond the inclusion in the historic district, to which City Attorney Kit Williams replied there were none. The only way the city could preserve buildings was through the Historic District Commission. Kylee added that the only assurance she could give was that if a project clearly met stated guidelines, it would be approved. Any variation from that, the more dangerous water someone Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 23 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov would tread. The Historic District Commission’s option was that they want to be very collaborative. Council Member Moore and Kylee then discussed the appeal process for the Historic District Commission. Historic District Appeals could be appealed to the Circuit Court as an administrative appeal. Council Member Moore and Kylee discussed the timeline for build timeline for Historic District Approval. Kylee stated that there would be a month lead time for the approval of a more major project. Council Member Stafford stated a representative from Potter’s House was in attendance and he would like to grant them 10 minutes for a presentation. Potter’s House Sean Schwartzman began by saying that he was speaking both personally and on behalf of Potter’s House, and that the situation was very challenging for them. They were genuinely excited about the creation of the Black Historic District and fully supported it. He added that they were also supportive of the South Fayetteville Historic District, so long as their property was excluded. He hoped that their longstanding actions in the community would demonstrate their commitment even more than their words. He was the founder and president of Potter’s House and explained that he was born and raised in Fayetteville and met his wife while attending Fayetteville Public Schools. Potter’s House’s mission was embracing the power of diverse relationships to connect and transform the community. He referenced the handout for their campaign, “Jefferson Renewed,” explaining that their focus was to celebrate the building’s deep history while embracing its future. They intentionally kept the name Jefferson because the building had always centered on education, family, and community, and their future plans would continue that legacy. He shared a personal story about how Potter’s House began; a photo of him, his wife, and a young girl his wife met while teaching at Jefferson Elementary. Meeting that student changed their lives and led to the organization’s founding nearly 30 years ago, originally headquartered in the Jefferson cafeteria. He explained what happened when Fayetteville Public Schools put the Jefferson building up for sale with a $1.865 million minimum price. Potter’s House could not afford that amount, but a donor stepped forward and provided the full sum, saying the building would be good for Potter’s House and for Fayetteville. They felt they had saved the property from developers and immediately began meeting with community partners, Seven Hills, Genesis Church, Salvation Army, and neighbors to discuss what the site should become. He walked through renderings of future plans, noting that the building was nearing its 100 year anniversary. He described modernization efforts, including making the building fully accessible, adding an exterior elevator, preserving large green spaces, and restoring original architectural elements in the cafeteria such as its two-story windows and 25 foot ceilings. He highlighted their partnerships; serving as Fayetteville’s cold weather shelter, hosting free weekly community meals, providing after school art programs with Canopy, and supporting the Community Juneteenth event. He noted that an affordable preschool would soon open full time and shared photos of recent preschool graduates. Their property faced streets on all sides, which made them concerned about the impact of historic district regulations on every façade. He detailed the six structures on the site, from the 1930s main building to newer additions, and noted that the gym was essentially a concrete box they hoped to redevelop into a modern community Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 24 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov gym. They were already purchasing and renovating the campus, funded entirely by community donations. Their shared goal was to preserve the building and keep it a community centered space; they simply differed on the best path to achieve that. He reiterated that the campus needed continued upgrades; window replacements, accessibility improvements, and general repairs common to aging buildings. He thanked the City Council for their work and appreciated everyone’s patience and dedication to the community. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick explained the districts had been discussed extensively, both in conversations with then neighborhood and the State Historic Preservation Office. Kylee had outlined her role as staff responsible for evaluating the merits of what a historic district is intended to be. Because the neighbors had done such thorough work collecting petition signatures and presenting their case, Kylee wanted to honor that effort by carefully examining the details, specifically defining what constituted a Black Historic District and identifying the evidence supporting it. She noted that when they evaluated the Jefferson School property, they found that its history was not exclusively tied to Black Heritage in the same way as Henderson School and Lincoln School, which had both been segregated schools serving only Black children