City Council - Regular Meeting

He'll make sure that you have signed in for us. You may have signed in online as well.

I wasn't expecting to be here.

And if it's a non-agenda item, there's an opportunity to sign up after our voting agenda as well.

Thank you.

I mean everybody has signed up so I don't see anybody running to that. I have anybody actually find this. When you bring to me this. It shows 602 so welcome to the Bentonville City Council meeting for August 25th 2026. That'll call us to order. And I don't believe we have a scout. Let's make sure that we don't have a scout in the back to lead us in the pledge. If we can't find our scout, if you all will join me in the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance.

Thank you.

Roll call, please. Sanchez? Yep. Patterson? Here. Acree? Present. Siba? In line. Here. Here. Here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Here. I think a motion to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2026 Bentonville City Council meeting.

So moved. Second.

So motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Patterson.

Yes.

Acree. Yes. Souter.

Yes. Grover. Yes.

Burkhart.

Yes.

Hook.

Yes. Sanchez. Yes. Is there any preliminary motions to be made this evening?

I make a motion to suspend the rules requiring ordinances be read on three separate days and further move all ordinances and resolutions be read by their title only.

Second.

Motion on a second roll call, please.

Acree? Yes. Souter?

Yes.

Grover?

Yes.

Burkhart?

Yes.

Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes.

I need a motion and a second to convene into the roll call.

So moved.

All in favor, aye. Any opposed?

Okay. So we'll open our committee of the whole. We don't have any items on the agenda. If there are any items you all would like to bring up or any comments, we can do that now. And we can also entertain a consent agenda.

We had talked about talking about parking. Did that get punted to the next committee of the whole?

We didn't get a formal, we kind of talked about it, but if you guys would like it to be on a future, on the next.

We've been talking about a parking study for several years now.

And I know the planning commission, Tyler presented all of the different updates to the plan and told them that he was going to be presenting to council about parking. And they said that they were going to kind of wait until after we had kind of talked about it before they voted.

But I would like to see these agreements that we have and how many parking spots we have in these parks, which is we don't know.

I just want to have the conversation about parking specifically, a deep dive into that before we vote on the code changes.

we can put it on the next committee of the whole is good with that give us a chance to look at it okay i'll just say if there's specific things you want them to come back with you might have to i think you know like if you're wanting to know number of parking i think you know what i want to hear don't you okay uh kind of where the conversation went last time with how many parking spaces

are required per units.

And then like the reduction, you know. Because there were some changes in the new master plan. Like we're giving a reduction if you're near transit, if you're near the Greenway or if you do public art. But we, you know, kind of hasn't spelled out how that's measured or, you know, kind of what's appropriate. If it's maybe just needs to be downtown instead of anywhere along the Greenway.

I bet if we do this, it'll be the parking section of the code and send it to everybody. And then if you have specific, we could go from there.

We can walk through both what the code says today, what it said yesterday or prior to the community code, as well as, you know, what some of those proposed revisions I already walked, planted commission through. We can walk through all that.

And I still want to talk about an inventory, parking inventory. That's right.

Okay. And a parking inventory. We'll add that to the list.

The GIS, there is for each location, there are a number of spaces. So on the GS, that is there. And we can maybe, I guess, pull that information into one deck. But just so you know, that is available. So you can click on it and it should show you how many spaces are public, when they're public, if there's times associated with them.

Where can we get copies of the agreements we have for the parking projects? I'd like to see the terms of those agreements.

We can make copies like that.

Yeah, we can pull those.

And also, a lot of those parking garages have systems that count the number of cars there, so I suspect we could get data eventually of how often there are empty parking spaces or how often they're full.

We can have a big parking discussion in two weeks.

Specifics to the coaches, that's

There's multiple things that kind of, when you talk about parking, it's not just supply and what we require and what it says in code. There's also like, how is parking managed? How do we manage on street versus off street spaces? Once you open up Pandora's box, there's a lot you can talk about with parking.

We need to talk about it. I think we started down that road several years ago and it does get complicated, but that's okay.

Yep.

you know, discussing options that are clearly available. But it is going to be a bigger conversation than I think we can be ready in, if you're going to go that big. Just an explanation if the code changes. If you can be ready for the bigger conversation, I'm all in.

Let's pull together what we can. I can start. I feel like it might end up being more of a multi in our working group type of situation, if we're really going to dive into it, but let's pull together I saw I got several bullet points of him. I think we can we can start that at the next me of the hill.

Yeah, that's easy enough.

You do that on a public private inventory. Some private is available at certain times as well. Thank you for starting. Thank you. Okay.

Anything else? OK, we could entertain a consent agenda for items 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. And utility board number 2. Removed. And 3.

Do you have 17 on that?

Yes. Yes.

The resolution.

And 3. Sorry. Yes.

And planning item number 3. Discussion on that.

Planning item number 3. Do you want to read them all one more time? OK.

Here we go. New business items 4. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Utility board number two. Planning item number three.

Anybody signed up for any of it? Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I thought maybe someone might on the Morningstar. No, nobody on.

For all you see if there's any other items for all when I. Anybody signed up on any.

The motion is there a second almost second all in favor say aye. Any of those. A motion to adjourn from committee of the whole.

So moved.

Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

OK. Motion to re-adjourn to new business. All in favor? Aye. OK. So item number one under new business is the proclamation to celebrate our mills.

We have a whole row.

OK. You have the proclamation, because I do not have it. OK, well, we can probably pull it up through there.

I've got it right here. Do you want to read it from here?

