City Council - Regular Meeting

Apparently they call him Buddha for short. I'm assuming that's what that is.

No, I wondered what that meant.

I think so. I think that's his nickname. What, you don't? No, I don't. Just guessing. Yeah.

Mayor, I show 6 o'clock.

Okay, we'll call the meeting to order. This is a meeting of Bella Vista City Council for May 26, 2026. And we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HUGHES. HERE. NEWPORT. HERE. WILMES.

HERE.

ISBEL. HERE. HANCHO.

HERE.

AND HARP.

HERE.

AND FLINN. HERE.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT. AND THE FIRST SPEAKER IS TOM. I'M HAVING TROUBLE READING THE LAST NAME OF CORA CIRCLE.

Good evening.

Could you help us with the name?

That's all right. It's Tom Guarino. We met some time ago. I was here a few weeks ago. I'm representing the Bella Vista Townhouse Association. I'm one of their directors and against my will, their finance officer. We visited with you about the core circle issue, and we thought we had it resolved with the mayor that you folks were going to take care of it. Turns out now the city's position is we don't know where the city is. So someone has to pay to find out where the city's is before anything can be done with the wall and it's going to cost sixteen thousand and it's not in the budget. So gail lane is a pretty small issue. The issue is all these other walls holding up the roadways and the drainages and I provided you some photographs this portion of the wall. clearly there to support the drainage and road funds are permitted to repair walls that support the drainages I think if you take a measuring tape and go to the roadway it easily falls within the right of ways that cities normally claim when that wall falls it blocks that drainage it's the drainage that the city has for the water that's coming off Reardon it that's where the water runs once it plugs Then it becomes an issue for the townhouse association because you start eroding our property and flooding the townhouses. Fortunately, this isn't one that supports roadways. The association is really trying hard to reach out to the city and say, can we work cooperatively? Because this isn't just little Gale Lane wall. There's a whole bunch of these out there. Some of these are eight feet high. Some are sporting roadways. Right-of-ways can go into the middle of some people's living rooms, the way these maps were drawn. We need to sit down and have a meaningful discussion Your city attorney mentioned, well, we can't tell if it's our land. We can't do any work. In the abstract, that's probably a very valid legal theory. But this picture shows you it's your drainage and it's cemented to your drainage. So we're asking, can you put us on the agenda and have a discussion about that and maybe get some council direction? We have townhomes in every single one of your districts. There's 1,048 homes. The association or these town homeowners are entitled to have a fair share of road funds spent in the maintenance. And we want to work with you if you need access to our property. If you need us to work with maintenance on it, we can talk about it. But telling us no. And for a year, think about this. We started over a year ago asking for the city to work with us. And we've been told it's city property. You can't do anything. He has a GIS map, says it's city property, can't do anything. You're planning and the other folks say it's city property, we can't do anything. And now you say you don't know. So our request is, please put us on the agenda. Let us know so we can make time. We're all... We're all folks who have other things going on. We're volunteers, probably to a extent like you are.

Sir, your time is up.

I understand. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. If not, could someone get back to us and get us on the agenda so we can have a meaningful discussion of these issues because they're more complex. And I gave you all a letter with photos. Sir, thumbs up. Thank you. Appreciate it.

The next speaker is Michael Thomas of Hampstead Lane.

