Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-09-15 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 1 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting September 15, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on September 15, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Mayor Rawn called the meeting to order. Present: Council Members Robert B. Stafford, D’Andre Jones DHA, Sarah Moore, Mike Wiederkehr, Scott Berna, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Minister Monique Jones, Mayor Molly Rawn, City Attorney Kit Williams, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker, 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: Nominating Committee Report Council Member Stafford read the Nominating Committee Report as presented. Council Member Dr. Jones moved to approve the Nominating Committee Report. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. The Nominating Committee Report was approved. Council Member Scott Berna Ward 3 Position 1 Council Member Sarah Bunch Ward 3 Position 2 Council Member Teresa Turk Ward 4 Position 1 Council Member Min. Monique Jones Ward 4 Position 2 Mayor Molly Rawn City Attorney Kit Williams City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton Council Member Robert B. Stafford Ward 1 Position 1 Council Member Dr. D’Andre Jones Ward 1 Position 2 Council Member Sarah Moore Ward 2 Position 1 Council Member Mike Wiederkehr Ward 2 Position 2 Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 2 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn stated that the staff appointed to manage the Art Council would be making a recommendation for their open position and would bring their recommendation forward to the City Council. Agenda Additions: None Consent: Council Member Berna moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Approval of the September 1, 2026, City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved. Purchase of New HVAC Unit for the Development Services Building through Elite Building Solutions: A resolution to approve the purchase of a new HVAC unit for the Development Services Building from Elite Building Solutions in the amount of $55,437.45, pursuant to Bid 21-36, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $11,087.00. Resolution 202-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Purchase of Expansion Excavators for the Water and Sewer Department through WT Transfer Holding Company LLC: A resolution to approve the purchase of three excavators and additional attachments from WT Transfer Holding Company LLC in the amount of $328,995.87, pursuant to a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, tariffs, freight charges, and delivery fees, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 203-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Purchase of Expansion Utility Trailers for the Water and Sewer Department through 36 North Network Solutions LLC: A resolution to approve the purchase of two utility trailers from 36 North Network Solutions in the amount of $42,770.00, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, taxes, title, licensing and delivery fees, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 204-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Underwood Park Change Order # 4: A resolution to approve Change Order No. 4 to the contract with Legacy Construction Management in the amount of $42,738.14 for additional services related to construction at Underwood Park, and to approve an additional project contingency in the amount of $63,000.00. Resolution 205-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 3 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Lake Fayetteville Marina Concession and Rental Agreement: A resolution to waive competitive bidding and approve an agreement with the Veggie Table, LLC d/b/a Fayetteville Fountain to provide concessionaire services and bike and boat rentals at Lake Fayetteville Marina for one year with four automatic renewal options. Resolution 206-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Amendment No. 2 to the West Ave Parking Deck Professional Services Agreement for a Fire Suppression Safety System: A resolution to approve Amendment No. 2 to the professional services agreement with Olsson, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $53,000.00 for additional services related to the installation of a fire suppression safety system in the West Avenue Parking Deck. Resolution 207-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval of a Historical Marker Recognizing the Henderson School: A resolution to approve the installation of a historical marker recognizing the history of the Henderson School. Resolution 208-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk CDBG/HOME Plan Approval and Mayor’s Signature Authority to Execute FY2026 CDBG/HOME Grant Agreements: A resolution to approve the 2026 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, to authorize Mayor Rawn to execute the CDBG and Home Investment Partnerships Grant agreements for 2026 when received in the total amount of $1,261,286.07, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 209-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Recognize Interest Revenue for Sales Tax & Use Tax Capital Improvement Bonds Series 2019B / 2022 / 2024: A resolution to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $7,688,586.00 recognizing interest revenue generated from the 2019 Sales Tax and Use Tax Capital Improvement Bonds. Resolution 210-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Unfinished Business: 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. For item history beginning July 21, 2026, please contact the Office of the City Clerk Treasurer. At the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading and tabled to the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 4 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn and City Attorney Kit Williams discussed the Rules of Order and Procedure. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained the applicant requested the City Council table the item to the City Council meeting on October 6, 2026. The applicant was meeting with neighbors and requested additional time to incorporate comments received before bringing forward a slightly revised version to the City Council. Council Member Berna moved to table the ordinance to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This ordinance was tabled to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. 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. For item history beginning July 21, 2026 please contact the Office of the City Clerk Treasurer. At the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the second reading. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick reviewed the item. Staff had recommended approval of the rezoning request and the Planning Commission had denied it. Staff’s recommendation was based on the future land use designation of Residential Neighborhood designation and an infill score of 8, indicating the property was close to fire services, water and sewer, parks and trails, transit, public schools, and the University of Arkansas. The Residential Neighborhood designation was intended to support a mix of housing types, so even though the surrounding area had mostly single-family homes, the proposed zoning was considered compatible. The Planning Commission’s denial was based on neighbors’ concerns and the absence of a specific neighborhood plan for the area, though staff noted that the adopted comprehensive plan already covered it. She was available for questions. Representative Sydney Wilson presented on the item. At the previous meeting, the item had been tabled to allow her time to speak with the neighbors, commenting that the conversations had been enlightening. She understood the neighbors’ concerns and agreed that there was an issue, though she had a different perspective on how it should be solved. Redevelopment could help address long standing drainage problems, noting that many homes in the area were built in the 1950s and were never required to meet modern drainage standards. She understood the drainage concerns along with the neighbors but felt that action was what mattered. She and her team agreed to meet one of the neighbors’ requests; limiting the impervious surface on the lot to 11,500 square feet, which was reflected in the Bill of Assurance. Neighbors had also asked to preserve some mature trees at the back of the lot, but previous drainage maps showed runoff coming from that area. She wanted to avoid restricting potential drainage solutions that might Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 5 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov need to be placed there. Conversations with a nearby neighbor confirmed that drainage was the primary concern, more so than privacy. She believed the rezoning could move forward while still addressing the drainage issue. Fayetteville needed development and drainage improvements, and she believed both goals could be achieved together. City Attorney Kit Williams verified with Sydney that the Bill of Assurance was offered to the City Council in hopes they would approve to rezone the property. Council Member Turk clarified with City Attorney Kit Williams that he had an opportunity to review the Bill of Assurance. City Attorney Kit Williams explained he had just read it, but it was very clear. It had 2 limitations; 11,500 square feet of impervious surface limitation and a limit of four dwellings, 2 duplexes. Council Member Turk then asked how much 11,500 square feet was out of the .55 acreage. Council Member Stafford thought the Bill of Assurance looked good and that it addressed concerns with the impervious surface. He then motioned to accept the Bill of Assurance. Council Member Stafford moved to add subject to Bill of Assurance. Council Member Min. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Regarding Council Member Turk’s mathematical question, Britin stated that roughly half of the property acreage was half of an acre, so the 11,500 square feet would be an allowance to cover roughly half of the parcel. Council Member Dr. Jones and Britin discussed why the Planning Commission denied the item. Britin cited concerns on the lack of cohesion in the area and drainage issues in the area. Council Member Turk and Sydney discussed the impervious surface footprint of the driveway and home. Sydney stated the house stood at approximately 1,200 square feet. The City Council received 5 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Stafford believed that stormwater issues in the area were legitimate and was shocked to see how long that area of town had been waiting for improvements. He felt that rezoning the area would work to improve the drainage issues across the property, commenting that Fayetteville had some of the strictest stormwater regulations in the state. He would be voting in favor of the item. Council Member Min. Jones questioned how the Planning Department reviewed items when there were density requests versus stormwater issues. Britin explained that density and impervious cover were separate issues, even though they were related through stormwater management. A property could have many units on a small area or a single unit on a large area. She stated that under current Residential Single Family-4 zoning, someone could build a single-family home of about 9,500 square feet. In contrast, the applicant’s proposal for 2 duplexes limited impervious cover to 11,500 square feet, which was only slightly higher than what was already allowed, even before considering driveways. Stormwater concerns and density Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 6 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov concerns had different calculations that produced interesting comparisons. She explained that today a 9,500 square foot house plus driveways would already require stormwater management, and four units with similar total square footage would not necessarily create a density issue. She clarified that zoning determined both the number and type of units as well as building area limits. Under Residential Intermediate Urban zoning, the lot could have 60% building coverage, up to 14,375 square feet, which exceeded the applicant’s proposed limit of 11,500 square feet. Longterm solutions likely required coordination across multiple properties, more time, and more cooperation. Without redevelopment, new easements or drainage improvements wouldn’t occur, leaving the city limited by existing conditions. She recognized that this did not satisfy everyone, but she explained that staff viewed new development as an opportunity to begin solving problems because it had to meet a higher standard than the area’s original construction. Council Member Min. Jones then asked if the stormwater issues would be addressed without redevelopment. Britin explained that either redevelopment or a significant intervention maybe required for a drainage structure to be built. Council Member Turk spoke on how when the city passed the stormwater fee, it was agreed that the money would be used to address long standing stormwater problems. The issue in this area was at least 