Okay, the proclamation reads as this, whereas Feeding America estimates that 639,490 people in the state of Arkansas are facing hunger and one in four of them are children. And whereas summer is the hungriest time of the year for many children when families struggle to make up for lost school meals, and food insecurity tends to increase. And whereas during busy summer schedules, parents and caretakers seek opportunities for community and learning and benefit from accessible resources for planning and preparing meals for children in their care. And whereas the Bentonville Public Schools, the City of Bentonville and Bentonville Public Library have partnered with Aramark and the Summer Food Service Program for the ninth year to address food insecurity in our community. And whereas the Summer Food Service Program helps to maintain employment for schools, food service workers during the summer, and whereas every child, 18 and under, can enjoy no-cost summer meals, and adults can enjoy low-cost summer meals for nine weeks in the summer. And whereas Aramark served 57,735 meals to children in Bentonville in the summer of 2026, and almost 304,000 meals since 2018 to address food insecurity. Now, therefore, I, Stephanie Orman, mayor of the city of Bentonville, do hereby proclaim the summer of 2026, the months of summer meals, in the city of Bentonville in recognition of the commitment of Aramark, Bentonville schools, the city of Bentonville, and Bentonville Public Library to provide local children with nutritious meals. And I encourage all residents of the city of Bentonville to engage with the very real and continuing issue of hunger in our community by donating to or volunteering at one of the many community food banks. Given this 25th day of August 2026 in Bentonville in the great state of Arkansas in the United States of America. And if we'll have everybody come forward and we'll have to pretend that we have the proclamation that we'll get to adding. Normally that comes down with, it's sitting here, but it's not, so.

Yeah, there are, there's a lot.

Hi, Hattie.

Yes.

Thank God. And the whole group.

Some people came right over here. Yeah. Yeah.

All right.

Free look right here. One, two, three.

Thank you, guys. Yay.

Don't worry. Sure.

I'm sure.

So I do want to thank the Aramark crew, the ladies and gentlemen here who are so gracious to serve the children every summer. We love seeing you at the public library. I know you serve other places too, but it's been a great partnership. So thank you all. Y'all worked hard this summer.

OK. Well, that did free up some seats. So if anybody needs to come in and find a seat, we can do that. We'll let everybody come in and find it. I will say that if you have not experienced the summer meals program at the library, they're super busy and people are very appreciative and they run it very well.

So it's a great partnership.

Okay, item number two is the ordinance and mending the city pay plan to reclassify the transportation director position.

business item number two an ordinance amending the 2026 pay plan for the city of bentonville regrading the director of transportation position and for other purposes there's a motion in a second in the other discussion roll call please suitor yes grover yes burkhardt yes look yes sanchez patterson yes acre yes okay

Item number three is an ordinance amending the noise regulations. I was going to have Shelly come up and kind of speak to what we've been doing with this, and then Chief is going to speak, and then we'll have several members of the community find out this week on this item.

Okay, great. Good evening. Thank you for Letting us present to you this ordinance that we have been working on. We have come to you a couple of times over the last, I think, eight to 10 months with some updates, some ideas, and have shared with you some of the research that we have done among noise ordinance, particularly other cities within the area to see what they are doing. We have met internally with our staff. We have listened to city council at numerous Committee of the Whole presentations. and then we've also tried to put together some amendments to the ordinance that is something that we feel like is something that we can enforce, that's defensible, And that is also sort of a good balance of what members of the community want and also to support our local businesses. So we have really put together an ordinance that we feel is really the best that we can present to you at this point. And again, we've looked at several different things. One of the things that we really felt, one thing we needed to do was change the zoning districts because we had the community code be adopted and so we made some of those changes. The other major change is addressing cutoff times for sound amplification, and so that's really the biggest new piece to the noise ordinance. And we are, I think I'll just go ahead and turn it over to Chief Bertrand, and he can talk a little bit about the perspective from the police side. We've been working very closely with them in drafting this ordinance.

So we have worked pretty close with planning and Shelly and her team. They've done the majority of the work, which is thank them for that. They do great work with that. Just something they presented to us. We were able to look it over, kind of look at some spots, maybe pick some spots apart, go back to them, kind of work back and forth as we went through this ordinance. We want to make sure that we can bring the best product possible. for you guys to review. Legal's been involved as well. It's not just something we just tried to throw in our pocket and run. So we do have other entities within the city that have also been involved in this. We do feel like we brought the best product we can bring to you. We looked at it from an enforceable standpoint as well to be able to conduct our enforcement. We can do that based on this ordinance. um it makes i think it clarifies some language within there that helps with that enforcement as well i believe that the good thing about an ordinance like this is we bring it forward to you and if you determine you wish to pass it tonight and we do find down the road because everyone's human there may be something you say hey if we could just tweak this a little bit it is something that can be amended down the road. But I think we brought a really good product that could be put into place today and really improve what we've got going. I know we've gotten input from different sides of this perspective and we try to take those into consideration as we've built this particular ordinance.

Just go down the list. I'm going to go with those that signed up online first. The first person that I had signed up is Kyle. that's not that's a different item so brad calvalero for item number three brad here you will just come to the um microphone if you could give us your name and address and keep your comments to three minutes or under we would appreciate it

Brad Caballero, address is 304 Southeast Henry Street. I just wanted to show up in support of this ordinance. I think it's well overdue. I think it's a solid value proposition for what the neighborhood is looking for, what downtown Bentonville is asking for. We live right downtown and so we see this. one thing i would say is that this ordinance is a good balance of promoting the um the perspective of the businesses by allowing it to go a little bit later we're not saying shut down at an unreasonable time um very much in support of all the businesses that are in the area and uh i just wanted to show up and say that this is much appreciated i think would be very valuable for our community to be able to actually have some teeth and some ordinances and then also Having the specifications within there of the equipment to use and How it's to be how the measurements would be taken all those things allow the police to actually do what we're asking them to do Thank you Michael

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Michael Spivey. I'm a longtime resident of Bentonville. I live at 310 Southeast A Street. And my wife and I are currently building a house just behind that on Main Street. Back in the day, I could have thrown a football from there to here, but not today. I just wanted to firstly thank, we also, by the way, I should add, my wife and I, operate the Jackson House, which is a small event business, also on Main Street. Firstly, I want to just, again, echo Brad's comments and thank the people who drafted this ordinance. I know these are not easy things to do often, but I support this ordinance, the draft ordinance, rather. I think it's a fair and balanced way to balance residents' property rights of quiet enjoyment with also a very important development of culture, entertainment and culture here in the city of Bentonville. In the past, my wife and I have been part of the conversations with some of you council members on some of what we believe to be excessive noise. And again, I want to reiterate, my wife and I are both fans of outdoor and live entertainment and are regular visitors to the momentary for those type of things. But when we're unable to have a conversation because of the music is literally, you cannot hear each other having dinner outside or in the early morning hours, your windows are vibrating. We just think that's excessive. I believe this draft ordinance addresses those things in a very fair way. So again, thank you. We love being in downtown Bentonville and support both of these interests. Thank you.

