Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-10-06 - Minutes - City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 1 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov City of Fayetteville Arkansas City Council Meeting October 6, 2026 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on October 6, 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, Mayor Molly Rawn, Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington, City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton, Chief of Staff Jennifer Walker, Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson, Staff, Press and Audience. Absent: Minister Monique Jones. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor’s Announcements, Proclamations and Recognitions: None City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports, and Discussion Items: Chief Financial Officer Steven Doston stated, “This is the July Sales Tax Report for taxes received in August of 2026. In July, we saw taxable sales in the city totaling approximately $285.6 million, which was an increase of 1.5% from July of last year. Retail trade was down around 1.1% or $1.7 million, and that is our largest source of taxable sales in the city. Normally, we're looking at around $150 million or so, just in that category alone. Accommodation and food services - that was up around 13.8% or $4.9 million. Utilities was up 15.7% or roughly $2.2 million. And we noted that professional, scientific, and technical services; that category was up 35% or roughly $731,000. We also noted that wholesale trade was down around 11.3%, or $2.7 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: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 2 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov million. But all in all, that's going to put us up around 1.5% from July of last year in terms of total taxable sales. In looking at the actual sales tax collection results, the city one penny was up around 1.5%, or $41,000, compared to last year. The county portion of the city was down around .9% or roughly $21,000, resulting in a total combined sales tax collection increase of .4% or around $21,000 for the month when we're comparing month to month, this year to last. Now, when we compare the sales tax revenues to what was budgeted, the city one penny was down around 1.4% compared to the budget for the month. The county portion was down around 3.8% or $89,000 compared to budget for the month. For a combined total for the month of July, down around 2.5% compared to budget, or roughly $129,000. Cumulatively, that's going to put the city on a year to date basis down approximately 1.4% or roughly $581,000, compared to budget through the month of July. Once again, we do have a couple of our biggest months coming up, so I do expect that to level out a bit. But all in all, the sales tax numbers are looking, you know, a little bit off compared to what we had projected for the year. So, can I answer any questions on the sales tax report?” Council Member Moore stated, “You spoke a little bit to it, Steven. But we are sluggish year to date, down $581,000 year to date to budget, and you said that maybe there's an expectation that we're going to see a little bit of swing coming into this last quarter of the year. Can you give us any insight into what drivers you think are going to be contributing to that? Because especially I heard you say our retail sales, which is a huge driver of our number, is soft right now, and so I'm curious what you're thinking is going to help to drive that.” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “Sure. Well, those, and you know you have to take those retail numbers with a grain of salt; those do bounce around as we have discussed before in many conversations. I would say my projections for us, kind of evening out for the year, are based on the fact that we haven't really got in these sales tax reports and we haven't factored in for the students coming back yet. And that is one of the biggest things that we do see in the later months of the year. And once again, we have the holiday sales coming up over the course of the next few months, and that, generally speaking, we do see year to year increases for those as well. So, I'd say between those two things, I do expect us maybe not to make it up fully, but to get closer than where we are.” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “Okay, and moving on to the Monthly Financial Report. This is the Monthly Financial Report with cumulative results through the month of August 2026. Starting off in the General Fund, our property tax is flat. We're up roughly $7,000 for the year there. Our sales tax, as we've discussed, were down around 2% there. Our franchise fees were up 8% or roughly $387,000. Alcoholic Beverage Fees, we're seeing those down around 1% We're pretty flat there, around $6,800 down. Our Building Permit Fees; those continue to, you know, to be a kind of a shining star in terms of our revenues. Those fees were up around 32% or roughly $917,000 through the month of August. Our turnback has been flat for a while, and that continued this month as well, our charges for services those are down by around 4% are roughly $85,000 in the General Fund. All in all, our fund total is up about 1.3% compared to budget, or roughly $730,000 in the General Fund. In the Street Fund, our fund total is down around 1% or $58,000 for the year. Our state turnback has been pretty flat this year, and we continue to see that trend as well. In the Parking Fund, we're down 4% for the year through the month of August, or around $70,000. In Parks Development Fund, we have seen an increase in Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 3 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Hotel Motel Restaurant taxes. Those are up around 2% for the year. In our fund total in the Parks Development Fund, we are up around 2.3% or roughly $91,000 for the year through the month of August. In the Water and Sewer Fund, our charges for services are up quite a bit, roughly 7% and that's led us to a fund total up around 5.9% overall for the year. We're up around $2 million there. In Stormwater Management, we are up around 6% and that's trending with where it's been pretty much all year; we're up around $137,000 in that fund. In Recycling and Trash, we are up around 4.6%, or around $580,000. And finally, in the Airport Fund, our fund total is down around 5.9% for the year, around $202,000. And a lot of that is led by a reduction in the jet fuel sales that we've seen compared to what we had budgeted for the year. At this point purchasing jet fuel, we're purchasing that at around $7 a gallon, and I think when you get up around that level, it kind of cools off some of the some of the non-necessary jet traffic. When we look at the number of flight operations, we're up around 312 more flight operations for the year in the Airport Fund, and you know when I look at last year at this time, we were up around 1,700 more flight operations. The growth from year to year has kind of cooled off, and I do attribute a lot of that to the cost of jet fuel. So that fund total in the Airport Fund is down around 5.9% or around $202,000. Happy to answer any questions you have on this Monthly Financial Report.” Council Member Moore stated, “I just - on the flight number that you talked about being lower. Does that include any flight that would be there, be it for the flight school, and as well as any kind of like leisure and business travel, as well? Is that just a total number?” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “This is any flight operation that requires a pilot to contact the tower, and that's basically any takeoff, landing, anything of that nature. So, it would be inclusive of pretty much everything.” Council Member Moore stated, “And I think that one's been maybe a slower to take off thing with the flight school. So maybe once that gets more traction, maybe we'll see that number improve as well.” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “I would expect so.” 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 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr, and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Approval of the September 15, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes. Approved. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 4 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Purchase of Expansion Dump Trucks for the Water and Sewer Department through Bruckner Truck Sales Inc.: A resolution to approve the purchase of three dump trucks from Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. in the amount of $628,500.00, pursuant to a Houston-Galveston Area Council Cooperative Purchasing Contract, plus any applicable surcharges, tariffs, freight charges, and delivery fees, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 212-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Budget Amendment (Fleet Fuel and Petroleum-Based Fluids): A resolution to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $425,000.00 to transfer funds from the shop fund balance to the shop operating budget for the ongoing purchase of City fleet fuel and petroleum-based fluids through the end of 2026. Resolution 213-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk East Cinnamon Way Drainage Improvements: A resolution to award Bid 26-48 and authorize a contract with Ground Zero Construction, Inc. in the amount of $354,067.00 for construction of the East Cinnamon Way Drainage Project, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $50,000.00. Resolution 214-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Federal-Aid Funding Agreement - MLK Blvd./E. Huntsville Rd. Corridor: A resolution to authorize an Agreement of Understanding with the Arkansas Department of Transportation and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission for planning, design and environmental phases of the MLK Boulevard/East Huntsville Road Corridor Project, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 215-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Garver, LLC (Amendment No. 3): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Garver, LLC