Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-18 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 1 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting August 18, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on August 18, 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, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, Mayor Molly Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker, Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson, Staff, Press and Audience. Absent: D’Andre Jones DHA Pledge of Allegiance Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: Mayor Rawn announced that items C. 4 – C. 6 had requests to table. City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: None Agenda Additions: None Consent: Council Member Berna moved to accept the Consent Agenda as shown. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member 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 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: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 2 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Approval of the August 4, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Approved. Award Bid #26-43 Hwy 112 (Poplar to Drake): A resolution to award Bid 26-43 and authorize a contract with Crossland Heavy Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $14,923,032.90 for construction of the Highway 112 widening project, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $125,000.00, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 180-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Phase 2 Design Contract with Kimley Horn for Safety Improvements on E. Joyce Blvd.: A resolution to approve Amendment No. 1 to the professional services agreement with Kimley- Horn & Associates in the amount of $810,500.00 for additional design services associated with the Safe Streets and Roads for All Project. Resolution 181-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Skid Steer Replacement for Drake Field Airport Through JA Riggs Tractor Company: A resolution to approve the purchase of a skid steer and additional attachments from JA Riggs Tractor Company in the amount of $104,064.58, 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 182-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval of Fleet Fuel Card Application: A resolution to approve a Fuel Card Program contract with Corpay Technologies Operating Company, LLC, pursuant to an Omnia Cooperative Purchasing Contract, through June 30, 2029, and any future renewals. Resolution 183-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk RIMCO Scrap Metal Bid: A resolution to award Bid 26-44 to Rogers Iron and Metal Corporation for the removal and recycling of scrap metal items from the City of Fayetteville Recycling and Trash Collection Division in the amount of $132.00 per ton for a term of one year with automatic renewals for up to four additional one year terms. Resolution 184-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: 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 Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 3 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov 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. For item history beginning July 21, 2026, please contact the Office of the City Clerk Treasurer. At the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading and tabled to the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth reminded the City Council that they had tabled the item at the previous meeting due to significant public comment regarding stormwater drainage patterns. Since then, the applicant submitted a bill of assurance which proposed to limit development of the property. If accepted and rezoned, it would allow two duplexes totaling four units altogether. Staff was recommending approval of the item. The Planning Commission had originally denied the item with a vote of 1 – 6. Council Member Turk asked if there was a footprint limitation on the property. Jonathan explained that was correct; the amount of imperviousness would determine what standard it was subject to. If it was above 10,000 square feet, it would trigger the drainage criteria manual. Representative Sydney Wilson provided a brief overview of the half acre lot and the request for two duplexes, totaling four homes. She referenced a precedent on Wedington Drive where a rezoning from Residential Single Family-4 to Residential Intermediate Urban was approved with a bill of assurance limiting density to four units. Approximately 67% of the surrounding properties she reviewed were nonowner occupied, indicating rental activity and demand in that area. She shared her experience of working in Fayetteville as a local developer and her service to the community. She had a commitment to solving issues through empathy and logic. She acknowledged drainage concerns as legitimate and significant but questioned the timing of when those concerns should be addressed. Engineers could not propose solutions yet because the property’s design depended on the rezoning being approved. She cited the City of Fayetteville’s drainage criteria, noting that development must ensure stormwater levels do not exceed pre-development conditions and that specific improvements are determined during development review. Blocking the rezoning would not resolve drainage issues and suggested that broader policy discussions might be needed to avoid hindering small development projects. Redevelopment could offer an opportunity to address drainage through redesign. She respectfully asked that the rezoning be approved. Council Member Moore acknowledged that the City Council could not request details be added to the bill of assurance but questioned if the developers could add that they would only cover a certain portion of the property. City Attorney Kit Williams explained the property owner could offer a variety of things with a bill of assurance, if they chose to. He reaffirmed that the City Council could not request conditions be added to the bill of assurance. Council Member Moore and Jonathan discussed the differences in zoning requests. Council Member Stafford asked if there was a way to quantify how much of the stormwater water run off was sheet flow from Wedington Drive itself. Jonathan explained there had not been a detailed drainage study of the area, but there had been many issued identified. There was Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 4 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov roughly a three quarter acre portion of the property that appeared to be draining westward toward the neighbors. Council Member Stafford questioned if the bill of assurance followed the deed. City Attorney Kit Williams explained it would not follow the deed; it stayed with the land. The zoning would have to be changed in order to change the bill of assurance. Council Member Stafford and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed if it would be construed as unfair that a piece of property was being punished for the drainage issues from the area. City Attorney Kit Williams explained City Council could look at more than just drainage. They could observe the density and that it might not be compatible with the neighbors. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Turk and Jonathan discussed parking requirements. If two duplexes were built, it would require 8 parking spaces either in garages or elsewhere on the property. Council Member Turk addressed what the applicant had stated in her presentation. A rezoning had been approved in the area but it was to the west of Wedington Drive; the area had been flat and had no slope associated with it. She felt topography was very important when discussing stormwater issues and flooding. She would not be in support of the item. She felt the development of the property would worsen water issues in the area. Council Member Moore asked what recourse a resident had if they were concerned that a developer had not followed current drain standards. Jonathan explained that Fayetteville’s field staff would evaluate and determine if the development matched the approved design. If it did meet requirements, a resident could take civil action. Council Member Moore had long supported adding density, especially in areas with amenities and transit access. She acknowledged that the larger stormwater study for the area of the development had not been completed. She struggled with the idea of adding more impervious surfaces while the city was still evaluating the area. She had walked much of the property and the Wedington Drive area, noticing crude ditches, crushed culverts and a significant amount of work still needed. The housing proposal seemed compatible with the area but she worried that elevation changes and build-up could displace neighbors before long-term solutions were in place. She was hoped updating the Unified Development Code would lead to addressing stormwater issues more aggressively. Council Member Stafford asked City Attorney Kit Williams if those who had tenure in a neighborhood had more rights versus someone who had just moved in. City Attorney Kit Williams stated the City Council needed to treat everyone equally. Council Member Stafford felt that residents came to Fayetteville because they loved it and believed it to be a great place to live. However, when they arrive, they want the city to remain exactly the way it was on the first day, which wasn’t possible. He warned if the city didn’t address growth, it would ultimately destroy the very things residents claimed to love and want to Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 5 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov preserve. The stormwater concerns were handled in the development process and that no project was allowed to increase stormwater run-off beyond what existed before development. With good engineering, he hoped runoff would even decrease. The property in question was nearly half an acre and that, if it were slightly larger, it wouldn’t even require a rezoning. The proposed density was gentle and not a major increase. There would be an expected 60,000 resident increase over the next few decades and the city had to prepare for the growth. Gentle infill was necessary and he would be in support of the item. Council Member Min. Jones requested more information on the Planning Commissions denial, as they cited the city’s drainage criteria and the risk of spot zoning. Jonathan did not have the information immediately available and could not recall what prompted the Planning Commission to specifically cite it. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. 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. At the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick presented on the item. She appreciated the City Council for providing time for Long Range & Preservation Planner Kylee Cole to hold four conversations with the State Historic Preservation Office to explore possible options. After consulting with the state office, reviewing the Potter’s House request for clarity on applicable standards, and considering the various documents property owners might need to navigate in a historic district without custom design guidelines, she proposed an approach that she believed would also benefit Fayetteville’s local historic district property owners moving forward. She asked the City Council to amend the current ordinance to remove the Potter’s House property for now. This would allow the petitioning property owners to continue their process. Staff intended to apply for grant funding from the State Historic Preservation Office to support community involvement in creating custom design guidelines for the South Fayetteville Historic District, and to include the recently created Black Historic District as well. She emphasized the importance of honoring the area’s rich history and noted that the oldest known building dated to 1886. Due to the significance, she wanted the districts to receive clear standards and proper respect. She was enthusiastic about the grant opportunity because it would allow the city to bring in experienced consultants who specialized in historic African American communities. With the grant window opening soon, they were well positioned to apply. She was available for questions. Mayor Rawn clarified that Britin was recommending not including Potter’s House in the amended district and that applying for the grant would provide time to develop guidelines for the district. Mayor Rawn then questioned if at that point, Potter’s House could join the district, to which Britin confirmed they could. She explained that after the district was established, any property owner who qualified could send in a written request to be added. Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 6 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna motioned to amend the ordinances as requested by Britin. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that the city had to follow state law and state law limited what the City Council do. He quoted Arkansas Code §14-172-207 that covered the specific requirement. It stated, “The governing body of the municipality after reviewing the report of the commission, shall take one shall take one of the following steps: accept the report of the commission and enact an ordinance to carry out the provisions of the subchapter.” He stated that the report had a map that included Potter’s House, and the City Council decided to remove them from the district. The City Council had a second option, stating they could “Return the report to the commission with such amendments and revisions thereto as it may deem advisable for consideration by the commission and a further report to the governing body of the municipality within 90 days.” The final option was the City Council could reject the report of the Historic District Commission. Mayor Rawn requested Britin speak to what City Attorney Kit Williams had stated. Long Range Planning/Special Projects Manager Britin Bostick explained that in staffs talks with the Arkansas State Preservation Office their understanding had been that the City Council retained its legislative authority. It did state they had to accept the report of the commission and enact an ordinance to carry out the provisions of the subchapter. The report, she felt, had an important distinction between the presentations staff provided as part of their role and the report that the City Council received as part of the process. The report showed, in terms of the Potter’s House building, it was part of the list of properties that were included in photos. The Historic District Commission had reported to the City Council, which the City Council had reviewed. The report did include a map, but ultimately in staff’s reading, the City Council had the ability to accept a report and enact the ordinance that they chose as the legislative body of the city. City Attorney Kit Williams stated that was not what the state law said. The state law stated that the report would contain a map showing the exact boundaries of the area to be included. If the City Council wanted to change the map, it would have to be sent back to the Historic District Commission with a recommendation to change it. He had drafted an ordinance that would accomplish as much. He stated the city needed to follow state law and not skip steps. Mayor Rawn expressed it was an awkward situation as what was told to staff by the City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney and Arkansas State Office were not matching. Council Member Bunch and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed the memo he had sent out earlier in the day that detailed the options for the City Council. The state statute had ‘shall’ in it, meaning it was mandatory and he stated it shouldn’t be ignored because it was more convenient to do something else. Mayor Rawn clarified she would never advise anyone to ignore state law. She understood the meaning of shall but thought it didn’t differ from the initial report that the Historic District Commission approved. She then asked Britin what kind of time sensitivity was associated with the project. Britin explained if the City Council chose to send the district back to the Historic District Commission, there was a period of time in which the Historic District had to provide it Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 7 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov back to the City Council. It was achievable under their current meeting schedule. She reiterated that Potter’s House was not discussed in the report nearly to the extent that it had been in public comment. She questioned the purpose of sending the item back to the Historic District when a lot of the conversation had come from public comment. She felt everyone had done their best to follow the current and modern processes. She understood City Attorney Kit Williams reading, but staff was looking to accept the report of the commission and enact an ordinance to carry out the provisions of the subchapter, not an ordinance to carry out the provisions of the report. That was where staff found their position on the issue. Council Member Wiederkehr asked if the map that included Potter’s House was formally accepted by the City Council. City Attorney Kit Williams explained that state law stated the City Council must accept the report of the commission. Part of the report was a complete description of the areas to be included in the historic district, a map showing the exact boundaries of the area to be including. If the City Council accepted the report, they were accepting the map. The City Council could not accept the report without the map and couldn’t enact the ordinance without the report. State law did not allow the legislative body to change the report; it had to be sent back to the Historic District Commission. Mayor Rawn asked Britin if the map was included in the report, Britin confirmed. Britin added that the report was not included with the ordinance that the City Attorney wrote. City Attorney Kit Williams then read the ordinance that listed what the report should include, specifically a map with the exact boundaries of the area. He advised to follow state law, even if it took longer. Mayor Rawn and Britin discussed the timeline the Historic District Commission had to send the item back to the City Council. Council Member Moore and Britin discussed the possibly of a Memorandum of Understanding. Britin explained a Memorandum of Understanding could not be considered as part of the process, per their consultation with the state office. Council Member Berna withdrew his previous motion, as the City Council was advised it was an illegal motion to make. He mentioned motioning to remand the item back to the Historic District Commission. City Attorney Kit Williams stated he had drafted an ordinance that would send the item back to them, he advised to pass his draft ordinance. Mayor Rawn questioned why the item couldn’t be tabled indefinitely and then sent back to the Historic District Commission. City Attorney Kit Williams felt that tabling the item indefinitely did not provide the Historic District Commission with the proposed recommendations. Council Member Stafford motioned to table the item indefinitely, Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Council Member Berna requested clarification on whether the Historic District Commission had guidance on the changes the City Council expected. Britin requested guidance on City Council’s expectation be made in their motion to table. She stated an ordinance did not need to be made to give direction to the Historic District Commission. Council Member Berna made a friendly amendment to Council Member Stafford’s motion, to which Council Member Stafford and Council Member Moore agreed with. Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 8 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Stafford moved to table the ordinance indefinitely and remand back to the Historic District Commission to provide a revised map. Council Member Moore 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 indefinitely. 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. At the August 4, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Council Member Turk moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 4-3. Council Member Moore, Bunch, Turk and Min. Jones voted yes. Council Member Wiederkehr, Berna and Stafford voted no. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Turk summarized why she brought the item forward. One issue was that Council Members were responsible for the payment of fees if they were sponsoring a citizen appeal. The second issue was that the fee increase amount was a tremendous economic burden placed on citizens. She felt it went against the culture of the citizens in Fayetteville. There had never been a requirement to pay fees for citizen appeals. Council Member Berna stated he hadn’t had a chance to read Development Services Director Jonathan Curth’s memo. He requested a summary about why he did not support the item. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth noted that public comments had repeatedly claimed that appeal fees discourage public participation. Any item appealed from the Planning Commission already included a public hearing with notification, meaning the public had opportunities to participate. Items appealed from staff approvals were administrative, based strictly on the development code, and that frequent appeals of those decisions suggested a problem with the ordinance itself rather than staff interpretation. Staff had concerns about broadening the scope of appeals because it undermined the Planning Commission’s authority and moved technical decisions away from the body with the most expertise. Expanded appeals would increase costs and time for the development community, which included not only developers but also residents, small businesses, large institutions, and others. Removing fees would not remove the time burden on staff; it would simply prioritize appeal related work over other fee supported applications. Staff’s recommendation was based on the user fee study initiated in 2023, which sought council support for a cost recovery model. Staff had been careful not to overcharge and had proposed fees lower than the study suggested to remain within legal guidelines. The staff Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 9 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov workload involved in appeal processing, including extensive communication with residents, council members, commissioners, and applicants; public notification responsibilities; ongoing administrative review; coordinating revisions; and preparing materials for council consideration. Recent appeals had generated more than 50 emails in a single week, illustrating the workload. Appeal related fees were not arbitrary and were designed to reflect the actual services provided. Given City Council’s past intent to pursue full cost recovery, staff recommended maintaining the fee. He appreciated the proposed alternative requiring sponsorship from three council members, saying it would clearly signal that an appeal had merit. He was available for questions. Council Member Berna explained his proposed amendment. He was open to eliminating the fee but felt it imperative to consider adding a provision that three City Council Member’s sign on to the appeal. It would provide a clear indication there was merit to the appeal. Council Member Stafford agreed with Council Member Berna. He believed there had to be checks and balance and the city and taxpayer should not have to subsidize the cost of appeals. He understood the cost was prohibitive and felt the amendment was reasonable. The City Council received 1 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Stafford agreed with the last paragraph of Jonathan’s memo regarding the amount of staff time appeals took. He shared that he had witnessed appeals come through that were illegitimate and a waste of everybody’s time. Council Member Berna did not want to take away the ability of the public to have an appeal. He added he may be overstepping, but felt staff was needing help as they were some cases with an overwhelming amount of work and each time an appeal was done, it added to it. If staff was doing the work, they should be compensated for it. If they decide not to compensate, then there should be three City Council Members supporting the appeal as it states a need for review. City Councils’ job was to listen to the public and to listen to staff. He did not feel the three Council Member Requirement was undemocratic or a hardship. Council Member Moore explained that while staff time needed to be considered, Fayetteville had always valued full access to the democratic process, and recent feedback showed that the new fees had become a barrier for residents. That suggested to her that the current solution wasn’t quite right yet. She thanked the City Clerk Treasurer’s office for providing the number of appeal numbers throughout the years. Noting that in 2023 there were 11 appeals, in 2024 there were 13, in 2025 there were 12, and in 2026 so far there were 6. She didn’t believe those numbers indicated an excessive or frivolous amount of appeals. Many were