Toby Teeter. Yeah, these are online signups. I'm sure they're not online.

Toby Teeter.

Okay. Greg Seuss.

Oh, here comes Toby.

Wait, we found Toby. Sorry. You can just give us your name and your address and keep your comments to Freeman.

Couldn't hear you out there.

Well, so that's a good point. You should be able to hear us out there. Is that okay?

My name is Toby Teeter. I live at 207 West Central. I love live music. I'm a junkie. I even love EDM music. I've been to EDM festivals in Vegas. But I also like to sleep. What's happened over the last year has been very, very dramatic right over here in West Central. I live at a second house. Here's the record. There's the blue house. I'm the next house. I'm not right next to the barber. I am about 400 yards away, but for the house to vibrate till two in the morning or to actually hear and know the songs being played while laying in bed has been very dramatic. This is not as bad as it used to be before they also acquired the Meteor Guitar Gallery. But I would go down there sometimes when it's that loud and there's nights where no one's even there and they're still doing that. Or it's a rainy night and no one's there and they're still playing the music. But admittedly it's gotten a little better. But the issue while we're here tonight is current code allows that. Or at least it's not objective. and we need to have a clear line to make what's fair between commerce and living near downtown. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, council, my name is Craig Seuss. I live at 601 Jefferson, and I have a business at 116 Central, which is very close to some of the noise complaints that we've had. We run a short-term rental out of there, and our concern is just like a business concern. Our business has dropped off. We can't keep people there. We move people. We're so close that there is a lot of vibration that comes off that. At the same time, I'm a huge fan of what's happened in the innovation in our nightlife and I'm really excited about what was happening. So I respect that business, but I think these businesses have to coexist together or we won't be prosperous as a city. So figuring out that balance, and I think this is a step in the right direction or finding a step in the right direction to have those businesses come out because we're suffering from that. So we can't keep that short-term rental there. We have to move people. they've called the police and they can't get it to shut down. So it's having some way to balance this in the future is going to be helpful. And I'll leave it at that.

Ramsey?

I think it might be Ramsey Falls, but I'm not sure.

Roland Smith? Get nice and cozy in our council chamber. Sorry.

Hello. I'm Roland Smith. I live at 406 Northwest C Street. And I'm going to be very brief. I'm all for the new ordinance. I think it's... Fair, I think it's clear, and I think it's enforceable, which I think is really the important thing. I know you all worked really hard on this to get it done. It's a complicated issue. I love music, love Bentonville, love the vibrant downtown scene, but I think we badly need this, and I urge you all to pass it tonight. Thank you.

Bethany Kohlfiefer.

Hello, my name is Bethany Culpepper. I live at 301 West Central. Thank you first of all for taking the time to consider this important noise challenge in our community. I urge you to vote yes on this new noise change. I'm not against loud music at all. In fact, I love it in the right time and place. Lowering the volume by 1030 on weeknights and 1130 on the weekend would provide some peace to those of us who generally love living downtown. If it were up to me, I would make it 10 and 11 across the board. But I know that I need to be respectful to our commercial neighbors and our diverse interests. Likewise, I'm asking for that same respect for those of us who live near the square and downtown. Thank you for considering my views tonight.

On that note, Tom.

Hello, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Tom Hone, and I live at 206 Southwest 2nd Street, and I'm here to speak in favor of the proposed noise ordinance updates. I've lived in Bentonville, downtown Bentonville, for 14 years in close proximity to a variety of establishments that support a vibrant nightlife. lady slippers scotch and soda the meteor now the plaza first seat and more i live even 32 feet from an event venue the record and i've never had to call the police with a noise complaint until this year the change amplified music being played beyond the confines of the buildings low frequency noise is known as lfn that reverberates well beyond the downtown establishment boundaries is having a negative effect on the residents and businesses. The National Institutes of Health define LFN, that thumping base, as follows. A consequence of LFN exposure is the onset of mental stress, which can significantly affect all organs of the body, and more importantly, have a considerable negative effect on the immune system. Feelings of discomfort, agitation, and restlessness when exposed to LFN cause some people to have difficulty with daily work and job performance. I'm here to tell you, it's a thing. This is not about shutting down a good time for residents and visitors, not at all. And this isn't about the city channeling the movie Footloose, as was mentioned on social media this week. After hours, just bring it inside. This is about coming up with a specific set of guidelines to provide clarity for residents, businesses, and enforcement. We're not alone in this. A friend of mine went to see Noah Kahan play a Saturday show at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena with 56,000 fans. He bumped his show a half hour earlier to 6 PM to ensure he respected their 10 PM noise regulations there. So it's even less than ours. And that was a Saturday night. In closing, I'm hoping that from within our house, we don't hear last call on the PA system is between 1240 and 1245 AM, followed by an extra dose of cranked up music to close an evening. This happens often, and it even happened on Christmas and Easter ease for us. This is an important issue and I support the density and have been a proponent of growth and the work of the planning department and management. This is just another example of navigating our growing pains. And I appreciate the city staff who have worked hard to put forth this fair and responsible set of rules. I do have one tweak, though, if I could suggest that. In the regulations, it cites DBA, decibel frequency A. There's actually three frequencies, A, B, and C. A actually filters out the base, which is the problem. So if we could just amend the regulations to be decibel levels, and I don't care if it's A, B, or C, just have it that way. In all measuring devices, usually you can toggle between those frequencies. So that's the one. One of our public comments reached three minutes. Thank you very much.

I want to clarify the request that he made. What was the moving, just having it on decimal level, not the A?