I'll be brief so the previous speaker can take some of my time. As your mayor announced me, my name is Michael Thomas. I'm a property owner of four Short-term rental properties here in Bella Vista with an approximate combined value of a million dollars First I want to say I understand I Understand the and appreciate the city's Or my phone's giving me issues here City's goals regarding the safety nuisance prevention occupancy standards and tax compliance And I'm not here to be speaking to opposition to the ordinance itself, the short-term rental ordinance, all right? You actually have two of them, right, that combine to make, complement one another? Is that correct? I'm not supposed to ask questions, but you know what I'm talking about, right? The short-term rental ordinance, okay. A question arose recently during a sale process of one of our currently permitted str properties regarding the ordinances non transferability provision. After reviewing the ordinance language and speaking with staff, it appears that when a permitted str property is sold the permit terminates and the new owner goes to the back of the line for permitting if the cap has not been reached. My concern is not really about the transferability itself as much as the continuity and unintended market friction. The ordinance itself references protecting residential values, environments, et cetera, and because the ordinance is overwhelmingly regulating the operation and compliance of the property, occupancy, parking, taxes, safety, nuisance prevention, and local contact requirements It seems that there may be an opportunity to explore a more elegant continuity mechanism for being compliant to existing properties upon sale. I've provided the clerk with several questions for later review. She said she would send those to you in the morning. I simply wanted to raise the issue respectfully, because I do not believe that the intent of the ordinance. was to create unnecessary uncertainty for a compliant property operating within the rules. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. We're now, I have time for council member reply, if someone wants to reply. Craig? Tom, where did he go?

he left okay that's i was just going to let him know i spoke with lacy sauls i guess she is working with tom i spoke with lacy this morning and that's i have a meeting with them tomorrow i was just going to let him know that i was moving forward with that i have nothing else anybody else okay shay

Michael, I just want to thank you for coming. I know it can be a little intimidating to come and address the council. So I always admire and respect and thank anyone who comes and is brave enough to speak. I'm open to hearing more information from you. And I'll read your remarks tomorrow. But I would just say my gut reaction so you have at least an understanding of how I would feel. I feel that given that we have an STR cap, and that they're, you know, theoretically could begin to have a line and that new new applicants go to the back of the line, I feel like that's fair and equitable to everyone. And I feel like it would unintentionally create a monopoly if we, you know, created STRs and that that was transferable with the sale. And so I really respect your position. I appreciate you coming, at least at first glance. That's kind of where I'm standing, just so you have a feel for that. I'll read your email, though.

Larry. I think we treat STRs the same as any other business in the city. If a business changes ownership, the new owner has to apply for and obtain a business license. I think that's correct. Is that not right, Attorney Kelly?

Yes, that's correct.

So we treat them the same. OK.

Thank you.

The next subject is reports. We have the monthly financial report for the three months ending March 31, 2026. And it shows the operating revenues compared to last year are up. This total operating revenues is up 5%. Our city sales tax compared to last year at this time is up 9.3%. And the county sales tax is down a little bit. It looks like down maybe a couple percent. So it's a little baffling. We thought maybe some of that might be because of the issue that they've had in Bentonville area with rebates. But at any rate, they are down slightly, but so far it's not affecting our... our revenue in a big way. I did notice a little bit of a snafu in our budget, which we're going to correct going forward. She made the property tax revenue even over the 12 months. So it shows our property tax being $782,000 behind budget, even though it's more than it was last year at this time. So that's why it caught my eye that we need to look in the property tax and budgeting it a little different way. You know, the same total amount, but a little different way month by month so the results will make more sense. On the operating expense side, So far, operating expense is $747,000 under budget. And so we certainly are in control there. And on the balance sheet, our total fund balances are still healthy. They're slightly less than they were a year ago. But we have good fund balances. So far this year things are continuing to look pretty good despite all the tumult in the national economy. I guess it's kind of a mixed bag with the economy nowadays. So, but we feel pretty good about where things are going in Bella Vista and Northwest Arkansas at this point. So, at this point, I would entertain a motion to suspend the rules of order and procedure to allow all ordinances on the agenda to be read by title only. So moved.

Second.

That's Larry Wilms and Anna Isbell. Roll call vote.

Council members Hughes. Yes. Newport. Yes. Wilms.

Yes.

Isbell. Yes. Hounshell.

Yes.

And Harp.

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you for that. Next item is the consent agenda. which includes several items we'd agreed upon from last week. So is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. That was Travis Harp and Larry Wilms. Roll call vote on the consent agenda approval.

Council members Hughes. Yes. Newport. Yes. Wilms.

Yes.

Isbell. Yes. Hancho.

Yes.

And Harp.