in the amount of $2,294,000.00 to continue engineering design of master-plan recommended improvements to the Noland Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 216-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Amendment No. 1): A resolution to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Engineering Services Agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $565,430.00 for additional services associated with utility relocations in the vicinity of Highway 264 and future Interstate 612, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 217-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 5 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Maguire Iron, Inc. (Goshen Water Tank Rehabilitation): A resolution to award Bid 26-47 and authorize a contract with Maguire Iron, Inc. in the amount of $356,000.00 for painting and rehabilitation of the Goshen Ground Water Storage Tank, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $35,600.00. Resolution 218-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Bid 26-50 Environmental Technical Sales, LLC (Noland Sludge Blowers): A resolution to award Bid 26-50 and authorize the purchase of three sludge blowers from Environmental Technical Sales, LLC in the amount of $365,976.00 plus any applicable freight charges and taxes for the Noland Wastewater Recovery Facility, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 219-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Budget Amendment (WWTP Fuel Accounts): A resolution to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $75,000.00 to transfer funds to the fuel accounts for the City’s Wastewater Treatment facilities to provide additional funds for fuel for the remainder of 2026. Approval of a Contract with Legacy Construction Management, Inc to Construct a Fueling Station at the Fayetteville Police Department: A resolution to award Bid 26-46 and authorize a contract with Legacy Construction Management, Inc. in the amount of $219,950.76 for site work and construction of the fueling station canopy at the Fayetteville Police Department, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $43,990.15, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 220-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Approval of a Contract with Legacy Construction Management, Inc to Construct a Fueling Station at the Fayetteville Police Department: A resolution to award Bid 26-46 and authorize a contract with Legacy Construction Management, Inc. in the amount of $219,950.76 for site work and construction of the fueling station canopy at the Fayetteville Police Department, to approve a project contingency in the amount of $43,990.15, and to approve a budget amendment. Resolution 221-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Property Purchase - Animal Services Facility: A resolution to approve the purchase of property located at 123 East 15th Street for $690,000.00, to approve a contingency in the amount of $10,000.00, and to authorize the Mayor to sign all closing documents. Resolution 222-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Drake Field - USDA Forest Service Operational Agreement: A resolution to authorize the USDA Forest Service to use the Forestry Ramp at Drake Field in support of aerial firefighting operations for five years. Resolution 223-26 as recorded in the office of the City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 6 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov 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 15, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading and tabled to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Moore and Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington discussed what reading the item was on. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. 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 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained that the request related to the streamside protection zone, and she noted that this was not the project’s final approval, as several additional applications would still be required. Staff had previously recommended denial but their recommendation for the evening was approval. The Planning Commission had recommended approval with conditions. Tanglewood Branch was on the city’s adopted map of protected streams. The item was returned to the City Council because the materials submitted after earlier approval did not meet the conditions requiring the building permit application and were designed to be substantially similar to what the City Council had approved. The applicant had since made significant changes during the time the City Council allowed them to work with staff. In staff’s view, the revised design was now substantially similar to the earlier approval, which led to staff changing their recommendation. Staff had focused primarily on how the project interacted with the stream. The revised proposal showed meaningful design improvements that aligned with the original intent for the stream interaction. Although additional stories were proposed, staff concentrated on the footprint and streamside relationship, which she believed reflected the purpose of the streamside ordinance. Applicant Rob Sharp thanked all for their patience in tabling the item, which allowed time for needed meetings and important design changes. The Camden Court project was closely tied to the new hotel planned for the south end of the Ramble. Parking concerns led to identifying an off-site lot at Gregg Ave and Center St as adequate valet parking for the hotel, enabling the hotel project to move forward. The hotel and Camden Court represented significant private investment following the community’s investment in the Ramble. The project sat at the transition between the Upper Ramble’s urban character and the Lower Ramble’s natural character, and he believed Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 7 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov the project would help connect those spaces more effectively. There were two main requests; approval for additional building height to allow more parking and housing, and confirmation that their streamside appreciation zones were consistent with the previously approved design and met the city’s stormwater standards. He reviewed the existing underground stormwater system and their proposal to amend the streamside map to allow 290 feet of extended daylighting, placing the outflow in a public area. The original off-site parking lot design was functional but undesirable and that previous feedback reflected that. He outlined how their design met the goals of the streamside ordinance by improving water quality, preventing erosion, filtering sediment with a hydrodynamic separator, installing a trash net, addressing existing erosion issues, maintaining no adverse flood impacts, and creating public spaces for interaction with nature. He then discussed the financial benefits, primarily through property taxes projected at $2.9 million over ten years, plus parks fees of $49,000. He reviewed concerns raised by neighbors, including displacement, flooding, loss of trees, pace of change, safety, erosion, notification, and the need for better dog walking spaces. He acknowledged past displacement concerns tied to cultural arts goals for the Ramble. He spoke on his meetings with city staff, Engineering, and the Fire Department, and felt Engineering Staff appeared satisfied with the updated design and had requested the addition of the trash net, which they incorporated. They had not yet met with the city’s Economic Vitality Department but hoped they would support a $20 million investment in downtown. Their first meeting for the project had been with the Parks Department because the original concept included deeding the space to the city as a public park and making it part of the Ramble. The Parks Department did not want a park of that size, which he felt was understandable, but he emphasized that the team remained committed to building the space and granting a public easement so it functions as a community gathering place and fulfills public benefits tied to the stream improvements, including providing a place for neighbors to walk their dogs. He then discussed scale and context. He described their building as five stories on the Center Street side and six stories on the south side, with a sloped roof and extensive architectural detailing such as buttresses, finials, bay windows, and balconies. He believed these features created a more human scaled building and that the structures would complement one another. Despite its size, their building would not feel too large or imposing. He reiterated that the project continued to use the same high quality materials presented in January, including brick, cast stone, and lap siding. Council Member Bunch granted the presenters 5 more minutes for their presentation. Applicant Representative Jenny Burbidge explained that the site served as the transition zone where Tanglewood Branch moved from an enclosed culvert into an open channel stream, located just upstream from the Lower Ramble. The project’s guiding approach was to draw from the Ramble’s existing materials, vegetation palette, and ecological character. She first documented existing conditions, noting that the plant communities reflected a neglected urban stream environment dominated by invasive species such as bush honeysuckle, winter creeper, and a large stand of bamboo visible from Gregg Ave. Although there was a decent canopy of Hackberry and American Elm, most of it sat directly along the stream edge and would be affected by the proposal. She also described remnants from past construction, including a previously demolished building and accumulated waste that had shifted the stream’s centerline. Heavy erosion on the east side threatened the stability of soil near the adjacent southern property. Despite these issues, the stream flow was consistent, water clarity was good, and large trash Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 8 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov items had recently been removed. She provided context for the