30 years old, possibly closer to 50, and had been repeatedly pushed aside. She wanted to see a real plan within the next few months so the problem would not be delayed again. In a meeting with staff the previous Thursday, she had been told the city couldn’t address the issue because there wasn’t any money at the time. Now that the city did have funding, she felt there had been no prioritization of stormwater projects and no clear plan identifying the highest priority needs. She urged that this project be moved to the top of the list, noting that it likely had more history than any other stormwater issue in the city. She believed that if the city made it a top priority, neighbors would cooperate by identifying where drainage easements were needed, since they didn’t want more flooding or to continue paying for their own individual drainage fixes. She wanted a commitment from administration to make this the top priority and ensure it was addressed. Council Member Bunch then asked how large drainage easements were. Public Works Director Chris Brown explained that it depended on the size of the drainage area and the amount of water that needed to be handled. Typically, staff looked at 10 – 20 feet of width as a minimum for maintenance purposes. Council Member Wiederkehr expressed concern about how incremental rezoning could affect future stormwater solutions, even though he wasn’t opposed to the specific rezoning being discussed. The applicant had been very reasonable in limiting impervious coverage and commended him for that effort, even though it would result in very small units. He noted that while the developer’s approach showed good faith, increasing impervious areas across multiple properties would eventually require large scale drainage systems. He cautioned that if density continued to increase lot by lot, the city might eventually paint itself into a corner where easements for stormwater infrastructure could no longer be granted because buildings would already occupy the necessary space. He also raised a second, more psychological concern. He said that when one property on a street was rezoned, others often followed, and he resisted being placed in a position where approving one rezoning meant being expected to approve the next 4 or 5 simply because they occurred in sequence. He worried that this domino effect could make it Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 7 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov logistically impossible to deny future rezonings, further restricting the city’s ability to develop affordable, permanent stormwater systems in an area where they were clearly needed. His third caution involved the stormwater utility program. The city already had a prioritized list of stormwater projects, and in his view, projects assigned potential funding were logically being placed in line based on estimated costs and timing. He suggested that Council Members needed better education about those priorities, especially in Ward Two, where development occurred before modern stormwater standards existed. The topography made stormwater management particularly challenging and argued that stormwater constraints might limit growth more than zoning itself. He stressed that water presented life safety risks, unlike factors such as road capacity, which could be expanded later. The developer had been responsible and pragmatic, and he appreciated that. He wished the rezoning could be tabled until a full stormwater plan was developed, though he understood such a plan would take longer than 2 or 3 months. He remained interested in seeing a comprehensive solution for the area. Council Member Moore appreciated the time and diligence shown by the residents in the area and acknowledged the conversations staff had been having. She noted that property owners throughout the area’s catchment had been dealing with stormwater and drainage issues for 8-10 years or more, and she appreciated the detailed records residents had kept. She wished the city could go back in time and implement solutions that had been identified earlier. She agreed with her Council Members that the area needed an overall systems approach. The catchment running from the Wedington hillside across the road, down Lewis Ave toward Lewis Soccer Complex, and said the City Council had discussed long term planning for this area in past years. She noted that it was a desirable and growing part of the city with new amenities, including trails and connectivity, and she believed it deserved increased study to identify a comprehensive solution. She recognized the challenge of trying to manage and mitigate existing issues while working toward what would likely be an expensive, large scale plan that required new funding. She praised the back and forth conversation between the developer and the neighbors, calling their proposal a creative effort. She did not know whether it was a perfect solution, but she felt it was better than many alternatives, especially given the benefits of improved stormwater management through redevelopment and the need to remain mindful of displacement caused by runoff traveling across solid surfaces. She expected the area to continue coming forward with development proposals and said the City Council needed to consider the system, particularly as the city entered the 2027 budget season. She noted that the stormwater utility alone could not fund a full study of the catchment. She would be supportive of the item and hoped the city would pursue broader options. She expressed hesitation about piecemeal approaches, though she agreed that ongoing relief was necessary. She believed staff might already have identified some immediate measures and suggested that taking back control of Wedington Road from Arkansas Department of Transportation could allow for stormwater improvements under the roadway and sidewalks, though she acknowledged the significant cost and funding challenges involved. She also emphasized being realistic with residents, noting that solutions might be difficult, expensive, or unpopular. She looked forward to working together to find answers and appreciated this proposal as an interim step that balanced density, collaboration with neighbors, and the pursuit of ORQJဩWHUPLPSURYHPHQWV Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 8 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 3-5. Council Member Bunch, Stafford and Moore voted yes. Council Member Berna, Turk, Min. Jones, Dr. Jones and Wiederkehr voted no. This ordinance failed. 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. For item history beginning August 18, 2026, please contact the Office of the City Clerk Treasurer. At the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn stated that items B. 2 and B. 3 would be read separately, but Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick’s presentation would apply to items B. 1 – B. 3. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained that because the annexation and rezoning were closely linked, it made sense to present together. She summarized the annexation details, noting that staff had recommended denial, while the Planning Commission forwarded it with a 7–0 vote. The parcel was about 11.17 acres, and by default would enter the city as Residential Agricultural zoning unless the City Council took separate action. The area was designated as a residential neighborhood on the future land use map. She described the property as a square shaped area at the end of a previously annexed extension, with adjacent portions brought into the city in 2006 and 2024. The subject area was currently just a red dirt pile. She walked through the sequence of annexations and stated that because of a 2025 state law, the city no longer had jurisdiction outside its limits, an added incentive to annex land to regain control. She outlined the criteria staff used when evaluating annexations, such as boundaries, environmentally sensitive areas, infrastructure, utilities, and service capacity. Staff’s recommendation for denial was based largely on City Plan 2040 guidance, particularly concerns about extending infrastructure and the need to avoid suburban sprawl while promoting appropriate infill. 7 comments in opposition were received at the Planning Commission, though the Planning Commission still recommended approval of the annexation. She then moved to the related rezoning request; extending the Foxtail Meadows Planned Zoning District into the newly annexed area. Staff recommended approval of the Planned Zoning District extension. If the City Council wanted to annex the land, staff strongly urged them to approve the Planned Zoning District to ensure compact, complete, and connected development consistent with the comprehensive plan. She reviewed the residential neighborhood goals; mixed housing types, walkability, and corridor connections, and pointed out that surrounding areas to the south and east were also slated for residential neighborhoods on the future land use map. She showed the 3 segments included within the overall Planned Zoning District and compared the previously approved layout with the newly proposed extension. The updated plan included compact development, new areas reserved for open or conserved land, and minor modifications to the Planned Zoning District. She explained that the Planning Commission had recommended denial Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 9 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov of the Planned Zoning District because a small segment of the access road would lie in the county. Since the city could no longer control county territory, the Planning Commission was uncomfortable with that dependency. Staff, however, believed the issue could be resolved during development and were less concerned. The project aimed to extend the Planned Zoning District to include the third section, offering 1,100 - 1,800 square foot single-family cottages and townhomes, rezoning the conserved Residential Agricultural area into Conservation, Cultural and Recreation, and working out easement details later. Staff recommended approval and reiterated that if the City Council chose to annex the land, they should also approve the Planned Zoning District. Applicant Representative Alli Quinlan explained that earlier discussions had focused on working with the adjacent landowner to secure a second access point needed for fire code. During that process, the landowner became interested in selling the property so it could be incorporated into the project. The northern portion of the 11 acres proposed for annexation and rezoning could be served by sewer and other infrastructure planned for the already approved neighborhood, while the southern 5 acres, left in the county, could not be sewered and weren’t suitable for the same level of development. Although the site sat at the edge of the city, it aligned with the future land use map and had been planned accordingly. It was also located near a Tier 3 center, intended to provide commercial services for that part of town, which made the proposed neighborhood consistent with the city’s long term planning. One of the complexities was the lack of sufficient water flow to satisfy fire requirements. The area had an existing 8 inch water connection on Rupple Rd, tied into a low pressure zone, and a polyethylene system downhill that was outdated and prone to leaks. Connecting the new development to that older system would create risks, so after working closely with water and sewer staff, the developers chose instead to build a more involved off site 8 inch connection, replacing aging 6 inch and 4 inch lines. She acknowledged that this was a complicated and costly project but said it would protect vulnerable water lines in lower lying neighborhoods. Adding units through the annexation and Planned Zoning District extension helped offset the infrastructure costs. She illustrated the existing Planned Zoning District and the proposed expansion, noting that the property was a degraded red dirt pit and that the needed second fire exit aligned with the annexation area. The proposed exit connected to Weir Road. The developer was open to whatever construction standards the city required for the fire access road, such as pavement, 20 foot width, curb and gutter and staff had previously felt comfortable leaving the precise standards to be finalized during development review. The project included a full right of way for the road, anticipating that it could eventually become a city street as the area urbanized, while still ensuring the road would be maintained for fire access regardless of jurisdiction. The amended Planned Zoning District would replace the old one to avoid having nearly identical plans side by side. If the new Planned Zoning District was not approved, the original Planned Zoning District would remain. The overall density was under four units per acre, like Residential Single Family-4, achieved partly by keeping more than 19 acres within the Conservation, Cultural and Recreation zone. She noted that easements in those Conservation, Cultural and Recreation, areas would be dedicated at development review and that the only environmentally sensitive portions were near the upper boundary where white oaks were located. Those areas