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you for that. Next one and unfinished businesses and ordinance prohibiting camping and vehicle habitation on certain public property. providing definitions, establishing enforcement procedures, providing exemptions, providing penalties, and for other purposes. And this is on third reading. Is there any discussion?

Travis. Thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief in my comments. I know when I initially proposed this, Council, the knee-jerk reaction was absolutely not. This is not a problem, but this is a proactive ordinance. And I'll just remind you, nobody would be harmed by the passage of this ordinance it costs nothing and we could be preventing a problem from ever occurring in our city if this problem does occur in our city and we don't have protection in place i believe it'll be a lot harder to deal with it then and so i just ask you to give this a thoughtful consideration on its merits that's it anybody else

Uh, Greg, um, the only questions I had just kind of a brief reminder chiefs back there, uh. Have have we had problems with public parking on city property? That's uh, I just. I just want to kind of rehash this because it's it is on third reading. It's been 3 months.

Okay, so I've read the proposed ordinance. Have we had problems that we have not been able to resolve, not as of yet? But again, I don't want to try not to take sides here. I understand. You know, more tools in the toolbox in the future may be beneficial. A lot of times ordinances get passed that immediately cause the police department to have to take action, spend resources and do things that sometimes are not productive. Um, you know, in this case, I look at this ordinance and honestly, I mean, if it was on the books tomorrow, it wouldn't affect us one way or the other. And in the future, if we needed, it would be there. I'm not saying we don't have tools now to deal with certain things, but sometimes you can't foresee certain things that may happen in the future. Um, so so again, um, to be fair, uh, we have not needed it in the past. We've done fine without it. But we have a lot more happening in the city. Now we have a lot more. You know, I envision sort of, you know, with all our bike park activity and our different races coming up, I do envision people traveling here and maybe there's no hotel. I can't find a, you know, a short term rental. So I'm just going to park my car here and I'll sleep here for the night and, you know, do my racing or whatever. I don't know. You know, and so, I mean, it does give us some some resources like that. But there's there's limited public property in the city. There's mostly private property. And so, you know, I can envision this maybe being useful or something like this on the trailheads. But then again, on the trailheads now, the trails are closed from 2200 or 10 o'clock in the evening to five in the morning. And so we can move people on because they're closed. But but again, to answer your question, we have not had a problem in the past. We haven't been able to deal with with our existing tools. But again, to be fair, I don't see a downside to having something like this.

Okay. Yeah, I was just curious. I'm not trying to put you in a position or anything like that. I just wanted to... That's okay.

I'm always in that position.

Clarification.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else before I walk back? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. The only thing I would mention is, you know, we don't own a lot of public property, but... You don't know what the future holds. One example is the, I think you all are aware, the farmer's market is openly advocating for acquiring some property. I mean, you don't know what the future holds. We may own something in the future we don't own now, that's all. So I guess we're ready for a roll call vote, Wanda.

Need to have a motion and a second.

Oh, right. My bad. Motion to approve. Yeah.

Second. Second.

This is Travis Harp and Anna Isbell. Roll call vote.

Council Member Steeves? No.

Newport? No.

Wilms?

No.

Isbell? No. Hineshaw?

No.

Harp?

Yes. Motion failed, one to five. The next one is an unfinished business. It's an ordinance requiring the Bill of Us Advertising and Promotion Commission to publish financial statements on its official website and for other purposes. This is also on third reading. Is there any discussion? Mayor. Travis.

Yeah, I'll just remind the council. I know we've kind of talked about this at links and I feel that I don't have support on this, but this is a transparency and accessibility issue. Uh, some of the arguments were, well, I'm the only one who's foiled the information, so nobody cares. That's partly true. But if it's more easily accessible, I think more people would care. And I think if more people knew what I saw in the records that they would be interested. Um, and so I don't think there's anything wrong with making transparency mandatory, uh, previous council. I talked to 2 previous council members and they both attested that yes, the advertising and promotion commission had agreed in the past to publish their minutes and their financials and they did not do so. So nothing legally mandates them to publish them and make them easily accessible. So this would change that.