site, situated between the railroad and the Frisco Trail, with new housing to the north. She described two streamside areas, one in the upper left and another in the lower right and walked through the changes made to each. In the upper left area, she explained they replaced a concrete overlook with a wooden platform that was wrapped around to highlight a constantly flowing spring emerging from an old railroad culvert. This nook included seating and educational features. The northern corner became an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible viewing platform, with an accessible route incorporated into the overall design. All plantings were native species drawn from the Ramble. The lower right area had changed the most. They restored the footbridge, which significantly enhanced the experiential quality of the street level environment, creating a clear threshold that extended the feel of the Ramble. She described how the culvert from beneath the hotel would daylight into the site, where they added terraced seating positioned about ten feet above the stream. Rock weirs, channels, check dams, and wading pools captured runoff and mimicked the Ramble’s hardscape. The two channels converged and continued under Gregg Ave. All referenced plant community photos came from the Lower Ramble, reinforcing that the project’s design was directly modeled after existing ecological patterns. With biodiversity currently extremely limited on site, she stated that the new plant palette; rich in aquatic, marginal, and pollinator species including swamp milkweed would significantly increase ecological diversity. Council Member Moore granted the presenters 3 more minutes for their presentation. Representative Matt Loes explained that the project went through multiple rounds of review, including the required no adverse impact study for all work within the channel. They had provided the draft report to staff in advance, outlining that at the outfall near the Gregg Ave bridge there were no increases in velocity or 100 year flood elevation, and that the downstream node actually showed a net decrease in flow rate due to the development. He also addressed the trash management component, which had been an important concern for both City Council and nearby residents. He described their proposed solution: a weir system with multiple nets designed to capture trash during low flow events, particularly the first flush when most floatable debris appears. All upstream flow traveled through underground pipes, so the single capture point was the most practical alternative to installing filters at numerous upstream inlets. The developer and property owner would maintain the nets under a formal maintenance agreement. He added that an onsite hydrodynamic separator would capture sediment and debris from the building roof and surrounding areas as part of the project’s water quality approach, also subject to a maintenance agreement. Council Member Turk and Britin questioned who owned a nearby piece of property. Britin explained staff could look into it. She wasn’t sure how much it would impact the decision specifically, but she could revisit it and return with a more concrete answer. Council Member Turk felt it was concerning that the City Council was making decisions based on an area that the outfall came out of and didn’t know who the property owner was. Rob explained they did research into the property Council Member Turk was questioning and that it was functionally owned by the City of Fayetteville as it abutted the right of way. They were in process of completing a quitclaim deed on the property to clarify if it was in the responsibility of the property owner. If the property did belong to the City of Fayetteville, they would still take Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 9 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov responsibility and maintain it. Council Member Turk questioned if it was owned by another entity, which Rob responded it was not. Council Member Turk then questioned if native rock would be used to create area within the outfall. Jenny stated they would mimic the same downstream component. Council Member Turk questioned why the additional bedrooms and parking spaces were not included in the first round of approvals. Rob explained it was part of the financial math of the hotel, they hadn’t known of the additional need previously. Council Member Moore questioned the safety of the trash net as it related to smaller animals. Matt explained the size of the nets were wide enough to allow most creatures to pass through. They continued to discuss how the net would capture trash and that it would not be a requirement of the owners to clean out the trash net. Council Member Moore and Matt then discussed how maintenance would be accomplished once the project was completed. Matt explained they were involved in the maintenance plan and verification of the construction throughout. There were several safety factors put in place when the initial calculations were made for change in intensity over time. They would provide a full time maintenance plan as well. The City Council received 7 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Moore and Turk both expressed concern about who owned the nearby property that was previously mentioned. Rob agreed that it was a valid concern. He did not think it was a part of the railroad property and didn’t want to have any dealings with the railroad for many other reasons. If the proposed item passed, development review would require surveys and titles. Council Member Turk felt that until the property ownership issue was resolved, the City Council shouldn’t hear more about the project. Council Member Turk expressed her second concern, which was that the City Council was setting a precedent. The developers had approval of their original design, only to want to build more and bring it back to the City Council. She felt it was a lack of forethought on the developers and that it took up additional time. Council Member Turk moved to table the item indefinitely. There was not a second. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington stated that the motion would either need to table indefinitely or table to a definite time. Council Member Bunch stated that the issue with tabling indefinitely would be that the item would expire at the end of the year. Blake confirmed, if any item tabled indefinitely and remaining on the table at the end of the calendar year was deemed denied and rejected for all purposes on December 31st. Council Member Wiederkehr thanked all for their participation. He addressed several comments that had been made. He clarified that July 21, 2026 was the first time the project was presented and that it had gone through a long process with multiple tabling’s at the applicant’s request. Responding to concerns about property taxes, he explained that increases were the result Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 10 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov of a citywide reappraisal by the county assessor, not the impact of any single project on neighboring properties. The City Council had since created a new conditional use permit process for off campus student housing to ensure that large projects could no longer be built by right. Nothing being decided that night changed who owned any property; the City Council was only considering a modification to a previously approved streamside protection ordinance, and ownership issues would still need to be resolved before a building permit could be issued. The City Council had already approved the hotel, which required parking, and the applicant bought the lot with the intention of building a simple surface parking lot. A building had existed there before but had burned down. The City Council determined it was environmentally preferable to replace a surface lot, where sheet flow would run directly into the stream, with a project that required the developer to capture and treat stormwater and improve the water quality moving through the site. The solution was not perfect, but he believed it provided net environmental improvement compared with the original parking lot plan. He thanked community members for raising environmental concerns and for caring about Fayetteville, and he expressed appreciation for their involvement. Council Member Stafford and Berna agreed with Council Member Wiederkehr’s comments. There was discussion on what the date should be when tabling the item. Council Member Berna stated he was in support of the item and felt the city’s interests would be protected. Council Member Wiederkehr was not in support of tabling the item indefinitely. He would support tabling the item to the first meeting of 2027, which was January 5th, 2027. Council Member Moore explained that it was unfortunate the solution had initially been a surface parking lot, and that incorporating housing on the site now made sense because it addressed multiple needs. She appreciated the extensive back and forth between the project team and nearby residents, noting that the community cared deeply about the protections the city had put in place. She shared her own hesitation about the intensity of the proposed project but appreciated that earlier concerns about overly industrial appearance were taken seriously. She stated that those conversations were thoughtful and meaningfully reflected in the revised design. She was concerned about the potential legal entanglements for the city, noting that ongoing litigation elsewhere had already raised liability concerns among staff. She would feel more comfortable having clarity on ownership before the city became further involved. She noted that Council Member Turk’s motion could be reintroduced if the City Council chose to. Council Member Turk moved to table the item to January 5, 2027. Council Member Moore seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. This ordinance was left on the Third Reading and tabled to the January 5, 2027 City Council meeting. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 11 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Appeal: CUP 2026-0031 North Bear Tree Court: A resolution to grant the appeal of Council Members Sarah Bunch, Sarah Moore, Teresa Turk, and Scott Berna and deny Conditional Use Permit CUP 2026-031 for a cluster housing development at 1919 North Bear Tree Court in Ward 3. At the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting, this resolution was tabled to the October 6, 2026 City Council meeting. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained that the request involved a conditional use permit. Staff had initially advised denial but later supported approval after the applicant revised the proposal. She noted that the property, zoned Residential Single Family-4 and measuring about 3.34 acres, sat west of Niokaska Creek and north of Ash St. The earlier plan was considered a cluster housing development and that staff’s concerns had centered on exceeding the permitted number of structures, lacking required amenities and orientation toward open space, proposing unnecessary parking within a flood area, and leaving fire access unresolved. After the project was appealed, the applicant used the additional time to redesign the plan. She reported that the revisions included reducing the number of houses, elevating foundations by reorienting garages, improving fire apparatus access for the conditional use permit stage, and removing excess parking from flood prone areas. She clarified that staff’s current recommendation of approval applied only to the updated design and did not represent final approval, as technical review would occur during the large scale development phase. The Planning Commission had previously supported the original submittal and that staff was not proposing extra conditions for the City Council’s consideration. Community by Design Representative Brian Teague represented the property owner/developer, Bob Schmidt, and explained that significant revisions had been made since Planning Commission approval to address concerns raised by officials and neighbors. He had emailed updated plans and departmental validations the previous week. He highlighted the walkability to College Avenue, the planned junior high school, and a future paved trail along Ash St. He reiterated that no homes were planned within FEMA flood zones or the city’s streamside protection area. The latest design removed five parking spaces and kept the primary driveway outside the 100 year flood zone except for a brief crossing. He outlined a stormwater approach that included a proposed inlet and pipe on the northwest corner, which aligned with natural drainage patterns. Historic development along June Way lacked modern stormwater standards, resulting in runoff entering the site, and was confident that the new project could improve those upstream conditions. He added that old fencing on the west side likely acted as a berm, contributing to standing water in adjacent yards. The plan included detention, permeable pavement, and foundation elevations that met flood protection requirements. The revised plan reduced the development to ten new houses while retaining two existing ones, establishing a density of 3.6 units per acre, below the allowance of both Residential Single Family-4 zoning and the cluster housing overlay. The project now proposed 43 parking spaces, added screening to reduce headlight impacts, and exceeded tree preservation requirements. Changes such as reoriented garages and new front porches helped the project meet the intent of the cluster housing ordinance. He highlighted that the design provided over 40% of the site as common open space and created a linear park like setting along Niokaska Creek with homes oriented toward natural areas. He described the proposed houses as typical for Northwest Arkansas in size and layout and contrasted them with larger nearby homes. The clustered layout reduced riparian Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 12 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov impacts and asked the City Council to approve the concept so staff could continue technical work in the large scale development phase, which would return to the Planning Commission. Council Member Turk was concerned about the access point to the property, especially with a planned bike trail on the south side. After touring the site, she was unsure how the trail would interact with the project’s entrance and noted that the slide shown earlier did not make it clear whether that access sat inside or outside the 100 year floodplain. She also raised a concern about visible streambank erosion near the existing roadway, explaining that in one area only a small distance separated the pavement from the undermined bank. She asked who would be responsible for repairing and maintaining that eroded area and whether any of those responsibilities would be included as a condition of approval for the project. City Engineer Justin Bland explained that for the trail, the conceptual alignment had the trailing crossing to the south side of the street before it got to the area, so it wouldn’t cross the drive on the north side of the street. In addressing erosion, he stated it would be the property owner’s maintenance responsibility as it would be outside of the city right of way. He offered to look into it further. Council Member Turk responded that she did not believe the driveway’s connection to the street lay within the 100 year floodplain, although the flood area appeared to extend onto the drive further inside the property. She explained that the floodplain mapping on the exhibits was somewhat misleading and that more detailed study during the large-scale development phase would likely show less floodplain encroachment than currently depicted. She had reviewed FEMA’s detailed studies with staff and found inconsistencies between the mapped data and the conditions that were actually built. She noted that the existing drive at the street either sat outside the floodplain or only lightly touched it, while the interior portion was fully within it. She clarified that the applicant did not intend to alter the current driveway but planned to widen it to the west to avoid raising grades in flood regulated areas, which she believed met current requirements. She added that further design work would provide a clearer understanding of the true floodplain limits. The City Council received 5 public comments regarding this resolution. Council Member Turk and Fayetteville Fire Marshall Jeremy Ashley discussed any access issues and the requirements/concerns that were mentioned by the public. Jeremy explained that with a conditional use permit, he was not looking at the specific details as it was more of a land use request. The technical aspects of the fire code were reviewed once the land was approved for use and went through the large scale development plan. If the homes did not meet requirements, the fire marshal could not approve it, and they would know that once the project advanced to large scale development. Mayor Rawn confirmed with City Clerk Treasurer Kara Paxton that since the item was resolution, it did not have to go through readings. Council Member Bunch and Justin discussed if the driveway was in the streamside protection zone and what would be required to build in it. Justin confirmed the location of the driveway and that the applicant had been advised that it would require a Planning Commission variance in order to expand it within the streamside protection zone. The city had a very restrictive flood code that wouldn’t allow any increase in the depth, velocity or any sort of fill that had to be Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 13 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov offset with compensatory storage. Council Member Bunch then questioned how the city would verify maintenance was done on the erosion zone. Justin stated that the city has had partnerships with the Washington County Conservation organization, and they complete restorative projects. As far as maintenance in the meantime, he wasn’t aware of any program in place as it was private property. The city did not have any due influence. Council Member Stafford confirmed with Justin that the applicant planned on building a detention pond and that water would flow downhill. Council Member Berna explained that he had signed the appeal because he believed that if two City Council members supported bringing an item forward, he would serve as the third signature to ensure the discussion could occur. The site tour had provided useful perspective, particularly on neighbors’ concerns about creek erosion. The property in question sat lower than the homes of those appealing the project, meaning runoff from their yards naturally flowed onto this site. He remarked that observations of water pooling were consistent with that elevation difference. Many of the issues being raised related to large scale development details rather than land use decisions, which was the City Council’s focus at this stage. When considering land use alone and what he had seen during the visit, he believed the proposal would improve the property. The existing site conditions as overgrown and poorly maintained and that the preservation area and commons envisioned in the plan would create a much better environment. Council Member Moore explained her hesitation, given the ongoing discussion about streamside protections and the importance of safeguarding waterways. She appreciated the conversation between the developer and neighbors. She then asked whether, since the request was a conditional use permit, the City Council could consider adding a condition requiring restoration of the eroded streambank. The erosion was significant and wanted clarification from staff or the city attorney on whether such a requirement could legally be included as part of the project’s approval. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington stated they probably could as long as the City Council could articulate what staff could administer. The issue would be figuring out how the City Council would define what they wanted to see. Council Member Moore acknowledged earlier concerns about house sizes and appreciated efforts to include housing that was more attainable for typical Fayetteville residents. She also recognized comments about the strain that multiple construction projects in close proximity could place on surrounding neighborhoods and that the city needed to consider how such activity was managed to ensure safety and livability. When weighing the project as a whole, the property’s current single-family zoning could yield a similar number of homes, but the cluster approach allowed development to be more sensitive to the floodplain and stream. She acknowledged that ambiguities in the development code sometimes created differing interpretations, particularly regarding how homes should face or engage with open space. She valued that several houses were oriented toward the natural area along the creek and believed that, with potential stream restoration, those homes could overlook a meaningful natural feature. She would support the proposal and expressed gratitude to the neighbors and applicant team for the discussions and adjustments that led to the final version. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 14 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Wiederkehr thanked the neighbors for participating and felt their concerns had been thoughtfully presented. He noted that the property had long been zoned Residential Single Family-4, meaning the owner already had the right to build housing there, and the City Council was not being asked to introduce a new land use. He acknowledged that neighbors’ warnings about altering stormwater flow were appropriate, since slowing runoff could cause additional backup on their properties. His concern, however, centered on issues that would arise during the next phase of review, matters he believed the City Council could not evaluate at the conditional use stage. The site had only one access road and expressed uncertainty about what the streamside protection ordinance allowed, specifically whether flat work such as trails or driveways was permissible and whether the existing drive was grandfathered. He would appreciate clarification from staff or the city engineer. He understood why the Planning Commission had supported the request and why some City Council members might do the same. He struggled with the proposal because, in his view, the layout did not resemble the cottage court model the city had historically applied, which typically involved a compact grouping of homes around shared open space and smaller dwelling sizes. He recognized that the linear configuration served environmental goals but felt it departed from established practice. He would likely not support the item. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick responded to Council Member Wiederkehr and explained that it was not a straightforward answer. The streamside protection zone was not a singular portion but three separate portions, depending on the distance from the stream. If activity was allowed, according to Fayetteville’s City Code, without any special approval vary according to which version of the zone a person was located in. Expansion may or may not require special review or approval. The matrix was quite large and would be best answered at the large scale development level, when more clear details were evaluated. Council Member Stafford agreed with the previous comments about the property’s unusual shape and that, because it did not fit the typical model for cluster housing, it required a more flexible approach. He emphasized the importance of creative infill rather than expanding outward and noted that the city’s stormwater standards were designed to ensure runoff problems were not made worse. He recalled that when he first reviewed the project, he shared a neighbor’s concern that the layout did not resemble traditional cluster housing, but he felt the applicant had responded meaningfully to feedback. He pointed to reductions in housing, removal of development from flood-regulated areas, and added screening to address headlight impacts as examples of improvements made after community input. He believed the project would enhance the creek and streamside environment and provide the type of moderately sized housing the city needed, rather than the large homes commonly built. He valued that the homes would face the creek, creating a community invested in maintaining the natural area instead of turning its back to it. He would support the item. Council Member Bunch explained that after visiting the property and reviewing the revised plans, she began to question her initial support for the appeal. She noted that Fayetteville often said the easy land for development was already gone, and that true infill required working with difficult sites like this one. She pointed out that the property’s Residential Single Family-4 zoning already allowed a similar number of homes and that the cluster approach provided a way to build while being more mindful of the floodplain and stream. The layout did not resemble a Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 15 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov traditional courtyard style cluster, but she emphasized that many of the issues discussed were large scale development matters that would be fully evaluated later. Although she typically signed on to appeals only when firmly convinced, this project left her reconsidering her position as she weighed its complexities. Council Member Berna stated he was open to inputting a condition of approval for streamside restoration on the 5 spaces closest to the stream. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington explained it would be best to do approve the condition now as the conditional use permit was the most powerful tool for planning. Once it was at large scale development, there was only so much the Planning Commission could do. Council Member Turk wasn’t sure it was allowed but she did suggest including the Watershed Conservation Resource Center for the erosion concerns. Council Member Turk expressed concern about the development as it related to erosion. She would support the appeal due to the safety issues and the stream bank erosion. She then asked Justin how he would measure run off considering it was dispersed. Mayor Rawn reminded the City Council of the agreed upon Rules of Order and Procedure. The City Council had unlimited time for questions before public comments and only two five minute segments for final comments. Council Member Turk asked how Justin would measure runoff. Justin explained it would happen during the flood study review. There was software that conducted a 2-D analysis where it managed all of the low areas of storage. Council Member Bunch clarified that voting yes for the appeal meant approval and voting no was denial. Council Member Bunch moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Before the item went to a vote, Council Member Moore made a friendly amendment for the City Council to look into adding a condition to be able to have a 100 foot from entrance to the riparian and streamside habitat restoration for the stream. Britin explained that staff generally tried to ensure the City Council’s intentions were clearly understood so that any conditions attached to a project could be interpreted correctly and kept proportional to the development’s scale. She could not connect the suggested 100 foot measure to a specific aspect of the project, though that did not necessarily rule it out. She offered alternative language for a potential condition: requiring the applicant to provide natural streambank restoration around the driveway entrance from Ash Street and along the portion of the driveway where the floodplain crossed onto the property. She noted that this targeted the areas where erosion had been most clearly identified and that precise limits would become known during further technical review. Brian addressed the erosion amendment. He would not be amenable to the amendment. He was not aware of streambank erosions issues, or the extent of them. They would be open to a condition to improve the stream bank if there was an issue. Council Member Bunch commented on including consulting with Watershed Conservation Resource Center about preventing the streamside from becoming more eroded. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 16 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov There was much discussion on the amendment, what it would say, and how it would proceed forward. Mayor Rawn then stated that she was deeply uncomfortable that the City Council was still on the item and making changes staff would have to enforce and being asked to draft on the fly. The item had been on the agenda since August, a tour had been done, and no amendments were mentioned at the Agenda Session. She felt there needed to be clarity on how the item would move forward. Council Member Bunch proposed her motion to go back to what it was originally, which was to pass the resolution. Council Member Bunch moved to approve the resolution. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution failed 2-5. Council Member Turk and Wiederkehr voted yes. Council Member Bunch, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore and Berna voted no. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. 