were incorporated into site design and Conservation, Cultural and Recreation, zoning, with about 35% of the site being conserved. Fire access questions from the first round had been addressed through diagrams and review. It was rare to bring forward land at the city’s edge that lacked steep slopes, major trees, hydric soils, or prairie remnants, and those Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 10 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov conditions were part of why this location was being proposed. The development footprint largely fit within an area in the county that currently had no erosion control requirements. She was available for questions and did not expect the City Council to go to a vote. Council Member Min. Jones asked what the infill score was for the property. Britin stated she wasn’t sure there was an infill score, as the location was outside of city limits, but she would verify. Council Member Min. Jones clarified her reason for asking, as it was mentioned there was no water flow for potential fire issues. Alli explained that there was a 6 inch water line and were a few 100 pounds per square inch low for fire flow requirements under state requirements, adding that Fayetteville had an even higher standard than the state. In working with the Fire Department, it was determined the applicant needed to upgrade, making it a part of their planning from the beginning. Council Member Min. Jones verified that the area would be a Tier 3 area, citing concern on the lack of developing the area without supporting food sources. Britin explained that Tier Three centers were conceptual guidance rather than a mandate, meaning they did not require specific uses but instead outlined preferred goals. When proposed, a rezoning that allowed commercial use within a Tier Three node, staff evaluated whether it aligned with those goals, but no enforceable requirement applied. The centers were goal setting tools rather than regulatory standards. She called back to Council Member Min. Jones’ previous question on the infill score, noting that the area ranged from 1 – 3. Council Member Turk and Alli discussed the water line upgrade, and she asked if the applicant would be looking for a cost share when it came to the upgrade. Alli stated they were not planning to do so, although it had been previously mentioned. Council Member Turk then requested to hear how conversations with the neighborhood had gone as it related to the project. Applicant Representative Zach Bates explained he had spoken to some neighbors outside of the City Council chambers, but no one had approached him or scheduled a meeting. Alli went on to explain that they had originally received significant outreach from the neighbors when they sent out notification letters. When they sent out the second round of letters, they had not received any communication. Council Member Stafford and Britin discussed why staff was not recommending approval. Britin explained that in areas lacking adequate infrastructure, staff generally did not recommend extending services, following City Plan 2040 guidance. The City Council could still consider annexations based on the intended future use of the property. If an annexation proposal did not support future opportunities for a Tier Three center, such as adding enough rooftops to sustain nearby commercial uses, staff would have concerns. If the City Council chose to annex the property, staff would recommend applying development standards that aligned with the future land use plan, including compact neighborhoods that could support commercial nodes and transit. She contrasted this with large lot, 2 acre development, which made it financially difficult to justify infrastructure and prevented viable transit options. She said that by guiding annexed land toward compact, connected development, the city would avoid losing long-term opportunities envisioned in its planning documents. Council Member Stafford and Britin discussed his confusion on the process, as he noted that denying a project due to a lack of infrastructure when a project would bring the missing infrastructure didn’t make sense to him. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 11 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Wiederkehr and Alli discussed whether the streets in the proposed Planned Zoning District would be public or private. Alli confirmed they were proposed public, which was typically the standard. Council Member Moore and Alli discussed the possible remediations the developer was looking at. Alli explained they were not anticipating needing much remediation as the previous owner had been planning to develop the area under county requirements and the civil engineers stated the area was reasonable to develop. They then discussed the possibility of a road connection. Alli explained that the same developer owned both parcels and would have a second road coming through the county piece if it was not annexed. Council Member Moore then explained that in earlier conversations about the original project, concerns were raised because it sat at the city’s edges. Staff feedback and the staff report mentioned the additional maintenance burden that could come from expanding service areas for trash, police, fire, sewer, water recycling, and yard waste, as well as zoning protections, especially since the city operated on a complaint driven system. She asked whether there had been any feedback about maintaining those responsibilities at the city’s edges and what that conversation looked like as they considered the ongoing carrying costs of extending those services. Britin acknowledged the points and questions raised and explained that they were part of the considerations staff had already evaluated. One way to view the situation was that a development had already been approved in that area, meaning the city would be providing services there regardless. She referenced Alli’s presentation, pointing out that the long timeline, such as seeing 2025 application dates nearing the end of 2026, reflected how much time it had taken to work out the logistics for providing water service to that development. The development was already approved and that the current proposal was simply an extension of it. As the city would already be servicing that area, staff recommended the Planned Zoning District as an efficient way to serve additional residences connected to an existing development rather than approving a brand new one at the edge of the city. Council Member Moore hoped to get better guidance around annexations because the city had been running into that conversation more often. The annexation guidelines emphasized creating complete areas with appropriate infrastructure, such as roadways and subdivisions, but Fayetteville’s borders were not uniform in its outer areas. She didn’t want the process to be difficult for applicants or confusing for residents. She wondered whether the city had, or was working on, a master plan identifying where annexation might make sense in the future. She said such a plan would help her evaluate annexation requests because approving one area now created a service burden that might limit the city’s ability to prioritize more ideal annexations later. She wasn’t always sure what future priorities might be. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Turk would be fine leaving the item on the First Reading but requested more information on the sewer capacity, how long a sewer study would take and more information from the developer on whether they anticipate asking for a cost share or not. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 12 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Wiederkehr was also okay with leaving the item on the First Reading. He felt extremely hesitant to annex any land. All city plans spoke about increasing the density of existing land and any new road, sewer or water line would be an expense going forward. He had no qualm with the development but expressed caution and hesitancy due to the ongoing infrastructure maintenance costs for the taxpayers of Fayetteville. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. 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. For item history beginning August 18, 2026, please contact the Office of the City Clerk Treasurer. At the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was tabled to the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting before going through any readings. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn stated that the previous item was tied to this item. The city could not rezone what had not been annexed. The item would also be left on the First Reading. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. New Business: VAC-2026-0010 West of East Rock Street: An ordinance to approve VAC-2026-0010 for property located west of 281 East Rock Street in Ward 1 to vacate 268.50 square feet of general utility easement. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick presented on the item. She explained that the purpose of the request was to allow the owner of the property to build their house, and staff recommended approval. The property was currently zoned Urban Neighborhood and the easement involved was relatively small. Southwestern Electric Power Company, the utility provider with potential use of the easement, had issued no objections. The condition of approval was included in the ordinance. The unneeded portion of the easement prevented the house from having a front porch, and the adjustment would allow the property owner’s preferred house design to move forward. She reiterated that staff recommended approval, there were no objections, and the request simply resolved a technical issue so construction could proceed. 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 unanimously. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 13 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7033 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN-2026-0023 North Mission Boulevard: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-23 for approximately 0.20 acres located at 423 North Mission Boulevard in Ward 2 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RI-U, Residential Intermediate-Urban. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick presented on the item. Staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission had voted 5-1 to recommend approval as well. The current zoning was Residential Single Family-4, the proposed zoning was Residential Intermediate Urban, and the parcel size was 0.2 acres. She showed the existing zoning context, pointing out that the surrounding properties to the south and east were also Residential Single Family-4, while to the direct east there was a mix of multifamily and industrial zoning left over from older planning decisions. The area had multifamily and industrial uses as well as many homes in a beloved neighborhood. The nearby intersection was a popular turning point and noted that Council Member Turk had asked about accidents at that location. She reported that there had been 8 accidents in the past 5 years, all labeled as property damage only incidents, averaging a little over one per year, with no serious injuries. The future land use map designated the area as Residential Neighborhood and that it had an infill score of 8. The factors she listed supported staff’s recommendation because the rezoning aligned with the neighborhood’s mix of housing types of guidance. Applicant Denny Warren presented on the item. He and his family purchased the property in 2025 and were using it as a long term rental. They were requesting a rezoning from Residential Single Family-4 to Residential Intermediate Urban, which would allow a lot split. They wanted to preserve the existing home, which they had remodeled after purchasing it in November. That home was leased through February of next year and would continue to be managed as a long term rental. His goal was to create 2 functional residential lots and to add only one additional detached 2 bedroom, 2 bath residence. Some neighbors were concerned that Residential Intermediate Urban zoning could allow multiple condos, but he said that was not their intention. They had reached a private agreement with an adjacent neighbor limiting the development to one additional house. He believed the project represented responsible infill in an established neighborhood with existing infrastructure. He explained that although there was no Bill of Assurance, he had postponed earlier meetings so he could work in good faith with the adjacent property owner to reach an agreement. The request was to create 2 functional residential properties, not to maximize density. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 14 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Bunch questioned the existence of 2 large trees on the property and if the developer would be able to work around them. Denny stated he would follow the city’s strict tree preservation rules, adding that their goal was to protect them as long as possible. Council Member Bunch commented she would hate to see the trees removed. Council Member Turk echoed Council Member Bunch’s sentiments. She then asked if the applicant had considered building an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Denny explained that he had thought to do so, but he did not want the utilities to be tied to the main home. He commented that banks were more willing to loan if it was a separate property and not an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Council Member Turk expressed concern on the expected road improvements, commenting that a corner of the property was tricky. She wondered if there was any requirement to enhance the street or make it safer with new development. City Engineer Justin Bland explained that the city had certain expected improvements depending on the type of development. Since the project would likely move forward only with a building permit, the typical requirement would be limited to sidewalks, and he would not expect any additional street improvements to be associated with this permit. While the property was guaranteed to have a driveway, staff would want it placed in the safest possible location, and it appeared the applicant was already attempting to position it as far from the intersection as possible. Staff could review the driveway placement to ensure it was as safe as possible, but he reiterated that no street improvements were expected for this type of permit. Council Member Turk followed up asking if there were any plans to improve the intersection. Justin stated it was not on the long list of bond projects currently. Council Member Wiederkehr questioned if the private agreement the applicant made with their neighbor would still apply if the property was sold. City Attorney Kit Williams stated the city could not enforce a private agreement. The private agreement had a time limit and would expire in the future. He added it would be very difficult for the city to enforce private agreements. Council Member Bunch reminded the City Council that Fayetteville was filled with odd intersections. She shared she took the mentioned intersection daily and that it was involved in very few accidents. Council Member Stafford asked if the private agreement was legally binding. Denny explained that it was written with the neighbor, who was a lawyer. Council Member Stafford then asked Britin what 0.2 acres would allow under Residential Intermediate Urban. Britin explained that by right it would allow for single, two, three and four family homes. A person was allowed to cover up to 60% of the area with a building. Council Member Moore moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 15 of 32 113 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 7-1. Council Member Berna, Bunch, Min. Jones, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore and Wiederkehr voted yes. Council Member Turk voted no. Ordinance 7034 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN-2026-0025 North Frisco Avenue: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-25 for approximately 0.66 acres located at 710 North Frisco Avenue in Ward 2 from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, Twenty-Four Units Per Acre to RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family, Twenty-Four Units Per Acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick presented on the item. Staff and the Planning Commission were recommending approval. The current zoning was Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial zoning, and the proposed zoning was Residential Multi- Family-24. The parcel was roughly two thirds of an acre. She explained that the initial zoning map was a rough sketch and not as precise as legal descriptions. When compared with the satellite view, drawn from those legal descriptions, it became clear that the property sat directly on Frisco Avenue. She had confirmed this with both the city’s GIS department and the applicant, and everyone was satisfied that the legal description matched the zoning boundaries correctly. She added that the city did not zone right of way, only property. She then spoke on the future land use designation. While earlier discussions had focused on the Residential Neighborhood areas, she explained that this parcel fell within the City Neighborhood category, which supported a more intense mix of uses, ranging from 1-4 family buildings up to multifamily apartments. Although the applicant indicated in their letter that they intended to build single-family homes, the rezoning would correct an unusual, long standing island of industrial zoning in that part of the city. The property scored highly for infill because it was close to many amenities the city sought to encourage near denser housing, even though it was also near the historic railroad track and tucked behind a well-known neighborhood. Council Member Min. Jones questioned if the property was within a floodway or flood zone. Britin confirmed there is an area of the property that barely touched a floodway. Council Member Turk and Applicant Representative Will Kelstrom discussed why they chose Residential Multi-Family-24 as the designated zoning. Council Member Stafford asked if they would be building outside of the floodways. Will explained he did not have an answer currently but stated they would comply with regulations. Council Member Moore questioned if there would be road improvements on the property. Britin explained that road improvements were determined by what is built. She then added that a developer cannot build in the flood way, it was a no build zone and staff would not approve it. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 16 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore then questioned the development between sorority houses that was occurring on Maple St and Wilson. Mayor Rawn stated it would be a good follow up for staff later. 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 unanimously. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. Ordinance 7035 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN-2026-0027 North Oak Dr. (Appeal of Planning Commission Denial): An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-27 for approximately 0.30 acres located at 1137 North Oak Drive in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, Twelve Units Per Acre. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick presented on the item. Staff recommended approval, while the Planning Commission had recommended denial, so the item appeared before the council as an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. She stated that the current zoning was Residential Single Family-4, the proposed zoning was Residential Intermediate-12, and the parcel size was about one third of an acre. Staff’s recommendation was based on the property’s designation as Residential Neighborhood and highlighted its high infill score, 9 with a weighted score of 10.5, reflecting its proximity to fire service, water and sewer, grocery stores, public schools, the University of Arkansas campus, a city park, a paved trail, and a Razorback bus stop. She addressed questions that had been raised about demolition and reported that the current owner purchased the property in 2025. A demolition application was submitted on May 26, 2025, approved on May 28, 2025, and the home was demolished under that permit. She added that the rezoning application was submitted on July 14, 2026, and that the City Council had been offered a Bill of Assurance for consideration. The Planning Commission disagreed and voted 2-4. The applicant was also presenting on the item. Applicant Wes Bates presented on the item. He had included references to the City Plan 2040 goals, noting that they had discussed infill and discouraging sprawl many times, and that adding a small amount of density on a site located just 3 parcels away from existing duplexes made sense. He explained that one point he felt was missing from the Planning Commission involved assumptions about Wedington Dr traffic. After spending time in the neighborhood, he found it surprisingly easy to navigate on foot because of multiple cut throughs, meaning not every trip required a car. If someone worked on campus, it was only about a 20 minute walk through the neighborhood. Maps often gave the impression of dead end streets, but people could travel by bike or on foot. He referred to a Planning Commission comment claiming there was “no master Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 17 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov plan along Wedington Dr” and responded that many neighborhoods lacked master plans, yet that did not mean all development or construction should stop. He argued that requiring a master plan before any rezoning or permit would effectively halt progress. He addressed comments raised at the Agenda Session about tree removal, saying he himself had been surprised the owner had removed the trees. After reviewing the tree preservation ordinance, he learned that removing trees before securing development approval triggered a penalty requiring an additional 10% tree preservation, which ultimately meant more trees would have to be planted. He then discussed Planning Commission concerns about moving from a setback standard to a build to zone. In the Bill of Assurance he prepared, they stated that structures would be at least 15 feet from the road, aligning with neighboring homes. He showed measurements from GIS, noting one home was 13.5 feet from the right of way, another was 17.7 feet, and the house previously located on the subject property had been 20 feet back. There was then confusion about the applicants’ most recent Bill of Assurance. He stated he had sent it at 5:00pm on September 15th, but nobody had received or reviewed it. Mayor Rawn clarified with the applicant that he would fine if the item was held on the First Reading due to new information being provided. Council Member Turk and Britin discussed the Residential Intermediate Urban tree preservation requirements, which were 20%. Council Member Min. Jones and Britin discussed why the Planning Commission denied the project. Britin explained there were concerns about drainage, parking, tree preservation, density, utility capacity and that zoning was being approved parcel by parcel instead of something more cohesive. City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton clarified that her office had only received one Bill of Assurance at 9:35am on September 15th. The updated Bill of Assurance had not been provided to her office. Mayor Rawn requested the applicant forward the document to the City Clerk Treasurer’s office. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. This ordinance was left on the First Reading. Resolution to Reserve up to $75,000.00 of Aquatics/Recreation Center Bonds: A resolution to reserve up to $75,000.00 of the Aquatics/Recreation Center bonds which have been issued shall be used for further site evaluation and study related to the location of the Aquatics/Recreation Center. Council Member Moore stated, “We're talking about the million dollars of bond monies that we've already done the vote and done the release that will be a part of the 12 months of looking at the design and what that's going to look like going forward. Can I have the next slide, please? Oh, there we go. So, there's been discussion in the community and I've been talking since the bond vote happened that individuals were asking about, ‘Well, when are we going to have Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 18 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov additional conversation about the site selection?’ And so, for some, you know, why is there additional site selection study being asked for in regard to the aquatic recreation center bond project in this design work? So, for many, if you go back and we've had these ongoing conversations in regard to the aquatic center. When we had conversations with the Parks Department about the site selection and the feasibility study, the preferred site came back as Lewis Park. But when it went to voters at that time, that the site had not been fully selected, and so in conversations as we came out of the bond and that being approved. I was approached by some residents who stated they wanted to see Lewis Park proceed forward. Others were asking, "Are we going to have additional study?” And so, this has been several months of having conversation, so we recognize that when you look at the feasibility study, that the sites that were looked at were reviewed almost 2 years ago, about 2024, and conditions have changed in the city since that time. The market has moved. Our collaborative partners have had different things that are going on with them as well. Also, since the bond vote, there have been some suggested other sites since the bond vote. I know I've heard of some. I'm sure others have talked about others possibly. And then the scope of the site study did not include every area that we could look at that could end up being millions that could impact the budget. If you see that, I pulled that directly from the feasibility study on page 48, but it didn't take into account off-site remediation, road work that might be needed, signalization, land acquisition, and ongoing additional yearly operating costs that could be specific to a site that might have challenges to it. And so, what would additional site selection study do? I really, you know, I'm sensitive to the conversations about we spent, you know, quite a lot to date. So why would we do further study? I am very fiscally conservative, and so you know this is a $62 million project. It's one of the largest projects that we're doing as part of the bond. So as a percentage of the bond, you know my goal and my thoughts on this for consideration are just wanting to make sure that we are able to get all the information possible before we fully pick a site. So really, we'd just be building on nothing was wrong necessarily with what we did in the feasibility study. It's just building on that previous study that was conducted, and this also would help to flow into the aquatic center design work with a more dialed in amenity budget. So, if there are off-site improvements or there are roadways or signalization, we would better sharpen our design budget. That would be specifically for those aquatic recreation center amenities. Also, there's the opportunity going back to the considerations of how we do the criteria we would consider, and those I won't cover again, and then reviewing the prioritization of that matrix for any considerations that we would want for site selection. You know, we had a high consideration during the feasibility study about properties that we currently owned in the city. We've talked a lot tonight about stormwater in many of our meetings, you know, is that a consideration? You know, we've talked a lot about improvements to roadways. Do we want to prioritize that as we continue to look at these sites? And then it just allows for additional public discussion of the site that many residents were thinking might happen after the bond vote, and then it'll just give us greater insight into the capital and ongoing yearly maintenance needs for the site to create more accurate budgets for the amenity portion of the project. So that is in a nutshell. The monies would not be coming out of our General Fund. They would be a part of the million dollars that we've already done the approval for to be a portion of, not to impede or to prevent or delay the timeline for the aquatic center design and selection, but to just be a part of that and to flow into that process. And I'm happy to take any questions, and I believe the city might have something as well.” Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 19 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn stated, “Thank you, Ms. Moore. Jennifer, do you have anything you'd like to add?” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “Okay, so I'm just going to cover a couple of items here. The first one is the timeline of events. In 2023, the Parks and Rec Advisory Board requested we start talking about an aquatic needs assessment in May 2024. The council voted to approve the feasibility study contract. In August 2024, we began public engagement that included pop-ups in various locations around town, an online survey, and the consultant began work on the facilities inventory, and then that work continued through May of 2025. In May of 2025, we had another round of public engagement at First Thursday, and a couple of other events, and then another online survey. September 2025, the feasibility study final report was presented to the Parks Board and following that to City Council. Then in November of last year, Council voted to award an architecture contract to Crafton Tull and a construction management contract to CDI. March 2026, we had the vote where voters approved 61.9 million for the aquatic recreation center in the bond issue. Then in July of this year, council authorized a million dollars out of the bond fund for planning, design, and engagement in the first issue. That million dollars covers approximately a 2 year period. In approximately 2 years, we will go back out for a second bond issue, and you know additional funds could be asked for at that time. When we look at the site selection criteria that was included in the feasibility study; 18 sites were included in that evaluation. There was some site selection criteria that was used. It was land availability. They were looking for preferably 12 to 15 acres, existing zoning, cost of land, access to infrastructure, which includes water and sewer and adequate roads, proximity to public transit and walkability, floodplain management. We also considered topography and vegetation. We looked at visibility of the site, so that's being able to see it, you know, from the road parking availability, also accessibility, which included proximity to major transportation corridors, and proximity for population density. So that's the criteria that was used in the study and that staff used in those initial evaluations. We agree that you know there's been a lot of activity since then, and we have continued to watch the market since then. And that is staff's update on the history and where we are right now.” Mayor Rawn stated, “Great, thank you so much, Jennifer. Okay, so before we go to public comment and then council discussion, you all can ask as many questions as you would like. Starting with Mr. Stafford, because I was looking to my right when your light came on.” Council Member Stafford stated, “Jennifer, was proximity to the schools and the school system part of the study? Because I know they'll be using it, and I just thought maybe the current site is closer to the high school than it is..” Mayor Rawn stated, “Proximity includes proximity to the school. Yes.” Council Member Stafford stated, “Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. And then, have the architecture and construction firms already started preliminary work in regards to the current site selection?” Mayor Rawn stated, “So the work initially that the council approved with both Crafton Tull with CDI was based upon the Lewis Park location. So, some of their initial concepts and I need Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 20 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov to really stress initial; we're not in construction documents or anything like that yet. But yes, they were based around the idea that it be at Lewis Park.” Council Member Stafford stated, “Yeah, and I know that construction work and architecture work is not necessarily cheap. It does cost money. So, thank you.” Council Member Turk stated, “Thank you, Mayor. I went back through the feasibility study today to just try and refresh my mind about what the criteria, the selection criteria were, and Jennifer, you provided a much more detailed itemization that I could find within the report. So maybe I missed that. I went through all the appendices, and the only thing I found was on page 44, where it says criteria for site selection included ownership, existing land use, floodplain considerations, topography, and vegetation. So that additionally community accessibility and geographic location were critical factors, but I didn't really see any kind of scoring, any kind of weighting, any kind of real definition that I would have expected with a study like this. So, I was actually pretty surprised. Now, if I've missed that, please let me know, and I'll go back and try and find that or send it to me that additional information. But it was pretty sparse for me, and this gave me more concern about how that was conducted in the first place.” Mayor Rawn stated, “And you're not talking about the recommendations in the appendix where it ranks them and gives them a score because there is scoring. You're talking about the criteria listed in the...Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Got it. Noted.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “Yes, my question is: when we, when it was placed on the ballot, I don't remember this, and I should. Did it say that it would be at Lewis Park? So, when the voters voted, what did they have any idea? Because my concern has been people have reached out to me and they said we've already voted on this. Why are we discussing this? Why can't we? Why are we not moving forward? And so, I couldn't remember when we voted what details were presented as it relates to location.” Mayor Rawn stated, “There were not, nor there were there with, for example, with the fire station as part of the bond, or the animal services shelter part of the bond, or going back to the last bond before I was Mayor with the police station. Typically, they are not included in that bond language on the ballot, and they were not this time either.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “Okay, okay, because that was a concern. They were asking about that, and so another thing, the timeline. I thought I heard someone say, and Sarah, you may have said this. Would this study impact the timeline?” Mayor Rawn stated, “I think it depends is the best answer I can give you, and I know that's deeply unsatisfying. But I think it depends. Jennifer, can you refresh? I know you spoke about it in your intro, but can you explain a little bit more about the next steps and over the next 2 years?” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “Sure. So, we have a million dollars set aside right now for some initial reimbursement of initial studies. We have the rest of the funding available as the council decides to spend it. Initially, that was planned to be on engineering or design contracts. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 21 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Our plan was to spend the next 18 months or so designing this facility, especially around things like cost and amenities, finalizing all those details, and then by the time our next bond issue 2 years from now rolls around. The idea is that we would be ready to proceed and spend additional dollars.” Mayor Rawn stated, “I just want to clarify when staff and administration talks about the next bond issue, we are not talking about another public bond election. We are talking about another issue that we take to the market that we get council permission for. This bond will be done in multiple phases.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “One last question: How did we arrive? And I'm sure we've talked about this, but how did we arrive at $75,000?” Mayor Rawn stated, “That's a question for Miss. Moore.” Council Member Moore stated, “Sure. So, and I may throw this to Jennifer because we also kind of talked about it. But I initially got a number when I spoke with Keith about this possible proposal, and then went back and forth with the Mayor and the team just about the thoughts were that this would be a. And you can correct me if you feel like I'm getting out of parameters. There would be about $20,000 to 30,000 to go and look at those top sites and any additional that have come up. For instance, neighbors in Ward Two and Ward Four on Deane Solomon are really wanting us to look at the Fayetteville Public Schools land on Deane Solomon if they might be agreeable to considering that, and that was not a part of that. And then it would leave an additional amount for the top sites that, and that might again may still be Lewis that's in the preferred feasibility. But that additional diligence then for the staff to go and look at additional factors, especially if there like might be challenges with like the topography or stormwater challenges that they can dig into that further, and so it gave it a buffer that would be again $20,000 to 30,000 and so the $75,000 allows for staff to not have to come back in the event you had an unexpected, unforeseeable thing that you needed to fund.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “Okay, one last thing yet I promise. So, if we're having a conversation about different sites, then why do we have to spend $75,000? Why can't we just think? Why can't the sites be brought to the Mayor and say, ‘Hey, there are some different sites’ and let's just vote on them, opposed to bringing $75,000? To me, I just felt like that if there are alternate sites that people are having a conversation about, why can't we just present that to the Mayor and her staff and not even pay for it? I mean, that's my, and maybe I should, but I don't understand that part because if there you mentioned that there's some alternate sites, which I understand that. Then why can't we just say, okay, let's present these alternate sites to the mayor and her team, and let's vote on them, and then here we are.” Council Member Moore stated, “So I know for myself, I definitely don't have an exhaustive list, and I know I talk to a certain portion of the community. And so, the thought is that this creates a formalized process, so that it creates that allowance for anyone in the community to be able to be a part of that process and feel like they can come to the public engagement that would happen. And if they saw a particular site, they would feel that engagement to be able to bring it forward. Also, a study by its nature is an additional outside party, a neutral party who has the set Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 22 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov criteria that helps to moderate and facilitate those things. We oftentimes talk about our current staff today have a lot of responsibilities on their plate, and so the thought was not trying to ask for this to be one more thing that we would just be having staff having to facilitate. That it would be giving them a third party that they would have to help to facilitate, especially when you talk about the public engagement sessions and things like that, that yes, staff are also a part of but not having to carry that entire load. But especially if we're talking about a matrix and a hierarchy, helping to have a third party that's a part of that too, alongside staff.