Yeah.

So if you looked out on the website today, the financials are posted. So Wendy and I are both on, or Ms. Hughes and I are both on the E&P Commission, and we met last week. That was my first meeting, and that was something that I had asked them to include. And so we voted on it as a board, and that information is available, and it's actually really helpful. A lot of it's in layman's terms, so people can understand what's being discussed. discussed, right? If it was just a P&L statement, it'd be kind of boring and maybe hard to read, but there's actually a really great explanation. So I think that was really helpful for us to get done. And then what was my second point? So yeah, it's already being done. So I don't know which city council members talked about it before, but it is happening and you do have city council members that are on the board that will hold people accountable.

Wendy.

Also just want to mention that the A&P Commission meetings are public meetings and I would, you can come in person, you also can come via Zoom. We invite the public and other council members who have not attended any of the meetings to attend these to actually see what's being discussed, the budgets, the information, and I'd invite the public to actually come and attend the meetings. Attend all the meetings that the city has. It's important. That's the biggest part of transparency is being able to attend or watch it later.

Travis. Yeah, just a reminder, the previous council, when they brought this up, the Advertising Promotion Commission did the same thing. They published the minutes. and they published the financials around the time that the conversations were taking place. And then afterwards, they just stopped doing so because they're not mandated by us to publish them. So they did this exact same thing in the past and then failed to publish them.

Okay.

Motion to approve. Second.

That was Wendy Hughes and Anna Isbell. Roll call vote.

Council Members Hughes? No. Newport? No. Wilms?

No.

Isbell? No. Hancheol?

No.

Hart?

Yes. Motion failed, one to five. Our next one under new business is an ordinance amending section 1643, active permit maximum of the code of ordinances of the City of Bella Vista to increase the maximum number of short-term rental permits from 600 to 687 and for other purposes. And as you know, in your packet, there's a mathematical explanation of the 687, where that came from. So that's 4% of the housing stock, which was where the original 600 came from. Is there any discussion? Shay?

This is our first reading, right?

Yes.

I guess I just wanted to share, I would personally like to see this go all three readings. I would like there to be plenty of time for public input. And I definitely think there's room for some amendments to be considered. So that's kind of where I'm at with it.

Larry? I've had the opportunity in the last couple of weeks, there were two national conferences, one in Bentonville, the CNU 34 that's called. It has to do with municipal government. and planning and went to the conference on Saturday, which was an open day for elected officials as well as attendees. And also the following week was the Good Towns, I think it's called Good Towns Conference. That was two days long down in Fayetteville and their meetings were scattered around the city square at different locations. But I attended three sessions on that one. and gained a fair amount of insight about property values and STRs in relation to residential properties. And I would not be able to support the expansion without first learning and sharing with you that information. And I have not received the slide programs from the conferences, but I will will seek approval and I'm sure that will be forthcoming to share those slides when I get them. And it's quite informative. They did talk about STRs and residential properties in one of the sessions. And I'd like you to hear about it and be aware of it before we vote to expand the number. So I would be voting not to support it at this time. I would make a motion I would make a motion to postpone decision on this ordinance until November. Bring it back in November meeting.

Hi, Travis. There's a motion, so you need to request if there's a second.

Yeah, so it's a motion to table until the November meeting.

If it's out of the... out of order to do that before our discussion is over.

It's not out of order, it just requires a second. I don't want to stop the discussion.

Second.

Wendy, did you second? Okay. That was a motion by Larry Wilms and a second by Wendy Hughes.

Can we have discussion about regarding that?

Sure. On the motion to type. Yes.

So, um, Mr. Williams on the motion to table, why are you picking November? I just wanted I, I believe we need to have plenty of time to evaluate this, but why November.

Uh, postponing it until after the election, uh, we've heard a lot from our residents, uh, pros and cons about the program. Uh, those who own them are supporters and those who live next to them. We've heard many complaints about issues that they've experienced. That's not true of all of them, but it's true of a number of them. And so it gives us another, another chance to weigh that side of it as well as the informational side. So that's why I would ask to postpone it. It gives us a decision before the end of the year, but it keeps it out of the campaign as a campaign issue. So pro or con?