Can you talk to that, Chief, and how our device works? We currently have it.

I'm sorry for interrupting. I didn't hear him. I didn't hear him very well. I didn't really hear Tom's question very well about that on exactly what he was asking for that amendment on this. And he was describing the instrument A, B, or C can be calculated. And I think you're trying to reduce it to a clear decimal level. Yes. I didn't hear the last part of that. Sorry for asking.

And again, I never thought I'd become an expert or the fact that I'd be standing in front of you talking about this is wildly amazing to me. But there's three different frequencies that you measure decibel levels with. And in the proposed amendment, it's DBA. There's A, B, and C. And A actually filters out the base level, the noise, which is kind of the big problem. So if you use C, or just put the ordinance to say decibel level and not have a frequency A, B, or C listed on the thing, your machines, your devices can toggle between any of them and just be generic and just be decibel levels. That was the only suggestion I had. Thank you.

Can you clarify, because I thought, the way I understood this is that our current noise meter would not.

It does not pick up that bass signal. It does not pick up that low bass rumble. Our current noise meter does not do that.

We would need to get new equipment.

We would need to research, get some new equipment. That would measure that. If it moved in that direction, yes, we would have to research and get new equipment to cover that.

Seems to be the, I'll let everybody speak, I'm sorry.

Okay, Leon Fletcher.

Leon Fletcher, 8 Jordan Lane. I want to thank Mallory for the countdown clock. But I want to take this maybe a different direction. One of the proposed amendments is to simplify, and I'm going to quote, to simplify construction hours to restriction after 7 PM in residential districts, 9 PM in commercial and industrial districts. Our residential neighborhood is next door to a future construction site, and that construction site is considered commercial. Those seven-story buildings will be built 100 feet from the property line of the people on the west side of our road. And to give you an idea how far away that is, I had Dan step this room off for me earlier, and it's 30 feet. So you can imagine 100 feet is not very far from your house. In conversation with Councilman Don Grover today, he explained that the current ordinance says that if a construction is within 500 feet of a residential zone, It, sorry, it has to stop at 7 p.m. May through September and 6 p.m. on October through April. So I'm just trying to get some clarification maybe from our neighborhood. Will the city be keeping this rule or going away with it? If the city doesn't keep it, our neighborhood and future neighborhoods that may run into this, they're gonna be dealing with construction noise from heavy equipment, jackhammers, cranes, dozers, whatever, up until 9 p.m., which is going to be well past, if they've got kids at home and they're trying to get them in bed at 8 o'clock or even sitting outside trying to enjoy a nice little barbecue or something, we don't want to hear jackhammers at 8, 9 o'clock at night 100 feet from the property. did good. Thank you.

And so I'm going to have our team address that because thankfully Council Member Grover did actually mention this to us and we actually are bringing a amendment resolution. We were able to kind of discuss it and bring something that we thought that we were all in agreement with. We could But in there to address that specific, so I appreciate you contacting your council member, and I appreciate the council member talking to us about it to see if we could.

But something in front tonight, so this was flagged to us as as an issue in the draft that is, is it as it is currently written? We actually found a pretty simple change. We could make a very minor amendment that would actually serve both functions one. to clean up this large paragraph we have here but then also still provide for that same 500 foot buffer rule so the only thing you would have to change here under c is you see under item one it reads 7 pm in r1 mht3 and t4 zoning districts those are your residential zoning districts all we would have to change is 77 o'clock pm within 500 feet of r1 mht3 and t4 zoning districts has the same outcome at the end of the day.

What about the, it also says no Sundays, no holidays.

That would be a much larger change. This would just be at 7 p.m., you know, 7 p.m. is the cutoff time, if we did it that way, within 500 feet of residential.

Damon Epps.

Hello, everyone. How's everybody doing? I'm Damon. I love this town. A lot of these guys are my friends, all these people. I'm on the opposing side. I came here from LA. I've been really kind of saturated in this town for five years, watched it grow from As much as this place has been growing for the past five years, this place has had unbelievable growth in entertainment. For me specifically, I really have produced a lot of television shows in my life. And really coming here has kind of been a breath of fresh air to kind of like try to cultivate entertainment and talent. And seeing this place grow, I think that we're in a pickle. It's a little bit of a pickle right now. This place is like we got people trying to sleep. We got business friends that have businesses. We also have an entertainment district that is growing, that is becoming a little bit like the M Streets in Dallas by Greenville, where it's getting a little bit like Austin. So there's a little bit of the leeway. And then we also have, you know, We wanted this town to thrive and have a young community that came in. And so a lot of us in Bentonville, you know, there's a lot of people that get up at 5 a.m. and they go to sleep at 8, you know, because it's a very healthy town. But there's also the other side of that where the restaurant workers are getting off at 10.30 at night and they want something to do. Or we built these beautiful hotels and the people are coming in from out of town and they're wanting, people don't just come to a city to go, oh, I'm ready to go to sleep, it's 10 o'clock. So I'm just, when I read the ordinance, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done or there doesn't need to be some kind of talk to try to figure this out, but some of these decibel things when I read them, if I'm not mistaken. Some of those things, because I didn't know about decibels. My buddy's in a band. But he talked about them, and he said, some of these decibel things seem a little crazy. Because if you read them, then it says, the decibel didn't mean anything, but it's like a hairdryer. So it's like, if we're outside and you can't even talk, where does that leave the line of what we're really trying to do? And that's what makes me nervous. If we're trying to make sure everybody's happy, and I think that that's my goal. I like everybody in this place and all these people. I think we're still going to talk tomorrow. But yeah, that's just my take. I just think that there's just, you know, we're a growing city. I get it from all angles. But, you know, for me, I really want this town and the young community to have somewhere to go and have something to do. And I think that this restricts entertainment and growth and, you know, people trying to make a living as an entertainer. So that's my top.

Jordan Rivera.