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “So it's very possible that they could come back and say the same thing, and we've spent $75,000, right? Is that that what could happen?” Council Member Moore stated, “There is the possibility that yes, with the criteria. The ask is if we are able to add additional criteria too, though, because if you look at the study originally, we didn't look at the potential cost and impacts of offsite remediation, things like stormwater signalization, roadways were not a part of the actual feasibility study. And so, trying to take potentially some of those into account, knowing that they could eat into the total $61 million that we might potentially want to again reprioritize sites potentially if they had more challenges to them, and so I agree. Yes, this could be Lewis Park, and if that's the case, we might we would have additional information that would sharpen the potential of our budget for how we'd proceed at Lewis Park.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “And if we if we vote on this tonight and it passes, when would this go forth? When would the study commence?” Council Member Moore stated, “I've left it open ended again. I mean, I didn't want to create a lot of handcuffs on it and left guardrails quite open so that it can fit into staff's priorities. They are managing a number of bond projects, and I know that they have others that currently were in their priority list as far as like the animal shelter that needed to get underway. So, I was leaving this at their discretion of how that would kick off.” Council Member Berna stated, “Thank you, Mayor. Jennifer, could you clear up something for me? Was there not multiple public engagement sessions that went on with this aquatic center project during the review and evaluation?” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “Yeah. So, I have it in front of me on the timeline in August 2024, we kicked off the first round of public engagement. That was a series of, my understanding, 4-6 different popup events. It also included an online survey with pretty extensive results. I have the results somewhere, but I would need to shuffle some papers to find them. I can work on that. But it was well over 1,000 results to that online survey. So that was in August of 2024, and then that was the very beginning of the study period, the results of that public engagement helped form the evaluation of the sites. I think that likely informed some of the creation of those criteria, and priorities for amenities that were looked at. And you know, there was a lot that went into that feasibility study, not just site selection. So then there was a second round of public engagement in May of 2025, which was kind of at the end of that feasibility study period, and that also included an online survey. Then by August, September, they had the final result of that study ready.” Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 23 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Berna stated, “Okay, I seem to remember that we got somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 responses on the survey. What's our average? And you may not know this, but someone in the room, Mike, what's our average return on a survey, a citywide survey?” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “Well, here's what I can tell you: We did a survey recently. We got 500 results, and everyone was shocked and described how excellent a result that was. So, I think the average is certainly less than that, and you're right. It was well over 1000, somewhere around 1500, and that was it. We considered that excellent public engagement.” Council Member Berna stated, “And it would be safe to say that you use that public engagement to help, not necessarily set all the criteria, but formulate some of the criteria for your search for the location.” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “Yeah and the consultants helped facilitate. My understanding is the consultants helped facilitate that public engagement, so that it would then feed back into the process of studying the feasibility, so it went back into all the study elements, including the selection of criteria.” Council Member Bunch stated, “Yes, I have a question for Sarah. You mentioned you mentioned a site currently owned by the school on Deane Solomon. Is that site for sale now?” Council Member Moore stated, “I can't speak for the district by any means. When I did have a conversation about that as a consideration site, I was told obviously that has to go before the school district's board. One of the things in the ask for them to partner on the current site was that one month later, Dr. Mulford stated that until the City Council gave them some information in regard to the site, then they were not going to do any diligence as a district. I happenstance heard about Deane Solomon just because of the rezoning we recently were having a conversation about. Some of the parents that are in the district in that area in particular were mentioning that if the district was potentially not going to use all of that space, then they had interest in talking more with the district about whether or not that would be a fit. I just said there's an opportunity if we're continuing to talk about this site. You know that could be posed, but I did not know that that had been looked at previously.” Council Member Min. Jones stated, “I just had a question about that survey. Was that survey only digital?” Mayor Rawn stated, “Let’s find out. We’ll have to look back.” Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker stated, “We’ll have to find out and get back to you. I’m sorry.” Mayor Rawn stated, “And we can look that up. I know what I can say for certain, Minister Jones, is that was before my time and before most of my administration was here. But that, or not most of us, before a lot of the people who've been speaking on this were here. I know that there were a lot of in person engagement opportunities at First Thursday at different events, and an Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 24 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov online survey. Let us dig and figure out which segment of that was put in online and which was not.” The City Council received 11 public comments regarding this resolution. During public comment, a citizen claimed that other sites were offered to the city for alternative locations for the aquatic center and they were replied with, “No, thank you. We’re focused on Lewis.” Mayor Rawn refuted the statement and stated, “What I would like to say, since that accusation was made against my staff, is there is a difference between sending an email, confirming and following up and closing out a conversation, and things that happen and phone calls. And I can tell you that my staff had phone calls with the owners of that development, and that staff member is in the room, and so it is not true that they were not spoken to. So, I just want to be really clear about that.” Mayor Rawn stated, “Just to remind everybody, because it is a resolution, in order to move forward, an action has to happen. So, we have to have either a motion to pass it or a motion to table it.” Council Member Turk stated, “Okay, thank you, Mayor. You know, I went back, like I said, to some of you, and I really looked at this feasibility study, and because there's no appendix, there's no number in there. I cannot tell if we just excluded Lewis Park as being co-owned, or we already own it, but we also kind of, you know, have the school district next to it. If we eliminated that factor, how would all the other evaluations have turned out? Because there's not enough information. There's not enough detail in there. We all the next highest winner is no longer available. That site is no longer available. But site number 3, site number 4, site number 5, and site number 8 are all still available. But you know, I don't know if the contractor, if the group that did the feasibility study, actually has a metric that could show us, could demonstrate how they made their evaluations and their decisions. If so, I'd really like to see that, and that could probably shed some light on this. I really don't want to spend $75,000. I'm very much not in favor of that. I hope that we have already most of the other information that we need to go forward. Again, I don't think the criteria was well spread was spelled out, and I don't see any of the information to support their decision making other than what Beau Counts said that it was that it was simple that we already own the property. To me, that's not enough. We know there are problems there. We know that that is the headwaters of Hamestring Creek. We know that is a problem that will just compound situations downstream, for over 400 parking places of impervious surface plus the aquatic center. We're going to make that area even worse, much worse than a couple of rezonings, way worse. And so again, I think we need to go back, ask this contractor if they have additional information. Do they have other information on their site selection criteria that they used and explored and have already been identified within their study. I know there's new places available, but there's sufficient choices right here that we could fully evaluate by staff. I think staff really knows Fayetteville, they know the issues, they've got a history here, and I think that they can actually do a very good job. And we would save our $75,000 for other things that we really need to spend it on. Thank you.” Council Member Stafford stated, “I have a full page of notes now that are in different order because of the keep adding stuff. You know, we when you're elected and you sit up here, we're Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 25 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov responsible for the proper use of taxpayer funds. It's my personal belief that this $75,000 does not fit in with that. I think, as Miss.Turk brought up, we can have a review, and we can look at and get questions answered about the selection process. I'm not against that. I won't speak against that. But that's something that's something we could do without spending that kind of money. The fact that we own this site isn't insignificant. If you're familiar with land prices in Fayetteville, is not an insignificant amount of money, and so when we talk about the use of taxpayer funds, we have to include that. Now, the proximity to our high school, the high school has been a partner in this from day one, or the Fayetteville Public Schools, day one. Go back and look, and so to say that you know that that's not true is just not true. Now, I have to skim through my notes here. Lewis Park's still going to exist. There's still going to be my understanding that there will still be soccer fields to play on. There will still be grass to run around and lay in. It won't be all gone. Stormwater. Our regulations won't allow us to make it worse. Our current stormwater regulations, by definition, cannot legally make it worse. I think we'll probably make it better. We'll have detention ponds. I'm sure our engineers will create this in a way that will make it better. We do. We live in a representative democracy. This was passed. It doesn't matter if it won by one vote or 5000 votes, it passed, and that's the constitutional system we live in. And we got to accept that when a vote wins, it wins. And if you, it doesn't matter if you lost by one vote or 10 votes or 5000 votes. It does not matter. Is no difference. I heard a lot of the same concerns that Council Member Dr. Jones heard from people that don't feel comfortable speaking out loud because they're going to anger their neighbors. But there's a lot of people in this neighborhood. We heard a few from tonight that are for this, and it's not just for the neighborhood. So, when you say, ‘Oh well, the neighborhood, you know, was slightly against it’, it's not just for the neighborhoods, for our city, and putting it west of I-49 does not serve our city. So, when you talk about Deane Solomon or the Highway 12 location, or there's a location near the Boys and Girls Club, that does not serve our city. That is not easy to get to. It’s not easy for our high school students that are going to be able to have their swim meets now. That creates burden for them. That's most of what I got to say. I can't even find what notes I haven't read yet, but I do have questions about the timing of this as well, especially when I see social media posts of people on campaign shirts on a post about this subject. And I wasn't going to say anything until I saw those posts, and it just makes it that is not good optics.” Council Member Dr. Jones stated, “I've heard from different citizens, and one of the things that they said, and somebody said