Um, I politely disagree with waiting till November. I think 90 days is plenty. And if we need to go one more month, that's fine. But I think as a person who's not up for election, um, I don't have that concern. And I actually think that if anything, the public deserves to see how people feel about it, they deserve to see that vote. And, um, and I think that there'll be plenty of time for this to be resolved. ahead of people's voting decisions in November. So I think we actually owe it to them to resolve this in a timely manner and to kind of show our work before any election.

Travis. Well, I had discussion items related to this, not related to postponing. One thing that Shay said is she wants this to go to all three readings. And one thing I always tell everybody is I want all of the ordinances to go all three readings. And if we get to the second reading or the third reading and you still feel that you wanted to postpone it, then you still have that option. But I think doing so now is premature, personally. Wendy?

I am in a similar mindset. I think we go forward for the next few meetings. If by the third month we don't feel like we're in a place to make an informed decision on this, then postponing it. But I think right now we have a little bit of time to try to come to some conclusions.

But thank you for the... Are you withdrawing your second?

Oh, no, we can vote on it.

Okay.

I think postponing it shirks our responsibility, so I agree with Shea. I definitely think we can solve this in 90 days. We just need the public response. There's going to be, as we all know, those that are for and against it. I think Chief Graves had come up a few meetings ago to talk about some of the reoccurring complaints we get at just a few STRs. So again, we can revisit the frequency of calls that come in, the frequency of complaints. That'll all be really important information to make our decision, but also information that I'm sure we have readily available for the next meeting. And I can make that request with Chief Graves.

Craig? I just, I agree with the, Council member Newport that's I think it's fair to the voters that we. That we show our hand prior to election. So, speak, um, I do think that gives us a lot of time to do research. Um, and to see how this has impacted communities, your experience Fayetteville in particular, you know, those are those hit close to home and I think that that's. uh a good source for direction um you know and that that's the other side of it too i don't want uh anyone to see this kind of brewing up again and then we just quash it like it's gone and then it reemerges in november and everybody's scratching their head i'd hate to do it that way and and not not to say that you're doing anything wrong there larry just i just i think we just follow it through just

Three readings.

Yeah. Well, I mean, and we can go longer. I mean, we can table at any time. So, I mean, it's worth the discussion and the research. I think this is a big ticket item again, this election cycle. So we'll get through it.

Travis.

One thing I just want to mention about short-term rentals is this is a business that I have an understanding in. I have a front row seat to this. And one thing I think the council might have a misconception about is how much value is actually in a short-term rental. I don't think many of the short-term rental owners are making this crazy amount of money of profit. Most of them still have a mortgage to pay on that. And the occupancy rates, a good occupancy rate for a short-term rental is 60%. So you're only renting the property 60% of the time. And a lot of the short-term rental owners do feel, you know, I guess, ripped off or lack of better terms, because if they do want to sell their property, say they renewed their permit six months ago, and then they have an offer on their house and then they sell it. Well, they lose out on six months of the permit. The city doesn't, you know, prorate them, you know, half of that permit feedback and they can't transfer it to a new buyer. a lot of times people are buying it for an investment property and they want, they're looking at a short-term rental to buy a short-term rental. And so I would encourage us to revisit that conversation. I know there's, people are scared because you, I think because you think they become worth so much money once they become a short-term rental, but I personally don't see it that way, but that's just me.

Well, I don't want to veer off topic. Yeah. Point of order.

We can get back to the vote.

Yeah. The, the, uh, I think maybe we're ready to vote on a motion to table until November.

Council Member Hughes? No. Newport? No. Wilms?

Yes.

Isbell? No. Hineshaw? No. Harp?

No. Motion failed. Was that one to five again?

So that at this time, you're still on first reading, Mayor, and you can continue with debate if you wish.

Yeah. I don't know if people want to discuss some more. Wendy.