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 15, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained that staff had recommended denial of the annexation request, but the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval and forwarded it to the council. The property comprised about 11 acres in northwest Fayetteville near Rupple Rd and west of Salem Rd. Upon annexation, it would default to Residential Agricultural residential agricultural zoning unless the City Council approved a different request, and the future land use map identified the area for residential neighborhood development. The site was currently a red dirt pit with trees along the perimeter and surrounded by single‑family homes. She reminded the City Council that they had approved an annexation ordinance in 2024, following an earlier annexation about 20 years prior that established the existing development. Staff had recommended denial based on City Plan 2040 and infrastructure extension concerns, but the item was before the council because the Planning Commission supported it. She added that a paired Planned Zoning District request was scheduled next on the agenda and that staff would recommend approval of that request if the annexation were approved. Representative Alli Quinlan did not have a presentation but responded to previous questions the City Council had. The City Council had asked about sewer super capacity and the timing of a full study. Crafton & Tull had completed an initial review in 2024 showing sufficient capacity along the proposed connection route and confirmed that the area, while near a known concern near Rupple Rd, lay outside the specific lines with capacity issues. Water and Sewer staff had affirmed in 2024 that the system was adequate for the proposed land use level. A full study would occur during development review and typically required several months, and she clarified Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 17 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov that no waivers of sewer requirements were being requested. She addressed Council Member Turk’s earlier question about a cost share by explaining that an off-site water line would be constructed as part of the adjacent approved neighborhood. The developer would build the line and might request a cost share during development review, which would be a separate decision. She explained that the existing line was a 52 year old 6 inch asbestos cement city main likely near the end of its lifespan, and that replacing it with an 8 inch line would cost the same regardless of whether the development contained 161 or 206 homes. The additional homes would contribute additional impact fees, and the upgrade would improve water quality and flow for existing residents. She responded to concerns from Council Members Moore and Wiederkehr about long-term city maintenance by noting that the city already served the adjacent approved Planned Zoning District, and City Plan 2040 designated the property as residential neighborhood, meaning future housing had been anticipated. The request created a compact extension of infrastructure the city already planned to maintain and that the site; a flat, degraded area could accommodate roughly 45 additional attainable homes, expected to start below $400,000. If left in the county, the land could still develop as 1 acre lots without city review and likely at million dollar price levels. She answered Council Member Min. Jones’s question on food access by listing nearby grocery options; Sam’s Club, a Walmart Supercenter, Harps, and Target. Each roughly 3-4 miles away, or an 8-10 minute drive. Neighborhood services could follow as more homes were built near the planned Tier Three center. She clarified that DRP Holdings had purchased the two parcels in August 2025, and that a repeated county entry only reflected a recorded survey, not a separate transaction. She also addressed concerns about the county road segment used as a second fire access, explaining that it lay outside the city’s jurisdiction and would need to be paved, built to Fire Department standards, and maintained by the developer to ensure continued code compliance. They expected the ordinance to remain on second reading and were willing to document the street section, right of way, and maintenance obligations or provide a bill of assurance if the council wished. The City Council received 6 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Moore addressed the possibility of a bill of assurance. She was hopeful it would be worked through and included in the agenda packet the next time the City Council discussed the item. She felt the bill of assurance would be helpful. Representative Alli Quinlan had a point of clarification and requested more input from the City Council on what preference they had for how the bill of assurance would look. There had been ambiguity about exactly what they were looking for. She would be happy to pull it together but requested guidance on how to ensure it matched the City Council’s preference. Council Member Wiederkehr was not interested in annexations that were not resolving a small gap in the city’s property to create a more uniform boundary. He was comfortable moving the item to the third and final reading. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed 5-2. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Stafford and Dr. Jones voted no. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 18 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Senior City Attorney Blake Pennington explained that a motion to suspend the rules required a two thirds vote by the City Council. In a vote of 5-2, the Mayor was authorized to cast a vote in favor if she wished. Mayor Rawn declined to vote. This ordinance was left on the Second 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 15, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Council Member Moore had a point of information. She questioned if the item would need to be tabled or if it was held because the annexation didn’t move forward. It was decided that the City Council would need to act on the item. Council Member Berna moved to table the ordinance to the October 20, 2026 City Council meeting. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. This ordinance was tabled to the October 20, 2026 City Council meeting. 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. At the September 15, 2026 City Council meeting, this ordinance was left on the first reading. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick reminded the City Council that they had last discussed the rezoning at the previous meeting, where no decision was made because the applicant needed to provide an updated bill of assurance. She briefly reviewed the request, noting that staff had recommended approval while the Planning Commission had denied it. She explained that the applicant chose to appeal that denial to the City Council. The property was currently zoned Residential Single Family-4, and the request was for Residential Intermediate-12 on roughly a third of an acre just south of the curve on Wedington Road, in an area Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 19 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov predominantly zoned Residential Single Family-4. She highlighted the site’s high infill score of 9, reflecting strong access to fire response, utilities, grocery stores, schools, the University of Arkansas, parks, trails, and a Razorback bus stop. The owners had held the property since 2025, had obtained approval for demolition earlier in the year, and submitted the rezoning afterward. A bill of assurance dated September 16 offered to limit development under the Residential Intermediate-12 zoning to single-family homes, duplexes, or two townhouses, with a minimum 15 foot setback from the right-of-way to align with neighboring homes. Applicant Wes Bates had no new information beyond what Britin had explained about the bill of assurance, which was intended to address concerns raised at the Planning Commission regarding compatibility with surrounding homes. He reminded the City Council that he had previously illustrated the setbacks on adjacent properties and the proximity to duplexes in Sunset Woods, noting that the area included some anomalies. Current regulations already allowed someone to build a house with an attached accessory dwelling unit that could appear similar to a duplex. The demolished house had a large footprint, and the city’s green stormwater practices provided an incentive to reduce that footprint when rebuilding, which could offer stormwater benefits during development review. The owners had removed trees on the site but explained that they would face penalties in the development process and would be required to preserve more trees than originally mandated. Council Member Moore and Britin discussed how the impervious surface might impact the lot differently under the different zoning. Under Residential Intermediate-12, the building area criteria stated that all buildings should not exceed 50% of the total lot area. They went on to discuss the bill of assurance that was offered and that it did not cap the impervious surface at all for the new zoning district. The City Council received 4 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Turk explained that the sight vision was extremely limited because of the curve of the hill and felt the project was incompatible. She would not be in support of the item. Council Member Moore believed the area could support a mix of housing types if not for the existing drainage issues, which continued to give her pause. She disagreed with characterizing the request as spot zoning, but she felt the stormwater challenges created inconsistency in how the council evaluated similar projects. She had been more comfortable with the proposal when they previously discussed the amount of impervious surface, and although the City Council could not require a bill of assurance, having clearer information had made her more agreeable at that point. She also encouraged the City Council to consider parking as they worked on the new development code. In denser neighborhoods near the University, such as Leverett and Oakland, residents often relied on creative parking arrangements, and she believed parking districts might be needed if the city continued increasing density. She explained that her hesitation came partly from the City Council’s recent denial of a nearby rezoning due to drainage concerns. She questioned what it would mean to approve one just down the road with the same unresolved issues and invited other council members to share their thoughts. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 20 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 1-6. Council Member Stafford voted yes. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted no. This ordinance failed. New Business: VAC 2026-0012 East of East Millsap Road: An ordinance to approve VAC-26-12 for property located east of 1088 East Millsap Road in Ward 3 to vacate 0.448 acres of right-of-way. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained the request was to vacate a portion of Millsap Road to expand nearby parking. Staff was recommending approval of the item, and no objection was received. Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7036 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0026 West 22nd Street: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-26 for approximately 4.80 acres located at 243, 319 & 325 West 22nd Street in Ward 1 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RI-12, Residential Intermediate, Twelve Units Per Acre. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick stated both staff and the Planning Commission were recommending approval. She noted that the site had a medium infill score of 5-7, reflecting access to fire response, utilities, a city park, and a paved trail, though without an Razorback Transit bus stop. She added that the request aligned with the future land use map, which designated the area as city neighborhood. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 21 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Turk and Britin discussed the tree preservation requirement for Residential Intermediate-12. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7037 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0028 East of North Starr Drive: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-28 for approximately 1.98 acres located east of 1435 North Starr Drive in Ward 3 from R-A, Residential-Agricultural to RSF-2, Residential Single-Family, Two Units Per Acre. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick stated that both staff and the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the rezoning. The property had been zoned Residential Agricultural for a long time, and she noted that Residential Single Family-2 was an unusual zoning district. When staff first reviewed the applicant’s request for Residential Single Family-4 on the two acre site, they were concerned due to limited water and sewer capacity in this oddly shaped part of the city. Because the property had been within city limits for many years but lacked strong utility capacity, staff asked the applicant to consider an alternative. The applicant agreed to revise the request to Residential Single Family-2 as a compromise. Residential Single Family-2 would allow a maximum of four homes on the two acres, which aligned with the property’s constraints. She added that the site had a low infill score, reflecting its location, and that the future land use map designated the area for rural residential use, making Residential Single Family-2 consistent with adopted plans. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Turk seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 22 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Dr. Jones and Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7038 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0029 West Mount Comfort Road: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-29 for approximately 1.10 acres located at 3504 & 3526 West Mount Comfort Road in Ward 4 from R-A, Residential Agricultural to CS, Community Services. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick stated that staff and the Planning Commission had both recommended approval of the rezoning. The property, containing two single-family homes, was one of the last Residential Agricultural zoned parcels in an area otherwise surrounded by community services zoning along Mount Comfort Rd. She noted that the site had a medium infill score of 7, reflecting access to fire response, utilities, a public school, a city park, and a paved trail. She added that the request aligned with the future land use map, which designated the area as a city neighborhood. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7039 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk RZN 2026-0030 West Wedington Drive: An ordinance to rezone the property described in Rezoning Petition RZN 2026-30 for approximately 0.84 acres located at 1915 & 1927 West Wedington Drive in Ward 4 from RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, Four Units Per Acre to RI- U, Residential Intermediate-Urban. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Interim Development Services Director Britin Bostick explained that staff and the Planning Commission had both recommended approval of the rezoning request. The property, currently zoned Residential Single Family-4, was proposed to be rezoned to Residential Intermediate-Urban and consisted of just over three quarters of an acre. It was located south of Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 23 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Wedington Dr and immediately west of another property the City Council had considered earlier in the meeting, within an area generally zoned Residential Single Family-4 with a mix of older zoning districts nearby. The request involved two adjacent parcels, and the site had a medium infill score of 7-8, reflecting strong access to fire response, utilities, a public school, the University of Arkansas, a city park, a paved trail, and a Razorback Transit bus stop. The request was consistent with adopted plans and that the Planning Commission had forwarded it with a recommendation of approval on a 6–3 vote. Applicant Serena Allen shared her personal history with Fayetteville. She stated that when they purchased their home, they chose it for its proximity to a bus stop so she could continue her graduate program and access nearby amenities. She described why she believed the Residential Intermediate-Urban rezoning was appropriate, noting that it aligned with City Plan 2040, supported infill goals, and fit within an already developed area with existing streets and transportation. The rezoning would still allow single-family homes but at a smaller scale, helping provide missing middle housing. She acknowledged her neighbors’ concerns about drainage but felt that the conditions on her property were different. Using photos and a slope diagram, she showed that the land was flat, sat at the bottom of the grade, and received water flowing toward Wedington Dr rather than toward Ora St. She explained that her home was about five feet lower than the property uphill to the east, and that the overall drop happened gradually over several hundred feet, meaning her site did not worsen drainage issues. She respected the concerns raised but believed her property was not contributing to them and welcomed questions. The City Council received 3 public comments regarding this ordinance. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Dr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-1. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore and Berna voted yes. Council Member Wiederkehr voted no. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr explained his vote to not move the item to the third reading. He had concerns about the lack of stormwater easements in front of the properties and was not against the rezoning. He was hoping for more time for the owners to voluntarily consider a bill of assurance, while acknowledging that was something the City Council could not request. Council Member Turk felt the City Council needed to consider consistency. She had heard that the city would be conducting a study and review in the area and believed before going forward on rezonings, the study needed to be completed. Council Member Stafford felt that what he heard from the City Council was that there would be no building allowed on Wedington Dr until years of studies were complete, the water would run uphill, the housing crisis solved and that a four lane road couldn’t add gentle density. He felt that the City Council frequently discussed infill but voted against it. He would be in support of the item. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 24 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 2-5. Council Member Stafford and Dr. Jones voted yes. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted no. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. This ordinance failed. 2027 Property Tax Millage Levy: An ordinance levying a tax on the real and personal property within the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for the year 2026 fixing the rate thereof at 2.3 mills for General Fund Operations, 0.4 mills for the Firemen’s Pension and Relief Fund, 0.4 mills for the Policemen’s Pension and Relief Fund, 2.5 mills for Fayetteville Public Library Operations and 1.2 mills for the Fayetteville Public Library Expansion; and certifying the same to the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “This item is the annual property tax millage levy, which will set the rates to be collected for the next year. This is a routine item that we do each year, and we're required to submit our tax levy figures to the county around this time and submit it in time for the quorum court to put this on their agenda. For 2027, we're proposing to keep the property tax millage unchanged, and I'll briefly go over those. That is 2.3 mills for General Fund operations, and that provides roughly 8% of the General Fund revenue, around $6.7 million. Four tenths of a mill for both the Police Pension Fund and the Fire Pension Fund, and we have sent both of those funds down to LOPFI for Administration, but we still do collect the tax revenue and make the payments to LOPFI, and that's worth approximately $1.1 million each, each one of those four tents. We have 2.5 mills for the Fayetteville Public Library operations, that's roughly worth approximately $7.3 million. And finally, 1.2 mills for the Fayetteville Public Library expansion, and that provides funding to pay off the library bonds, and that's approximately $3.5 million annually. Once again, this millage is going to, or this ordinance is going to keep the millage rates at exactly the same as it was last year, and this is we've had it at the same 6.8 mills for several years now. And one thing I wanted to address; Minister Jones, at the last meeting, she had asked me how much longer is left to pay off those library bonds, and it looks like those have been paying off early, just like our 2019 series bonds. We've been collecting a lot of revenue and paying those off at a fast rate, so they're projecting to pay those off actually in 2031. Be happy to answer any questions for you.” Council Member Moore stated, “I just had residents - if we can explain, because we're not at our max mills, can you talk about how many additional mills are available and what they potentially are worth?” Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “Yeah, we could go up to a total of five mills, and one mill is worth approximately $2.93 million at the 2026 millage rates.” Council Member Moore stated, “And then what is required? Because we have to pass the ordinance to set the yearly. So, if there were to be an adjustment, there would be a public process to make that adjustment as well. Is that correct?” Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 25 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Chief Financial Officer Steven Dotson stated, “It's my understanding that council could actually make that doesn't need to go back to the voters or anything like that.” Council Member Berna moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7040 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk An Ordinance to Authorize Certified Fire Marshal Personnel to Initiate Nonconsensual Tows: An ordinance to authorize certified Fire Marshal personnel to initiate nonconsensual tows by amending § 72.02 Nonconsensual, Police-Initiated Towing, Storage and Impoundment Procedures of the Fayetteville Code, and to declare an emergency. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Fire Marshal Chief Jeremy Ashley stated the item was not intended for routine parking enforcement but for situations where designated fire access lanes were being blocked. He explained that these lanes were critical for positioning ladder trucks and rescuing people from upper floors in high rise buildings, yet vehicles were frequently parked in them. He added that although warnings were issued regularly, ticketing someone who was blocking a designated rescue lane was essential, because if a fire occurred minutes later, crews would need immediate access. He discussed instances in other parts of the city, particularly near the university, where fire trucks could not travel down streets due to obstructed parking. In some cases, crews had been forced to abandon their vehicles and walk to medical calls, which would have been dangerous if the emergency had been a fire. He reiterated that the intent was to address complete obstructions in critical access areas and not to expand general parking enforcement. The City Council received 1 public comment regarding this ordinance. Council Member Wiederkehr moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Berna seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 26 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Council Member Moore commented on the potential benefit of the city to consider parking districts in areas of Fayetteville. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Council Member Berna moved to approve the emergency clause. Council Member Stafford seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna voted yes. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7041 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Prohibit the Use of City Funds and City Property for Automatic License Plate Reader Systems: An ordinance to prohibit the use of city funds and city property for automatic license plate reader systems. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Council Member Stafford clarified what the ordinance did not do, stressing that it did not regulate private cameras, remove existing parking enforcement or traffic light camera technology, or affect systems already exempted. The police department did not operate automatic license plate readers and explained that the proposal was a preemptive decision before any purchase or contract. He described how Automatic License Plate Recognition systems collect license plates, times, locations, and identifying details that can be compiled to reconstruct the movements of people who have done nothing wrong. He cited an incident in Sherwood where a misread license plate led police to conduct a felony stop on an innocent family, and he noted investigations in which officers elsewhere had abused access to Automatic License Plate Recognition databases. He did not believe Fayetteville officers would misuse the technology but argued that good policy should not rely on perfect behavior. He referenced a recent federal ruling in Oklahoma that found a month long warrantless search of Automatic License Plate Recognition records unconstitutional and cautioned that the court viewed such systems as approaching mass surveillance. Nearby cities and Washington County had already banned or ended the use of Flock systems, showing that the same concerns were emerging statewide and nationally. The technology could help solve crimes but felt usefulness alone did not justify government surveillance powers. He argued that the real question was whether potential safety benefits outweighed the ability to track thousands of innocent people. The ordinance protected existing systems, did not limit private cameras, and allowed the City Council to revisit the issue later once adequate safeguards existed. He urged the City Council not to build a surveillance system first and hoped protections followed, invoking Benjamin Franklin’s warning about trading liberty for temporary safety. Council Member Turk invited Police Chief Mike Reynolds to comment on the item as she understood the city did not have any flock cameras in operation and would not in the foreseeable Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 27 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov future. Police Chief Mike Reynolds explained the technology had been around for 15 – 20 years. His department reviewed the technology throughout the years but shared the same concerns that Council Member Stafford had presented, which was why he chose not to invest in the technology. He shared his experience of being an officer. His preference would be for an ordinance to come forward that added safeguards to Automatic License Plate Recognition technology and not strictly prohibit it. His only question was understanding the level of security the Automatic License Plate Recognition were given to Parking Enforcement. He wanted to ensure that his department was matching the same level of security, and same level of confidence, as other departments. Council Member Stafford then added that he had worked with the Police Department from the very origin of the ordinance and was sure that if in the future Automatic License Plate Recognition technology was going to be used, that the Police Chief at that time would bring forward safeguards. Chief Information Officer Keith Macedo explained that the Parking Enforcement images were stored for 24 hours and then purged, the only staff members allowed access to the software were the Parking Management staff. Council Member Moore clarified that the license plate images being captured were for verified for the paid parking system. Council Member Moore thanked Council Member Stafford for bringing the item forward. She felt the technology was reactive and she encouraged investments in community supports that would reduce criminal activity to prevent crime on the front end. Council Member Turk explained she was reluctantly supporting the item. She felt the city did not have a current problem and felt the ordinance was unnecessary, despite that, she would vote for the item. Private information was sacred and there were emergency technologies to be concerned about, but she felt the Fayetteville Police Department did a great job and would bring any policy changes forward. Council Member Berna agreed with Council Member Turk. He shared his personal opinion of the Flock camera company, but he would be more comfortable with the item if it had a 3 – 5 year limit. He hoped the ordinance wouldn’t come back to cause problems down in the future. Council Member Dr. Jones verified with Police Chief Mike Reynolds that his previously mentioned concern around Parking Management’s use was addressed. Police Chief Mike Reynolds confirmed it was, as his concern was about data retention. He then stated that as long as he would Fayetteville Police Chief, he would bring any proposed changes forward to the City Council. Council Member Dr. Jones thanked Police Chief Mike Reynolds for his leadership. Council Member Stafford felt that precautions were sometimes needed instead of waiting for a problem to arise. He then mentioned that him and Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington discussed different options for the ordinance language, including a year’s limit. He understood the concerns brought forward, and he also trusted Police Chief Mike Reynolds, noting they were the best police department in the nation. He felt the ordinance could be readdressed and reversed when the technology matured and came with safeguards. Council Member Stafford moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Council Member Bunch seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Council Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849 City Council Meeting Minutes October 6, 2026 Page 28 of 28 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 www.fayetteville-ar.gov Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Pennington read the ordinance. Mayor Rawn asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Council Member Bunch, Turk, Stafford, Dr. Jones, Moore, Wiederkehr and Berna. Council Member Min. Jones was absent. Ordinance 7042 as Recorded in the office of the City Clerk Announcements: None City Council Agenda Session Presentations: None City Council Tour: Date & Time: October 5, 2026 at 4:00 PM. Address: 1919 North Bear Tree Court. Parking: Park along East Ash Street. Please avoid blocking the property's driveway and traffic. Adjournment: 10:30 p.m. Passed and Approved on __________. _____________________________ __________________________________ Molly Rawn, Mayor Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 10/20/2026 Docusign Envelope ID: 939FABA1-7EE7-867A-811B-3E8008FD2849