it tonight, and it made a lot of sense. Bringing Fayetteville together and that bond was, I believe, that it's going to help all of us. It's going to do exactly what it's what it what is it what it's intended to do, and that's improve the quality of life for all of us. To stay on topic, I think that we've - it's already been approved, and like Council Member Stafford said, if you win an election by 3 votes or 3000, you won the election. That's not the discussion tonight. The discussion is spending $75,000. I believe, and I'm so glad that Council Member Turk said this. We have staff that's able to go out and can evaluate. We personally, I spoke to some people today, and I told them this. And I, my dad told that this is one thing that he told me. He didn't say a lot, but he said this: a man' word is his bond. That is one of the things that I don't like telling people that I'm going to do something and then not do it. I said that I'm not going to support this because the voters have already spoken, but I do believe that because there was a lack of, I think that there are some details, and there was there that there's some questions about transparency. I don't feel that I cannot support $75,000, but I do think that it is worth empowering our staff to go out and to look at other sites. So, if this is going to bring Fayetteville together, because that's my Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 26 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov thing. I am. I don't like for us to use these topics as political ploys. If you don't vote for this, I'm going to vote you out. That's what I'm tired of. And I keep hearing that on one issue topics. So, two things can be true at once. We can. We have staff that can go out if at Mayor Rawn's discretion can empower them to go out and do whatever they need to do with the site selection. I trust that they will do that because this is the thing, y'all. When people get mad, they're gonna find a problem with every site that's chosen. And one thing that I'm tired of is when people don't get their way, we cater to them. We can't do that, and that's been happening time and time and time again. We have loud voices in our city, and I understand that. But the majority has spoken, but for the sake of transparency’s sake, I don't think that there's going to be anything wrong with us empowering or asking the staff to go out and to do what's necessary to compare those sites and not pay $75,000 for it. I just don't understand why that amount. To me, if we have staff that's able to do it, they can bring it back to the council. The process has been done right, and we can have what we need for the citizens of Fayetteville. If we can do that, let's do that. Council Member Turk, thank you for that suggestion. I think that that is what's needed to satisfy our constituents and move on, and let's get these folks what they voted for, and that's a pool. Thank you.” Council Member Moore stated, “I appreciate the feedback, and especially bringing the legislation forward. My entire goal was whether or not we could have additional discussion and look at the sites, and so I did not. Again, the amount is kind of you know having to napkin math it. I'm happy if staff is saying we don't need to spend any money and we can take this on. I don't again want to overburden. We have a lot of conversations where they have a lot on their plates. My ultimate goal was that individuals have been asking whether or not we could look at other sites, and I wanted to make sure there could be a process for that. And so, if that vehicle was tonight, I brought this forward. We had a discussion about it. We're able to publicly vet that out for the public. I'm very happy with that, and so if we're getting nods and agreement from the Mayor and from other city staff that they think that looking at those sites or any additionals that are brought forward in a process that's run by the city with no additional funds is something that they can handle moving forward with their timeline, you know, I'd be supportive of that. I just don't ever want to be asking for them to take on additional burden or additional projects and not supporting them in a way that could be helpful as well. And so, if the money is not necessary, I don't see a reason to move forward with it. If we're all in agreement again to look at the sites and to study those, and I know we're currently actively, in particular, we just talked last night about. I said we're going to get to be experts on site selection and study, but I really appreciate the diligence. And we were looking at the animal shelter project and the site being selected on 15th Street, and so just some of those conversations that we're having with the current market might unveil, you know, the potential of some kind of opportunity that's existing as our market's continuing to shift and change. I agree that voters, no matter what the vote was, it was approved and voters moved forward with it. My biggest concern is in looking through the feasibility study of things and why I hear you about adding specific criteria that I didn't want to handcuff fully to staff and to hear from the public on areas. Our considerations around offsite remediation, which could be things like stormwater management issues in that particular area, could be lots of roadwork needs if we're going to add a lot of additional traffic in an area that's not typically taking those loads, and then the signalization - I mean, one signal when we talk about things in the city could be a million dollars, depending on the complexities of it. So, if those are things Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 27 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov that we think we can handle internally, you know, I'm very happy, you know, to not spend $75,000, absolutely. Just want to make sure we're supporting on that as best as we can.” Council Member Bunch stated, “I'd just like to thank everybody for coming out tonight. We, you know, we've heard from a lot of different opinions and a lot of different people from different parts of the city, and I really appreciate you taking time to come out. One of the things that when I'm looking at this, and this is from I have noticed this from the years I've been on council, is that frequently the angry people are the ones that show up. The peep, and we get a cacophony of dissent, and it's not always there's this quiet majority of people that support something that don't show up, and they aren't pounding the podium and they aren't protesting, and so sometimes it's kind of hard to weigh out what is representative of the most people in Fayetteville and what is just allowed you know allowed group of people. It is kind of difficult sometimes, and several of my fellow council members have mentioned that it doesn't matter how many people you know how many votes were in favor. It passed a vote is a vote, and it passed. If we, you know, I used the analogy the other day. If the Razorbacks win by one vote, we don't ask them to replay the game. If they win by one vote, we don't say, ‘Well, that wasn't a big enough win, so they should go play again.’ You know there will be one of the things I was thinking about is when the school and the city partnered together on Lewis Park. I don't believe, and I don't remember this. I don't believe it ever said anywhere there that Lewis Park would never change, that there it would never evolve, or we'd never use it for anything else. And I think that might have been the concept that a lot of people had, but that wasn't really clear in that. So, I don't see an issue with using Lewis Park, if we can maintain part of Lewis Park. Now, as far as empowering staff to go back over and look at these sites, I would like to, you know, think that's several of my council fellow council members may be in support of that. I am wondering if we could hold this issue and talk to staff and see if they actually have time, or because I don't want to say staff can do something when they can't, and they're already stretched really damn thin right now. Sorry. So, I would I would like to know if that's thrown out by council members. I would like to know that staff can actually do what we might be asking them to do. But as far as the $75,000, you know the vote was the vote. It wasn't really made clear about Lewis Park. Yes, that's probably true, but I do think we all talked about Lewis Park, and it probably could have been framed differently and done a little bit differently there. But I always felt like Lewis Park was going to be the site, So I don't, you know, some of the things that have been mentioned is cut down on some of the amenities that are there. Well, those were shaped by, by some of the public input. We can we can pare it down. We've got options to do that now. We still have time to be able to do those things. I don't have anything else right now. I might have something later, but that's pretty much it.” Mayor Rawn stated, “May I address the question to staff, Miss. Bunch? So, what I would say is, can staff look at that? Then yes. Thank you for recognizing that staff is stretched thin, we are happy to take this back and look at it. What is stressful for staff is for it to continue for another 3 weeks. Staff would much rather have a decision this evening so that we know what we need to prepare to do one way or another, so that we can think about budget and workload and timeline and in either direction, move on. So that's much preferred one way or another.” Council Member Bunch stated, “I would also like to add, we right now we don't have anything like a matrix or something for people for staff to work with.” Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 28 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn stated, “We can and we can develop that. But we would know staff, and this is not just me. This is after talking with department heads, talking with the Chief of Staff, talking with facilities, with parks, we would much rather just know this. We would much rather have a decision this evening, one way or another, so that we can move forward and prepare.” Council Member Berna stated, “So, along those lines, would it simplify things if we if staff were to give show Council Members the matrix that was used to identify the location in the study? Because right now it's pretty vague on what criteria was used so could we have them you know send out what criteria what the matrix was. So instead of doing staff time additionally.” Mayor Rawn stated, “So the intent prior to the resolute, it is up to you all. The intent prior to the resolution being brought forward was to address that when we bring the next round of contracts back to the council, which I do not expect to be this year. I don't want to. I expect that that is early next year. I might ask Quinn Thompson, who's sitting in the back, if I'm misguided on that. But I believe you are shaking your head that that is early next year, right? Okay, and yes, and that had been our intent at that time. If we need to accelerate that and do that before, and bring that matrix, and bring some of those decision points, and unpack our thinking more before that we can. But right now, what we're we have other bond priorities that we are trying to get out the door and get going. And so, our intent had been to do that early next year when we bring the next round of contracts forward that you have to vote on.” Council Member Berna stated, “I'm not supportive of this resolution, and it's because I think there was significant community involvement. I think staff worked diligently to try to get this identified. Now, I do think it would be helpful. If we do get the criteria, the matrix that was used to come to the final decision. I think what we've heard tonight is, and I'll reiterate what I said at Agenda Session the other night, when this proposal was put out, there was not a finger put on the scale to say I want this to come to Lewis Field. It was okay. We've identified the criteria. Now we as Council Members have not seen the exact criteria, but I don't think that's unusual on a bond issue like this. But we've identified the criteria, and the criteria points to this piece of property. I think what we've heard tonight by the folks requesting this is they want us to put a thumb on the scale to push it away from Lewis Field, and we can't do that, and that's not fair. That's not fair to the folks, in my opinion, that came out, gave their input for whatever reason. The property was identified at Lewis Field. I, from the very start, said when this all said and done, because of the terrain of Lewis Field, the fact that we already own the property, it's going to point towards Lewis Field. The construction cost, you know, that's just that's just standing from the outside in, outside looking in. Some of the same folks, not necessarily tonight that are opposed to Lewis Field are opposed to the cost of the project, but the same time they want us to go out and buy an additional piece of property that, in in checking around town, a piece of property that would be equivalent to what's needed for this project is going to cost you between $7 - $8 million, and maybe more. So, you know, where does that come from? That comes out of the overall bond