Conditional Use Permits, and some had taken multiple attempts. She was open to discussing requirements, but with so many households struggling financially, she hesitated to support a system without a fee free pathway. She shared her own experience of when she filed an appeal for a resident, explaining she paid the fee herself and it was a hardship for her family. She appreciated that Jonathan had spent additional time detailing staff’s workload in the memo. Some departments were already strained and that the upcoming budget cycle would require broader consideration of staffing and workload, fees weren’t the only factor. She didn’t want the fee itself to derail democratic participation and believed there were other mechanisms that wouldn’t place such Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 10 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov financial pressure on residents. She hoped the City Council could find a solution that allowed for a meaningful path forward without requiring a large amount of money from citizens who might not have money for necessities. Mayor Rawn thanked Council Member Moore for being supportive of adding more staff. Council Member Moore appreciated Jonathan for providing all of the background information on what staff went through with the appeal process. She then questioned if developers paid a fee with appealing their item to the City Council. Jonathan explained that the fee was typically paid upfront from the developer. Developers did pay a fee to go the City Council, whether it was an appeal or otherwise. The cost was based on the size of the property. Council Member Moore felt if a resident had to get the sign off from three City Council Members, the 10 business day allotment was not long enough to follow all of the required steps. She felt amending the time period to extend to 20 days would allow a citizen more time to navigate the city’s’ process. Council Member Wiederkehr stated that without cost recovery, someone was inevitably subsidizing the services being provided, and ideally everyone should pay their fair share. If the City Council believed the financial burden of an appeal fee was too high, he saw the proposal to require three council members to sponsor an appeal as a reasonable step. An appeal ultimately needed five votes to pass, and if an appellant couldn’t even secure three sponsors, he doubted they would be able to secure five votes at the City Council level. Citizens already contacted City Council Members about appeals, and he always responded to those requests. He thanked Council Member Moore for gathering appeal numbers and noted that the city averaged about one appeal per month, which was appropriate because appeals were meant to be infrequent and outside the normal process. He was concerned about both staff workload and the resources consumed by appeals. While he preferred keeping the fee so that residents who opposed an appeal weren’t forced to subsidize it, he could accept eliminating the fee if a requiring three City Council Members was put in place. He argued that if someone couldn’t get three sponsors, they likely couldn’t get five votes and proceeding without that support risked wasting time on appeals with no chance of passing. He felt that democracy meant accepting outcomes even when a person didn’t get what they wanted and moving on. If the City Council was going to revisit the entire appeal process, he wanted it on record that he was concerned about allowing appeals of large scale developments in which staff applied existing development codes. He felt reconsideration of that area should be part of any broader review. Council Member Bunch thanked Jonathan for detailing the amount of staff time that went into appeals into perspective. She would be in favor of adding Council Member Berna’s amendment to the ordinance. In discussing challenges with staff, she stated that the City Council needed to support staff. Adding more staff but not compensating them took away time from other projects. She felt the requirement was a fair hurdle to have, adding it was not too oppressive. Council Member Berna stated he would be open for more discussion surrounding extending the 10 business day allotment, but he would probably be more in favor of leaving it at the 10 day mark. Council Member Bunch added that 20 business days was almost an entire month, which Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 11 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov was a lot of time for an item to be on hold. She would be willing to add a couple of days but not 20. Council Member Stafford felt that 20 days was a bit much and was fine with 10 business days as it was a full 2 weeks. Council Member Moore thanked the City Council for considering adding more days. She did feel the bar was still high for citizens. She felt it was important to give citizens a sufficient amount of time to navigate the process. She was ‘not crazy’ about the three City Council Member requirement but if that was what it took to move the item forward, then the City Council could at least allow more time. She then made a friendly amendment to Council Member Berna’s request by asking for an additional 5 days, bringing it to a 15 business day allotment. City Attorney Kit Williams stated he had legal concerns with Council Member Moore’s motion. Extending to 15 business days meant the citizen would only have 30 days to appeal to the Circuit Court. He felt it was better to leave the limit at 10 business days. A citizen could contact the City Clerk Treasurer or City Attorney’s office for assistance if needed. Council Member Berna moved to amend language to include the requirement of three Council Members to bring forward an appeal and to remove the requirement of paying a fee for the citizens appeal. Council Member Min. Jones 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. Council Member Moore 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 6-1. Council Member Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-1. Council Member Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. Ordinance 7024 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Berna moved to approve an emergency clause. Council member Moore 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. New Business: VAC 2026-0009 South Buchanan Avenue: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-09 for property located at 322 South Buchanan Avenue in Ward 1 to vacate 0.02 acres of right-of-way. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 12 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. He explained the property was currently developed with a single-family home with driveway accessing it. The request was to vacate approximately 0.32 acres of public right of way that ran along the frontage of the property along Buchanan Avenue. Staff did not find the right of way necessary for the public’s interest. All associated franchise utilities and city services had consented . The Planning Commission also forwarded the item unanimously by a vote of 9-0. Council Member Berna 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 Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones 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 Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7025 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk VAC 2026-0007 South Stone Bridge Road: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-07 for property located at 615 South Stone Bridge Road in Ward 1 to vacate 0.212 acres of utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item. The request was to vacate about 2/10ths of an acre of easement that bisect the property from east to west. It was in anticipation of developing the property with a convenience store and gas station facility. The item was currently at the Planning Commission to be reviewed, which did not preclude the City Council from taking any action on the item. If the development was not approved, a new sewer line would not be installed and the vacation would not take effect. They had not received any concerns from franchise utilities. Representative Rick McGraw stated he was available for questions if needed. 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 Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 13 of 17 113 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 7-0. Council Member Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7026 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0003 North and South of W. Catalpa Dr & S. Rupple Rd: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-03 for approximately 13.59 acres located near West Catalpa Drive and South Rupple Road in Ward 1 from UT, Urban Thoroughfare; CS, Community Services; and NC, Neighborhood Conservation, to UT, Urban Thoroughfare; CS, Community Services; RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban; and CCR, Conservation, Cultural, and Recreation. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Development Services Director Jonathan Curth presented on the item and reviewed the location of the property. The proposal had gone through several iterations, including earlier discussions about using the Residential Agriculture zoning district for sensitive areas, before the Planning Commission ultimately recommended the current proposal involving Conservation, Cultural, and Recreation zoning. Both staff and the Planning Commission supported the request. He outlined the zoning changes: about two acres at the eastern portion were proposed to be rezoned to Residential Intermediate Urban; approximately 1.7 acres closer to Rupple Road were proposed to be rezoned to Community Services; and roughly 1.8 acres of recently designated floodplain were proposed as Conservation, Cultural, and Recreation. Staff found the request compatible with surrounding land uses. The request aligned with the city’s future land use map, noting that the map predated the newly designated floodplain. The Conservation, Cultural and Recreation zoning addressed the sensitive area. Tree preservation requirements varied due to the multiple zoning districts but the property was mostly pasture with limited canopy. He explained the conservation easement, noting it was the second easement associated with Conservation, Cultural and Recreation zoning and that this one would be dedicated upon rezoning, with wetland appropriate vegetation added after subdivision construction. The applicant could provide more detail about the appearance of that area during construction. One public comment was received expressing concern about losing the field and the potential environmental impacts the development could have. Representative Blake Jorgenson appreciated working with staff. It had been complicated to draft the language but felt Jonathan’s presentation was very detailed. He was available to answer any questions. Council Member Turk disclosed she owned a piece of property that was closely adjacent to the proposed property but did not think it would affect her vote for the item. Council Member Wiederkehr and Jonathan discussed stormwater management in a Conservation, Cultural and Recreation zoning. Jonathan explained a developer could not outsource the detention area to an area of Conservation, Cultural and Recreation zoning districts. Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 14 of 17 113 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 Wiederkehr 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. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7027 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk ANX 2025-0002 Northeast of West Weir Road: An ordinance to annex that property described in Annexation Petition ANX 25-002 submitted by Flintlock LTD for property located northeast of 4110 West Weir Road containing approximately 11.17 acres. Council Member Stafford moved to table the ordinance to the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Berna 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. Appeal: PZD 2025-0006 Northeast of West Weir Rd: An ordinance to approve a Planned Zoning District entitled PZD-2025-006 for approximately 51.4 acres located north of the intersection of West Weir Road and North Rupple Road in Ward 4. 