I just had a quick question for staff. I know that this, I'm not sure if this was directed from staff to the mayor or if it was from the mayor. Does the staff support this? I'm trying to figure out where is staff on this.

The staff is. What? Yes. Yeah.

Your staff.

ordinance so staff did not direct or ask the mayor for this ordinance but we've talked about it a little bit and just my stance has been just to repeat ensure that if it's going to be increased it's based on the increase of dwelling units that we currently have that's essentially the only input that I've shared with the mayor on this ordinance proposal so

And as an aside, the city of Fayetteville was talking about reducing their cap, even though I think they're close to the cap. I don't know if they...

They hit their cap. I think they only have around 400 and something that they allow. They're less than 1% in their city.

Larry, I want to remind you to raise your hand because some other people were raising your hand. I'm sorry. Anna? Anna?

Fayetteville also has hotels. Two questions. I think the last we had heard was that we were at 587, or 597 of 600. Is that still accurate, or do we have a waiting list of people that had?

The last week it dropped back, as of Friday, it dropped back to 592.

And then right before this meeting it was at 591. It's constantly fluctuating, and then I have five more that expire this week.

So, Craig.

Okay. Well, I'm sure this is no shock to anybody. My feeling is, I mean, I understand and I'm not going to tell anybody that they shouldn't be able to buy property. They can do what they want, all that stuff. But my feeling is, is that when you have a house that's constantly in flux, as far as being like an STR, you're taking neighbors out of my neighborhood. You're taking that house off the market for families. And I know that's, I guess, not my business, but I have a 31-year-old daughter who's a professional teacher. Her husband's a dental technician, and there is no chance that they can buy a home right now because they can't find an affordable home. I think we as a city, if we kind of turn our attention to maybe affordable housing, rather than extending STRs. I think with all the growth that this area is seeing and the availability of homes shrinking, and I have no problem with capitalists being capitalists. I have no problem with anybody buying a home and renting it out. I think we just need to pump the brakes on this for right now as far as increasing the number. I'd like to see where the economy lands and all that kind of stuff or just see if something happens to where people can get relief rather than where everybody's at right now just struggling as far as ownership and et cetera, et cetera. And I know that's, but that's where my mind's at. And I just want everybody to know that's kind of, where I'm cycling, but anyway, that's all I have.

Thank you. There's a lot of different angles to this issue, pro and con, and the legislature is looming next year, and to the extent you're too tough, Makes it more likely that they're going to pass a law that says there are no caps period. Forget it. So that's 1 of many sides to this issue. There's a, I mean, you guys have to do what you think is the best thing to do, but there are a lot of different angles to this. You know, have done a lot of good things. They've improved the economy. 1 thing I've really noticed is the quality of the housing stock. Particularly in the, uh. uh townhouse side of things has improved quite a bit because of and str says a lot to do with that you're not going to have an str and sit there with peeling paint but on the other hand there's very legitimate issues on the other side too that's why it's such a tricky issue and was a tricky issue last time council dealt with it so i appreciate everybody's comments travis yeah just to piggyback off what uh council member honchell said is

I believe you could take all of the STRs in Bella Vista and revoke their permits today, and you wouldn't solve the affordability issue for young families like your daughter you mentioned. I don't think that's an STR problem, but I do understand the point that it's taking neighbors out of your neighborhood. That is one of the points that I do understand, but the affordability issue has nothing to do with that. Most STRs, they don't You don't just increase the value of your property because of the short term rental. You have to put in a lot of work and have to be a good host and all that stuff to even have people come and visit. So there's plenty of people who have short term rentals that can't get guests to come stay there. So just because the short term rental doesn't mean it increases property value. And I believe it's their right if you want to buy an investment property to rent it out for the length of time that you want. But I understand there is concerns on the other side of the aisle as well. And I'm trying to be sympathetic to those.