Hello, Mayor Orman and fellow council members. I'm at 1401 Northeast John DeShield Boulevard here in Bentonville. I actually emailed all the council members about this. I don't think I had your email, Mayor, but I'm going to be like Damon. I'm actually opposed to this, and I'm from LA as well, lower Arkansas, not Los Angeles. But the reason I love this area as a young professional that lives and works here is kind of like what Damon was saying. It was like, you can go out and have a good time. And, you know, I love live music, live outdoor music. I'm always out enjoying myself, love the music. And I don't see why it's, I think there has to be probably a sacrifice with the folks that are downtown. And they kind of cohabitate, you can say. So even in 2022, here in the city of Bentonville, alcohol sales weren't allowed on Sundays, right? But, you know, I come from a dry county, and this actually passed here in the city over 70% with the alcohol sales on Sundays and stuff. So I think we need to be less restrictive, less big government. You know, like... A lot of young professionals are moving here. I work for Walmart, the new home office. People are always coming here and visiting here. We wanna be a destination, but with these restrictions and on the entertainment and live music, I think that's gonna really hurt and impact negatively our live music venues out here. I think we're taking a step backwards. in that respect if we want to be a tourist destination and a destination city. So I encourage you guys to vote no on this and oppose the new noise ordinance. Thanks.

That is all that I show signed up.

Yeah, my name is Sean Curtis. I live at 2302 Southwest 17th Street.

I am the general manager of the Hub Bike Lounge. I've been in Northwest Arkansas for about 15 years.

I've been in Bentonville for about five. I don't think I became part of the Bentonville community until I took the job at the Hub, probably about two and a half years ago. And we have grown in the nightlife as a response to requests from people who want to come out, from tourists. We have crossed that threshold where we are now a tourist destination, not just over the summer, but we're a spring break destination. Blows me away, but people want to come here, and they don't want to be a one-stop thing and just go ride bikes or see the lake and then be done at the end of their day. They want to get the whole experience. Part of that is also being respectful to our community members. We have houses right behind us. We have an apartment complex right across from us. We are normally closing our windows at midnight to be respectful to our community members because that's kind of what built us to get to where we are now. But as we grow and we adhere to more than just the community, we need to be able to fit into those facets of everything. I do agree that we should have some sort of system that monitors it to keep this in place, but also there's a lot of hard work done by people who put together um bar crawls right like the celtic crawl the santa con and things like that and so i do think there needs to be some leeway and not just a hard cut off i think that there needs to be some understanding of from the from the businesses to the community and the people around us that yeah we don't want your windows thumping at you know 2 a.m we want you to be peaceful and uh we want to be peaceful you know but there there is a give and take and i do believe that um We're being a little too hard cut on the ordinance, you know, right at 1130 and everything inside. So that's probably all I have for it. I do think bar crawls in certain events should have a little more leeway. And I think that's about all I got.

Thank you.

Is there anybody that I have signed up that you want to discuss?

Signed up Chief. Hello, everybody. How you doing? My name is Justin Aguilera. I'm at 115 Northwest Second Street. I'm the owner of The Barber in downtown Bentonville, and we love being part of the community here in Bentonville. We've tried really hard to create a destination for people of all walks of life into our establishment, whether it's visitors, whether it's people who live here. Like he was saying, destination and just a place where people can hang out and have a good time. Coming from all over the country and having been involved in different establishments, it's very important that people have a downtown that's thriving in an aspect where you have nightlife. It's imperative that you have places where people can go, hang out, watch a game, listen to music, have a good time, especially when they're working 40, 50, 60 hours a week. And if you can have two days or a couple days where you can hang out and have a good time, I think that's imperative. As for the noise that we have, we take precautions to make sure that our noise is below the decimal readings. As we've never had a citation, we've always been below every level, every time. Certain people call the cops, and as somebody said earlier, they never had an issue until a year ago. And there was another establishment that was at our business that was playing loud music. And there was never seems to be an issue until we have come in to take over the business. As also, we also have the plaza, which is indoors. If they had any issues then, as somebody was trying to shut us down before we even opened and that didn't pass. And there's probably a couple of people in here that were watching that as well. So I know what's happening. So I think it's very, very important that we do not pass this, because you're not just killing the downtown nightlife. And there could be certain people here that want us and our establishment not to be here, but if you do that, then you're making a precedent to other bars, especially when people come down here to spend money, have a good time. If you put the limit to 1130, people are not gonna be coming downtown. They're gonna find other establishments to go to, other cities to go to before that 1130 even takes off. Anybody with common sense would go have a dinner somewhere in another city and stay there if they're going to go and have a good time rather than saying, hey, we got to be cut off at 1130 and then go somewhere else, which means less money for the city as we are creating a entertainment venue and entertainment space here in Bentonville. So I hope that helps, but we're here for the city and we're here to make sure that people have a good time. Thank you.

Everybody, thanks. And for your discussion, if you'd like to have a discussion.

I got this bill, the final language on Friday. I had to go pick up a red line copy so I could see exactly where the amendments were in the ordinance. And there are multiple amendments, many of which I think could be divided out, voted on separately. But I agree with... couple of them, but I need more time to do my due diligence. And I'd like to move that we table this discussion.

For me, before I would vote on whether we table it, I'd like to hear everybody to see if there is a consensus first. I know there's multiple questions. I agree there's a lot here. And I have my questions ready. But

i'm not saying we shouldn't but i would like to hear everybody's thoughts and see how far apart we all are i'd like for y'all to discuss it i will let you know that we've had extensive time and effort by our staff and we are putting forward what we think is the best with um we did have the construction amendment and we met this afternoon which we and agreed that we thought that we could easily implement that so what i would tell you is um staff i'm not going to direct if council can do what you want but i will not be directing staff to go back and make tweaks and changes to this because there's there's no way to get everybody's opinion in this and we've got a lot of things to be working on this is our best effort try to listen to all sides and come forward with us so um i just