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. Appeal: CUP 2026-0031 North Bear Tree Court: A resolution to grant the appeal of Council Members Sarah Bunch, Sarah Moore, Teresa Turk, and Scott Berna and deny Conditional Use Permit CUP 2026-031 for a cluster housing development at 1919 North Bear Tree Court in Ward 3. Mayor Rawn confirmed with Development Services Director Jonathan Curth that the applicant requested the item be tabled to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Jonathan explained it Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 15 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov was a cluster housing development with a variance request. The Planning Commission denied the variance but approved the project. The applicant would like to redesign the project so that it meets current standards before presenting to the City Council. Council Member Stafford moved to table the resolution to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Moore 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 resolution was tabled to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Amend § 163.20 Data Centers: An ordinance to strengthen the city’s data center regulations by amending § 163.20 Data Centers of the Unified Development Code, and to declare an emergency. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Council Member Berna thanked staff and the Ordinance Review Committee for their continued work on the ordinance. He acknowledged that the City of Fayetteville could not prohibit data centers, but they were allowed to identify the qualifications and specifics that data centers would have to follow for their development. They chose reasonable requirements to provide the developer and citizens expectations for a data center in the Fayetteville. There was an importance identified to strengthen the original ordinance passed earlier in the year. He felt it would be a model ordinance that many in the region would look to. He acknowledged the work that Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington had completed on the item. He brought forward the information that helped the Ordinance Review Committee determine their next steps. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington reviewed that on June 16, 2026 the City Council passed Ordinance 7010, which strengthened existing data center regulations. The ordinance changed data centers from a use by right to a conditional use in I-2 zoning which required public hearings, added protections for utility customers, created setback and landscape buffer rules, strengthened monitoring and reporting requirements, added penalties for violations and extended protections to areas outside city limits but within the water service area. The Ordinance Review Committee met on June 25, July 16 and July 29 this year to consider additional changes. The changes included requiring more detailed initial application information; classifying data centers as significant industrial users regardless of water consumption; mandating battery storage as the primary backup power source; reinforcing generator testing standards; clarifying cooling water discharge requirements; adding annual reporting and disclosure requirements; requiring conditional use permit amendments for any expansion; strengthening violations and penalty provisions; clarifying that the city was not regulating utility rates; and updating the definition of data center to include on-site or off-site private power generation so projects could not bypass regulations. He acknowledged feedback received that mentioned requiring solar energy sources for data centers. He explained that state law prevented Fayetteville from requiring solar, or any specific energy source, as Arkansas state code §14-1- 105 prohibited cities from restricting utility service choices based on energy type. The Ordinance Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 16 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Review Committee had not made any recommendations as far as a waste management plan or thermal management plan. There was continued discussion regarding emergency access and fire regulations. There had been an expressed interest in creating a tiered structure and carving out accessory data centers that the Ordinance Review Committee had not gotten to. He noted an interest in cost recovery or requirement for outside consultants to assist in processing the applications and overseeing any development if a data center did come to Fayetteville. They hadn’t fully reviewed power usage or water usage effectiveness and inspections were another issue not covered but were available for further study. Council Member Moore thanked those who worked on the item, mentioning Blake and the Ordinance Review Committee specifically. She appreciated being in a community with those who took a topic that had a high intensity with how it could impact the community in a serious manner. She acknowledged the work the left on the item but felt Fayetteville created a piece of model legislation others could model in the Arkansas. Council Member Turk thanked all involved with the item; the citizens who provided input and research and the work done by city staff and the Ordinance Review Committee. She then asked if an amendment needed to be done to include on-site and off-site private power generation equipment as part of the definition. Council Member Turk moved to amend to add the on-site and off-site private power generation equipment as part of the definition. Council Member Berna 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. 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 Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones 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 Moore, Wiederkehr, Berna, Bunch, Turk, Min. Jones and Stafford voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7028 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Council Member Moore moved to approve the emergency clause. Council Member Turk 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. Announcements: During the announcements there was discussion between Mayor Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton and staff on whether an item needed to be added to Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978 City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2026 Page 17 of 17 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov the agenda for City Council approval. It was decided to move forward with adjourning the meeting and they would discuss adding the item to the next agenda. City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: None Adjournment: 8:04 p.m. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer Docusign Envelope ID: 63870A09-A886-82E7-82C6-0235D745C978