project. So, I don't see how we can. It's almost like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth. We don't want to the bond the cost of the aquatic center is too high, but yet we don't like Lewis Field, so we're willing to spend $7 or $8 million additional, and now we want to do an additional review, and we're putting our thumb on the scale to say we don't want Lewis Field, and I just can't support that. And I think if we can get the matrix that shows what Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 29 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov pushed it to Lewis Field, I'm fine with that. And then there's some comments about placing the park at in an underprivileged area. I think as we sit here, or not necessarily right now, because the pool's closed now, but Wilson Park right now has scholarships for underprivileged kids to be able to go to the pool. I would feel very confident that that's going to continue wherever the aquatic center is at. So, I think that improves that area of town, and it improves that park, in my opinion. So, if that's where it ends up going, that's why I will not support the resolution tonight. But I would support, you know, getting the criteria matrix that was brought forward to bring the site location.” Council Member Wiederkehr stated, “Thank you, Mayor. All of us have had the privilege of working with city staff on RFP response evaluations, where contractors or potential vendors with the city are evaluated, and one of the criteria on every process is price. And so, when I look at what's been said tonight by some Council Members, it is reasonable and appropriate to take the cost of land into consideration. And so, I think I want to talk about off-site improvements, regardless of what they are, there will be off-site improvements for virtually any other site that we look at for a project of this significance. The comment made by one of our speakers, that you know, these things never pay for themselves. And my response is: no park pays for itself. No city park is a profit center. No park pays for itself to be mowed or watered or cleaned or made secure, and so of course, an aquatic center is not going to be a profit center. We would hope that it would generate sufficient revenue to pay for the majority of its overhead to operate. The other comments have been made tonight about losing, and I love the comment about celebrating the grass and the open space, because our surveys have said that that our residents really are interested in passive recreation, meaning that there's nothing there, but we program this. Lacrosse is programmed, soccer is programmed, ultimate frisbee is programmed. It's not passive open space, but I love the joy and the celebration. We should all go out there and run barefoot the next time it rains, if it ever rains again. But the last site plan I saw was talking about preserving 4 or 5 of the fields, and that's the impression that I'm under: is that there would be field preservation, and in fact, in the bond measure, was a separate item for increasing fields that would be lighted, so that you don't just have seasonal use of them, but you have nighttime use of them when it's not 103 degrees, and that people could practice and play. Shame on me for not reading the aquatic study. Hell, Mayor, I'm an idiot. I went and read the Parks Department overall master plan. Why did I add you know 300 pages to the reading? We registered in this city 200 ultimate frisbee players, and we registered in our parks program 2000 soccer players, and half of those competitions took place at Lewis Park, and the other half took place at Kessler. And so, I want to be mindful that all of us, I live near a piece of open land that's privately owned that was farm and had a cow on it as recently as a decade ago, and I'm accustomed to walking past that open space and feel like I'm entitled to view that open space, and I'm not. The school district owns half of this site, and they could choose to do something with that. Now they have engaged with the city and invited us to please operate it for them, and manage it for them, and water it for them, and pick up the trash for them, and mow it for them. And in exchange for that, they give us full management opportunity. They've also expressed an interest in being permitted to compete or to use a non-Olympic sized pool for high school swim competitions, 25 meters is much farther than you think it is when you start to swim it. They are open to the consideration of this site. So, my suggestion to the mayor, my formal request, is to just look at the top 5. If you have, if you need a nickel or $5,000 to get the vendor or the consultant to provide some original feedback or documents that they had, do that. But your staff at your timetable is more than capable of Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 30 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov participating with the parks department or the parks board to share the criteria that was used for us, and that would be good enough for me because I think everyone who came out and is participating, we really all do want the best for our community, but it does have to be a legitimate, authentic that one group does not have veto power over the rest of us. Thank you.” Council Member Min. Jones stated, “Thank you, Mayor. Jennifer, I'm going to go back to your presentation and try to summarize it. In the presentation, you said the site selection criteria used in this study was first land availability, existing zoning, cost of land, access to infrastructure, water and sewer, adequate roads, proximity to public transit, walkability, floodplain management, topography and vegetation, visibility of site, parking availability, accessibility, proximity to major transportation corridors, and proximity to population density. In your presentation, you also listed that $150,000 was spent in May of 2024 on conceptual design. You also listed Crafton Tull and CDI as 2 vendors that we sponsored. Based on that criteria that you just said should have been using the site selection, why was there not a matrix put together to say why Lewis Plaza was ranked number one? Why can't we go back to that same vendor we've already paid, Crafton Tull and CDI, just like Mike just said, and say give us the top 5, and how does how do they weigh, and how do how can we measure if something else is even close? Right now, we have nothing for $150,000 and we should have something, if except just criteria. That's not asking for anything additional. To me, I don't understand why we didn't get it in the first place. I'm just going to be transparent. I think they owe us something that we should be able to look at and say easily. These are the criteria. These are the things they met. These are the things they did not meet, and this is how they were ranked. I'm just confused why that wasn't offered to us, and I want to correct one thing: we do have the opportunity as legislative branch here right now to look and say we don't have to be forced into a corner with anything. We should be looking at all variables to determine what is best for the city as a whole. We're not talking about a community. We're talking about an entire city as a whole. Why don't we have the whole book laid out for us? And I'm just. I also want to talk about it. I want to hold this because you just said nothing is going to happen into next year - what is the rush? My thing is give us all the information so we can make informed decisions, and I don't feel like we have it all. “ Council Member Bunch stated, “I would like, based on what Council Member Jones just discussed, I would I would like to see if we can get every bit of information, all the information we can, just so we have it. I know it's there. I know it's not, it's just you know it's not all just lined out for us. But I would like to go ahead and vote on this tonight, with the understanding that we will get this from staff and from the consultants, and it will be provided to us. And if we feel like we need to, the resolution can come back, can it?” Mayor Rawn stated, “That's a, I believe so, but I would imagine that's.. If the, I think her question is if the resolution were to fail, Council Member Moore isn't prevented from bringing it back. Is that your question? Yes, or another person.” Council Member Moore stated, “I’d motion to table it indefinitely because again, my goal was just to be able to look at the sites and do study, and if it sounds like we're doing that, that's all I wanted to do.” Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 31 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Bunch moved to table the resolution indefinitely. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. This resolution was tabled indefinitely. 2026 Sales Tax Bonds — Budget Appropriation (Phase I): A resolution to approve a budget amendment in the total amount of $176,529,470.00 to appropriate proceeds from the 2026 City Sales and Use Tax Bonds. Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'll be brief. This is a pretty simple item that we have before us tonight. So, as the Mayor said, this item tonight is for council to authorize and appropriate $176,529,470 in bond funds for the 2026 Sales Tax Bond Issue. And as a quick summary to where we are at with the 2026 bond funds. In March, we held the election and the bond items passed. Council authorized the city to issue bonds. Our bonds were rated. Our bonds went out to the market and were sold, and the closing proceeds were received by our trustee. And so, by appropriating these funds tonight, this is going to allow the city to bring these funds into our budget so that we can begin working on the 2026 bond projects. As a reminder, the bond spending operates just like other city expenditures does. We're still going to follow all the same procurement practices that you are used to seeing. Departments are going to be coming forward to council requesting authorization to award bids and contracts and authorize expenditures using those bond funds. We're going to have the same procurement selection committees that we always have and that you're used to seeing and participating in. So, there is no change as far as that's concerned. And one of the key issues that appropriating these funds tonight is going to do. We have, you know, as a number of commenters have said tonight, we've already spent other funds that we were planning on reimbursing with bond funds to get to where we are now with the 2026 bond projects. In our CIP fund, we've spent $179,000 for Animal Services, $39,000 for Fire. In our Parks Development Fund, we spent $267,000 so far for aquatic center and parks. And then in our Water and Sewer Fund, we've spent $2.6 million. So, the total there is about $3.1 million. That immediately when we recognize these funds, we can reimburse the city and begin spending those funds elsewhere. And I can tell you that we have no shortage of water and sewer projects that we can spend that $2.6 million on. And with that, be happy to take any questions.” Council Member Moore moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. Resolution 211-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Announcements: City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton announced that the Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Department, along with the Fayetteville Youth Advisory Council, would be hosting a suicide prevention awareness community art wall event on September 27, 2026, from 1 – 4 pm. It was located at the Community Art Wall, 691 W Poplar Street and art supplies would be provided. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2026 Page 32 of 32 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker announced that staff would be giving a bond project update at the second City Council meeting in October. City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: None Adjournment: 9:49 p.m. Passed and Approved on _____________. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 10/06/2026 Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560 Nominating Committee Report September 15, 2026 Meeting Date and Time: September 2, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Members in Attendance: Mr. Robert B. Stafford, Chair (Council Member Ward 1, Position 1) Mr. Mike Wiederkehr (Council Member Ward 2, Position 2) Ms. Sarah Bunch (Council Member Ward 3, Position 2) Minister Monique Jones (Council Member Ward 4, Position 2) The Nominating Committee recommends the following candidates for appointment. Black Heritage Preservation Committee Synetra Hughes Unexpired Member at Large Term Ending December 31, 2027. Civil Service Commission Heather Clouse Unexpired Public at Large Term Ending March 31, 2031. Fayetteville Arts Council No recommendation made. Historic District Commission Susan Tonymon Unexpired Member at Large Term Ending June 30, 2029. Planning Commission David Criswell Unexpired Citizen at Large Term Ending March 31, 2027. Town and Gown Advisory Board Sarah Fleming Ward 4 Representative Term Ending September 30, 2028. Urban Forestry Advisory Board William Beaver Unexpired Land Development Representative Term Ending December 31, 2027. Docusign Envelope ID: 31DA20AA-33C2-80B3-8032-527BF76C6560