in Fayetteville. In recognizing the broader history of the area and its diverse ownership, they determined that the most appropriate approach; one that respected the neighbors’ request, aligned with staff obligations, and met the expectations of the State Historic Preservation Office, was to leave Jefferson School within the South Fayetteville district rather than the Black Historic District. The Historic District Commission ultimately agreed with this assessment and supported forwarding that proposal to the City Council for consideration. Council Member Berna clarified with Britin that it was city staff that made the recommendation to split the district, not Potter’s House. Britin confirmed, stating she appreciated the communication and hospitality shown with Potter’s House. But that splitting was not something they had asked for. It was analyzed by staff and looked at carefully when considering the required report, the Historic District Commission had to write. Council Member Wiederkehr questioned what would happen to the property if Potter’s House left and another purchased it. He wished for bill of assurance, noting he understood the City Council could not ask for one. He was in awe of the historic preservation staff and had nothing but respect and appreciation for the work they completed. He understood the bind the City Council was in and asked for a solution. Council Member Stafford thanked all involved in the district. He would be happy to leave the item on the first reading to allow for more conversation to find common ground and to find a way forward. Council Member Bunch expressed a need to want to assist Potter’s House and asked if tabling the item would allow for something to be worked out. City Attorney Kit Williams stated he didn’t think the rules could be finessed and asked the item be left on the first reading to allow him time to read the state rules and mandatory requirements. Kylee added that the design being Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 25 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov proposed by Potter’s House was something that met the Secretary of Interior’s standards for an addition to a historic building. Council Member Bunch would ultimately be supportive of keeping Potter’s House within the historic district. She understood the uncertainty expressed by Potter’s House but noted that the current staff and City Council might not be there in the future when it came to support for Potter’s House. She felt the building had to be preserved and the only way to do that was to keep it in the historic district. Council Member Moore questioned if the property could be legally split to exclude a portion of the land in any way. City Attorney Kit Williams stated something could be done, if nothing else perhaps a lot split so it wouldn’t be on the same parcel. Whatever the solution was, he felt it would not be decided or figured out at the meeting. He suggested leaving the item on the first reading. Council Member Moore felt the decision was difficult, due to the uncertainty surrounding who would be in the city or on the City Council in the future and how historic district guidelines would be interpreted over time. Despite that uncertainty, she kept returning to the original goals and visions discussed for the area, noting that the Potter’s House location had always been part of that vision. She mentioned a comment made earlier in the meeting that for the building to still be there and still exist, certain protections were necessary and said that idea had stayed with her. She shared that, after working with the City Attorney, it became clear that the only legally viable mechanism available to ensure the building’s preservation was to include it within a historic district. She was empathetic to the concerns raised and understood the hesitation; she felt comfortable waiting if needed but did not believe time alone would produce a different set of options. She was okay to wait and to decide at a future meeting. Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick asked if the City Council would table the item for two weeks as she would like to bring back a proposal. She would like time to consult with Arkansas’ preservation office and to potentially return with a solution. Council Member Bunch made a motion to table the item for two weeks. It was then decided to only leave the item on its first reading. Mayor Rawn thanked her staff for their hard work on the item and thanked Potter’s House for their patience. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. VAC 2026-0004 South Skyline Drive: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-04 for property located at 200 South Skyline Drive in Ward 1 to vacate 0.015 acres of right-of-way. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. He explained that the property had a private culvert running directly beneath the house, and that the culvert had failed in 2024, causing flooding issues. Staff had been notified at the time, and the photos showed that the culvert was an older stone structure rather than a modern part of the city’s stormwater system. About a month after the failure, the city adopted its stormwater utility, and this project Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 26 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov quickly moved onto the city’s list because it was connected to other stormwater problems in the wider area. As staff worked with the property owner, they discovered additional complications related to obtaining easements, including complex deed and platting issues. There was also a zoning setback conflict, which the property owner resolved by obtaining a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment. The property was then replatted through the Planning Commission. No franchise utilities identified any concerns. Staff therefore recommended approval, and the Planning Commission had unanimously forwarded the request for approval. Council Member Bunch and Jonathan discussed how common of an occurrence the vacation circumstances were. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Stafford was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7023 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Amend A.7.C. Consent Agenda of the Rules of Order and Procedure: A resolution to amend A.7.c. Consent Agenda of the Rules of Order and Procedure of the Fayetteville City Council to provide that the City Council may dispense with the reading of the Consent Agenda and approve it in a single vote. Council Member Berna presented on the item. The item was to eliminate the need to do a vote to suspend the rules requiring Mayor Rawn to read the Consent Agenda. It did not eliminate the ability to pull an item off of the Consent Agenda at any point. Mayor Rawn clarified that that if approved, it would remove the need for a motion to suspend the rules requiring her to read the Consent Agenda, but she would still retain the right to read the Consent Agenda if asked to. Council Member Moore wanted to explain her vote for the item. She had received resident feedback on full transparency with the public regarding the Consent Agenda not being read. She questioned if it was best practice and would not be supporting the item. Council Member Berna moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed 6-2. Council Member Dr. Jones, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Moore and Min. Jones voted no. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 27 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Resolution 179-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk An Ordinance to Amend § 155.04 Council Member Appeal on Behalf of Residents: An ordinance to amend § 155.04 Council Member Appeal on Behalf of Residents to exempt any appeal fee for all appeals required to be sponsored by and in fact are sponsored by council members including this section; § 155.05 (a)(3); § 155.06 (a)(1)(b)(1); § 155.09, and to amend § 155.06 (c)(1)(a), (c)(2)(a), and (c)(3), and to declare an emergency. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk stated in 2025 there was an approved item to raise the fees for development, reflecting the amount of staff time that had gone into an item. She did not recall the portion of the item about appeal fees by residents. She found the bar to very high and economically challenging for many citizens. Council Member Turk verified with City Attorney Kit Williams that the way the ordinance read made it so the City Council Member was responsible for the fee, not the citizen. There was discussion on a possible amendment from Council Member Berna. His amendment would waive the fee but require three City Council Members on any appeal to show that the City Council Members identified an issue that warranted staff time and energy. Council Member Stafford agreed there shouldn’t be financial burden to entry for an appeal. He liked Council Member Berna’s amendment and felt it held City Council Member’s to the standard they had on CUP appeals. He was willing to support the item if it included Council Member Berna’s amendment. Council Member Wiederkehr felt there was merit in requiring more than one City Council Member for waiving the fee. He acknowledged that staff spent an inordinate amount of time with appeals, which was a concern he had. Appeals took staff away from processing normal applications that come through the development process. Council Member Bunch shared her history with supporting appeals for citizens and expressed she felt a little uncomfortable taking away the ability for citizens to appeal without having three City Council Member’s sign off on it. Council Member Turk commented she always wanted to ensure that citizens had the ability to appeal and not have financial barriers. She felt democracy didn’t work well if the bar was so high. She requested the number of appeals from the last five years while acknowledging they took a lot of staff time but she felt the public deserved a process to disagree with previous decisions. Council Member Moore agreed with Council Member Turk. She asked if the item could be held on the first reading. She understood the intent behind requiring three City Council Members but she had concerns that it might be a similar hurdle that could intimidate a resident. Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A City Council Meeting Minutes August 4, 2026 Page 28 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford questioned why there was an emergency clause attached to the item if it was to be left on the first reading. Mayor Rawn clarified the emergency clause was due to wanting it to take impact as soon as it was voted on to prevent any sort of lag. Council Member Turk added that there might be an appeal in the works as well. City Attorney Kit Williams stated the appeal had been paused as staff did not have the authority to waive the fees. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. Announcements: None City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: None Adjournment: 10:56 p.m. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer Docusign Envelope ID: 66505472-DB52-8DA2-81F6-E61308508C1A