It seems like the complaint is the cutoff. There's a lot in here, and it seems like the cutoff is the biggest concern that some have. But I kind of just did research on cities across the state, the country, and virtually every city has a cutoff. Rogers has a cutoff if the AMP can operate with a cutoff. A cutoff is not unreasonable. it seems like we're very much in the minority not having a cutoff. So I don't know what, we're not gonna scrap the ordinance, but like, are they asking for midnight? Like what would, you know, because I feel like this is, you know, we have to find the compromise between livability and, you know, nightlife. And I don't think expecting the nightlife to be indoors in the middle of the night doesn't seem unreasonable. But like that amplified sound cutoff, it is a very, it seems to me like, you know, in my research that it's a very common thing in most cities. So I'm not sure that that's kind of, you know, what I kind of found researching there.

what I've found in some cities, and I haven't had time to look at all of the issues that are encompassed in these amendments with all the other city ordinances, but a lot of the times are variable by location of the venues, if they're close to a neighborhood, if they're not. But my concern is the fact that nowhere in our zoning codes do we advise investors or developers that they will be restricted from outdoor music venues. We don't have a business license. We have a code that says certain things can go in certain places, but I think that we are allowing people to invest millions in developing these venues and locations without a good understanding of how they're going to be impacted after they take the risk. For example, if they understand what the current noise code is, and they're willing to work with that, then we go and change it, how does that impact fairly and equitably the investor. Now, the other side of this is it looks to me like in the ordinance is built in an exemption for the city. And I don't think it's right for us to be able to get exemptions on special events and these type of things if we're going to hold our businesses to one level of compliance. And are we creating a code that's just going to be applicable in the core? Or is it going to be citywide? I just have a lot of questions. I think there are a lot of issues we need to address. And I would like to table this and we'll have more information.

Can you come and speak to the point of order?

the portion of that i think that was brought to our attention so we want to make sure context-wise people right what that is right that exemption is currently in there that's not a new exemption um in fact what we have done is um actually added um more restriction onto the city by saying that the portion regarding outdoor amplified sound does still apply to the city So that's what that did. It didn't add an exemption. It actually tightened it up a little bit so that the outdoor amplification actually would apply to city events.

The ordinance that we are presented today is the result of months of recent activity, but at the same time is the result of more than a decade of complaints that we have repeatedly received from citizens that from different venues, noise coming from different venues affecting the life of the neighbors. And this is iteration of version number 300, Shelly, that you have worked on in the sense of changing every time that we, think in a different way. And I think it is probably the best possible tuning that we have had. And it is not the response, as somebody mentioned, for a specific business. Yes, the barber has been mentioned in a couple of occasions, but it is not because of the barber. It has been here for a large number of years. Since I started this business 12 years ago, it has been repeatedly on the complaints from the citizens. We have had one just practically behind this building in which people were affected in their life. because it was extremely noisy. We have another one on Fifth Street and we have had many others around the city. In addition to construction noise and other types of noise. And so as of now, I think it is the best proposal that has come to us. Thank you, Shelly.

Mayor. I have a question, I don't know if Chief can answer this, but we're using two methods of enforcement. Are they using the same equipment to measure decibels? You've got code enforcement, using some level of assessment. You've got the police department using the decibel. According to this, they're going to be responsible for the ultimate test, decibel test. But we're now involving another department in code enforcement. Is it equitable? Are we using the same measurement tools? I'm concerned about that.

That's also been in there. That's not a change. The code enforcement is just assisting during the daytime when police may be on other calls and stuff like that. They can go out, check, yes, it sounds like there might be an issue, and then they will notify police to go out and use the equipment. We don't have, code enforcement does not have separate equipment for that. All that is is an assist to the police. So that is something that is already in the code. That's not a change.

So it's just a personal assessment? Are there guidelines on?

For them to then notify police that, yes, they are finding that there might be an issue, you probably need to go out and bring your decibel. Yes.

Are there other parts of this code that I'm wondering whether or not we need to conform with some of the other amendments we're making? But I haven't had time to fully vet this, so I can't make an educated decision.

We've done a lot of good work trying to find the middle ground here. There's nothing that's gonna make everyone happy. And our job is to try to find the middle ground. I feel like a lot of the folks who spoke and reached out to me against the ordinance, they've asked for middle ground. Let's go to the table and find a happy medium. And I wanna say, gosh, it feels like we already have. And I'm not sure what other middle ground we could find. I mean, if we're gonna change the time, 30 minutes one way or the other. I don't know that that's a big deal. 1130 sounds like a great time. It sounds like it's reasonable for both sides. I don't want music at 1130 at night pumped into my house. But if you live downtown, then that's something you have to live with. But after 1130, I think that's a good time. I'm comfortable supporting this ordinance as long as we can ensure that the

500 feet uh 500 foot buffer for for neighborhoods are is is it employed for the construction yeah for the construction yeah i also think that if new equipment is needed the city should buy it if if we are limiting ourselves in the types of uh noise measurements we should not so i should get the equipment and be ready with it yeah okay so um

care what you're saying, but that would be a process if we can pass what's in front of you. And then if you want us to look at equipment and bring that, we could always do an amendment if we can get the right equipment to be able to do that. But I do think you want us to research what that equipment is and costs and different things. All those, just so you know, if we're complaint driven, right? But if we enforce something, we've gotta be able to prove it in a court of law, right? And so that's beyond a reasonable doubt, right? And so we have to have the police do it with a calibrated noise meter to be able to do that. So we have to make sure we have the right equipment. It has to be witnessed by them. They have to do it with that specific equipment. So if that's something down the road.

Point of order, there's no public comments closed.

I appreciate the concerns that neighbors have. My bigger concerns have to do with how we develop public policy that gives everybody adequate comfort or notice. You know, I think our citizens, everybody's property rights here need to be protected. So how do we do that? And what common ground do we get? And but I am, I do like the fact that we're not going to measure the decibels from the speakers or from right at the point of dissemination, as you get further up the property line, it may, you know, soften a little bit. There are other things in there that I think make sense that are in our current ordinance. And I'm happy to entertain a time cut off. But I think that right now with all the amendments that are being made, I don't think we've had adequate time to vet this.