The only thing I will say to that, the financial component that is real, because when you have somebody with an STR who's capable of making unlimited money renting that house independently every single night, versus a long term rental. I mean, nine times out of ten, somebody is going to take a pile of money instead of just renting a house. So that's and I know and that's what I'm saying. I have no control and I'm not trying to control anything like that. But what I am saying, the only thing that I'm saying is that by placing a cap, at least we can keep the quantity of what's on the market manageable. That's the only concern that I have. And I'll frame it that way. Take the financial side of it out. That's totally fine. I understand what you're saying there, but I'm just saying the availability. I think that the prediction for Northwest Arkansas by 2030 or 25th, I can't remember what it was, but they're expecting more than a million people to populate 2050. So we're going to see such a rapid increase in people. I mean, where are we going to go? You know, and that's the other side of it, too, is, you know, I think we've had both chiefs used to communities. You'd have nurses, firemen, police, every aspect of working class support living within the communities that they support. And I just don't think you see that anymore. And I know it's price driven. I'm really not trying to attach this to a financial anything in the sense of trying to control rent, anything like that. That's not in my purview. That's not what I'm saying. But what my concern is, is just like what I said, as long as we can keep it to a manageable amount that's realistic and everybody's comfortable with, But once you open those floodgates, I think it's a different landscape. So anyway.

Larry? Studies that I've heard about in other cities have shown that STR numbers tend to influence and raise the cost of residential housing. As a matter of fact, they've documented that and proven that. The reality is that there's not the same return on that property as you get with a residential property taxation-wise. That's a real concern. Even though they generate sales tax, they don't generate the real value that they've promoted to raise to property values. and they don't get a fair property value increase. An example would be is that you can go to the bank and get a loan for purchasing a income-producing property. You can get a loan to do the remodeling on top of that. And you probably have experience with that, Travis. And all of that is deductible against the earnings. A resident can't go and remodel their kitchen and take the same advantage out of that. they're at a disadvantage in terms of keeping their property up. So it's a real different ballgame. And I would have to suggest that there's legislation, there's a referendum on the books coming in November that will introduce to the state constitution the ability to do the what is it, industrial development plan or whatever the loan was that just went through Benton County. But that will be proposed for the voters to introduce that as an amendment to the state constitution, which I think will be a disaster, in my humble opinion.

And to actually make my point, I guess what I was getting at with the rental thing, you know, rental prices have soared. I mean, crazy. And that's, you know, people that have long-term rental properties, you know, they're going to jump on the bandwagon that, you know, everybody's going to try to make as much money as they can. I understand. I get it. But I think that the STR, the prevalence of STRs, it kind of pushes that price up for people who are just trying to live. So I don't know. I've got a lot of thoughts on it, and I don't want to take up the whole night going back and forth. We have three months plus. So anyway, I'll stop.

Okay, thanks for the conversation, everyone. Next one is a resolution approving the mayor's appointment of Nathan Force to the Planning Commission, position three, for an unexpired term ending March 1, 2029, created by the resignation of Jack Wagner.

Motion to approve.

Second. That was Wendy Hughes and Larry Wilms. A roll call vote on the motion to approve.

Council Members Hughes. Yes. Newport? Yes. Wilms?

Yes.

Isbell? Yes. Hunchell? Yes. And Harp?

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you for that. Announcements. The next City Council work session is 6 p.m. Monday, June 15 at Bella Vista District Court. Next City Council regular meeting, 6 p.m. Monday, June 22 at Bella Vista District Court. Planning Commission work session, 4.30 p.m. Thursday, May 28th. at Bella Vista District Court. Planning Commission regular meeting, 4.30 p.m. or immediately following BZA, Monday, June 8, at Bella Vista District Court. Board of Construction Appeals, 3 p.m. Tuesday, June 9, if necessary. Fire Station No. 4 Conference Room, 1639 Forest Hills Boulevard, And I believe there's a Board of Construction Appeals meeting this Thursday at 3 p.m. at fire station number one conference room. Isn't that correct, Taylor? Yeah, okay. Sorry to catch you off guard.

What's the time?

3 p.m. 3 p.m. Yeah, that's on a particular appeal. So I believe that's it then, unless anyone has something else. So the meeting's adjourned. Thank you.