Tyler, is this significantly, you presented to us in June and gave us a draft that we've had for several months now, and that's what I've been going over. Is there anything that significantly changed since you presented to us in June? That would be better than the big changes, if that's what the discussion is.

A few of the changes were the time, that 30-minute time difference. And then one of the things that we needed to do was align that decibel table with the shutoff times. So we made sure that those were consistent. predominantly for enforcement purposes. That is one of the biggest shifts from what we originally had. I think we had, at one point we had talked a little bit about revisiting the decibel levels, but those did not change. We haven't done anything. Those have been, are remaining the same. It's just the time where those are applicable is what has changed.

And when deciding the time, did you look at surrounding cities? Did we take complaints? Yes, we did.

We really have looked at other cities. That's where we start when we're looking at ordinances. We look at other cities to see what they're doing. That's like our first stop when we're doing research for an ordinance. We've also taken the feedback that we've received from you on city council, not just the last committee of the whole, but we've presented one or two times since last December. And we've taken that feedback, we've taken the feedback from the community, we have talked to receive feedback from other organizations, and we have tried to take that together and create what we've proposed to you this evening.

Did you use cities that were larger than us as well? I know most cities have these, and I'm assuming their nightlife did not collapse with a cutoff time. What kind of cities did we use?

We usually look locally. We try to look at the ones in our vicinity, but also within our state, just to make sure that we've got the same state laws. Sometimes we do look at some other cities. This one is... largely based off of what Rogers has as far as their cutoff time. The reason behind that being they have a very large outdoor music venue. And if they have regulations that that outdoor venue is able to be in compliance with, we felt like that was something that would also work here in Benton.

And it also simplifies since people tend to frequent both places.

So essentially the proposal that you sent us today is the one that we have had since June.

No, there have been some minor changes to that, but we have presented to you with some ideas and some concepts that we were going to include in that, so yes.

The changes you mentioned are on the document that you presented to us in June.

From the one in June, there have been some changes. What you have tonight is a little bit different, and I mentioned those differences in the hours on that, and then aligning that with the shutoff times.

trying to indicate that there has been two months ago that you presented a document in its base form.

A lot of the comments I've gotten are concerns I've had previously has to do with base and has to do with the way it reverberates against some windows and that kind of thing. But it's my understanding that the tools that we use to measure disc goals really won't measure that. We're not gonna solve that problem.

That is something that we really did look at. That's going to be a significant change, primarily because it's going to require different equipment. It's also going to require considerable extra study. I haven't gotten into that, so I don't know if the decibel levels that we have right now will need to be the same with those various levels. There may need to be separate levels to look at the A, B, and C. that did require quite a bit more work as well as potential costs to the city. We have to calibrate these annually, biannually. They have to be calibrated, some things like that. So at this time, we didn't feel like it was something that we were ready to go quite to that level, which is why we presented to you something that we feel like is something that we can enforce today.

And that was part of the compromise idea that we were looking at was if we did a shutoff time, it would allow us to have that hard cut off of the base that reverberates the windows. That's the point behind the shutoff time. We don't have equipment right now that would measure base before that. And so that was the whole mentality or part of the mentality behind getting this shutoff time going. It's because it makes it easier than trying to get separate equipment out to try to measure base at that point. It just calls for an immediate shutoff.

Do you mind staying up there? I just have a few questions, if that's OK. Do we have an approximate cost of the equipment?

I do not. Like I said, it would take research to see what it would cost for the base. I don't know, sir.

We've been talking about this. It's critical that our decimal reader has whatever equipment you need to have if we're going to apply a decimal reading. that we need to make sure we have the equipment. So whatever that, I'd like to just, if we could get an estimate of that pretty directly.

Yes, for the decimal reading we can get, that is the one we've used for years. And it's the base one that we would have to do the research to figure out how to measure the base one. That's the only one that we just have to figure out how the base one works.

I think it's imperative that if we're doing a shutoff time because we can't monitor the base, if that's one of the reasons, then we need to get a base reader. And that way, when we are previous before shutoff times, we have a base reader that can read that appropriately. So we take out assumption. You need the equipment to do what you need to do. Yes, we'll look at it. If we're passing this, Mayor, I suggest that we look into those estimates immediately and have the proper equipment to measure this properly. and get you the tools you need to do it. I can't imagine it's recalibration and the equipment is kind of like my survey equipment. It can't be that bad. There were some discussions this evening about bar crawls and things like that. But I do see in here under J that you can get a permit for special things like that. Is that incorrect? for extension of those hours? Is that, it's under the exemption.

You can request that. You can request that if you meet all the other regulations associated with that permit.

So like if there's a known date of a bar crawl or something like that, then they can apply for the exemption for the permit.

The intent with the, I almost hate to say an exemption as much as that goes through a more intense review process. And that can be one of the items as a, consideration for approval of the permit is saying, this is when the amplified sound needs to be shut off, whatever that is. It's not necessarily an exemption, but those events can share with us what they're trying to do, and that can be part of the conditions of the approval.

It seems like in two different areas, so sorry for using the wrong term, but there is an allowance that if it's not an everyday event, and we're trying to allow businesses to do a certain event level thing, that they could simply get a permit for that and we'd all know the ground rules and you could still have an event like that. Similar to we do other, so is that, Am I reading it correctly that that's allowed through a permit?

That is an option, yes.

Okay, so I just want to listen to a lot of the comments that were made here, and I just want to try to answer them as I go. One of the things that I saw in here under Section 58.107, subparagraph A, subject provisions of this article created unreasonable, loud, disturbing, unnecessary noises within the city. I thought we had talked about not leaving a vague element out there that is not, everybody's going to have a different opinion on that. When you go up to a place, one person is going to say it's not loud and the other person is going to say it's loud. It's not definable. Everybody's unreasonableness is different. Mine is different. I can hear the amp when I'm trying to go to, I go to I go to bed early. I get up early. But I go to bed early, and I can still hear the amp. And when it goes off, I'm not happy because I'm a bass guy. I'm literally in the southwest quadrant. Because I'm high, I can hear it. But my idea of unreasonable in other persons is going to be different. I don't want any ambiguity in this ordinance for somebody to declare this is unreasonable for me when it's not measurable. So I don't like the language of something that could be It's not a measurable item in this paragraph. And so that's the reason I asked for it to be stricken last time. So I still request that to be stricken from this, unless anybody can give me a reason why we would have a vague definition as such.

It is something in our research that a lot of the noise ordinances have. They have kind of that general statement in there, which is why it's in there.

Well, we decided that when we decided to, or at least we talked about going away from that because we were going to set a time and still keep the decimal reading. So it wasn't somebody's opinion. And I don't want to go down somebody's opinion. We have the time. We have the reading. If they're in the reading, they're good. If they're not, they're not. And so I don't want to, I would like to stricken that. If we're doing an amendment, I would like to stricken that paragraph. Um, as far as the time frames and this ordinance, I get it. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm trying to understand. We got here because of complaints. And we got here that not only the complaints continued, but they didn't get any better. And when we make a decision like that, it's because some people didn't help us not interfere. I don't like government interference in anything. I think that in the tenure that I've been here, which is almost 20 years, there's probably been that many, the same establishments, over and over and over and over and over and over again. that for God's sakes, if I just wanted to walk up and say, would you please just turn it down? For everybody's sake. And I don't understand why that can't be accomplished. We would not be here if we couldn't just turn it down a bit. And I'm always one that tries to work things out, but I don't know how you get around that. My idea of being a neighbor is, if I have enough complaints, then maybe I turn it down a little. If I'm throwing a party at my house and a neighbor comes over and they say, man, I'm trying to get my kid to sleep, could you turn it down a bit? Everybody turns it down. I don't think a business, because you have to go indoors to continue entertaining, or you could change to acoustic outside. It's not amplified. You could have a wonderful person playing guitar outside, and it's not going to be an amplifier. You would have a great business for acoustic after 1130 if it's outside. And you can do business indoors. We have vetted this thing over and over again, and I'm sorry we're here, because I would rather leave well enough alone. But it's not working. I would like to have, if we're going to implement this, the equipment on hand to be able to measure the base. I'm concerned about having that unreasonableness in the agreement, for it's an opinion. I don't know why we would have something in there when we have all the tools and the cutoff date and the measuring tools to measure if we're just going to allow it to be they.

Hey Bill, we are Unreasonably Loud. What I'm seeing is Unreasonably Loud isn't what is going to convict someone. This is what someone's going to determine to them is not acceptable and so they're gonna ask for some help. The Unreasonably Loud is not the same thing as the time or the decibel. The Unreasonably Loud statement is simply saying, this is the time when we need to take some action. And then if we're talking about, there's actual violation, that's the decibel level, that's the time cutoff.

Okay, so let's look at that paragraph again, and if that's the case. So who decides it's unreasonably loud? Anybody makes the call to PD and say, hey, it's unreasonably loud over here? That's how I read it, yeah. Okay, so it's complaint-driven just like we are now. Okay, so people call in and say, hey, it's loud out there, and that's how we're acting, right? We're going over there because of that. Correct. But this doesn't, so you're saying that J, 58, 178, that it doesn't allow that to be the reason for, or that's the final tool.

That's just another example.

It's generally prohibited. And it's its own section, so it's not carrying forward the language from the other monitoring Section, which is previously. So it's a standalone section.

It does say those subject to the provisions of this article. So the article would be the entire ordinance.

So you're subject to all the other rules.

Correct.

So why do we need that one?

TO DAN'S POINT, THAT'S KIND OF THAT INITIAL TEST OF NO PERSON SHALL CREATE UNREASONABLY LOUD, DISTURBING, AND UNNECESSARY NOISES WITH THE CITY. THAT'S LIKE THAT INITIAL TEST. YOU RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT.

I'M SORRY I'M ASKING THIS CONTINUED QUESTION, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. RIGHT NOW THE ORDINANCE IS COMPLAINT DRIVEN ANYWAY. SOMEBODY CALLS IN, SAYS, HEY, IT'S REALLY LOUD OVER HERE, THEY'RE OVER THEIR TIME FRAME, AND WE SEND SOMEBODY OUT TO MEASURE IT. We have all of these rules to measure this with. So why do we, if that's the case now, what's odd to me is we're specifically adding this. If the ordinance already worked that way, why are we specifically adding this when that's all complaint driven in the first place? Why are we making its own provision for this when that's how it already is done?

Is it having to do with sound that happens anytime, not just sound that happens after 1130.

Well, that's the conversation that we had.

And I'm a citizen. I think there's some sound going on at noon that's unreasonably loud. I can call.

Well, you can call anyone. Sure. I see what you're saying, and I think I might go through it. Please. What's happening is the statute is saying generally you can't make loud noise. What that loud noise is, the remaining part of the law does say you can't. That's right. Exactly right. I think in our ordinance, to go along with something in our ordinance, it does, when you say you can't make this unreasonable noise, I think further down, we do in this specific order, it says no person shall do this, no person shall do this. And so I understand what you're saying is something like we're repeating ourselves generally than we're trying.

What I guess I'm trying to understand is stability.

I don't think we would have to have it for enforcement purposes because we're not going to take enforcement action based on this work.

That was our conversation during the last discussion of this, that we couldn't, it's not a measurable or enforceable item. That's why we kept the decimal readings.

It's just a general statement. I don't think it hurts the enforceability to pull that out. I really don't. That forum specifically does like to say, can't do this.

Right. We spell it all out. But to your point, I understand that because when we talked about this last, we were talking about the daytime and different things. And it could be anything. And it is based on somebody. I'm sure that we didn't go down an opinion of something. It'll be up to y'all if y'all want to amend this to eliminate that or not. That's just my wish. I think we take care of special events by just get a permit so you can go through it, make sure we have it to handle some things that y'all were talking about as well. It's later than Roger's. Roger's is 11, right? Is that Roger's turn off time for outdoor music? For outdoor. So the amp shuts off at 11 for, because they choose to?

I don't know. I have a motion to. Online is the ordinance for a record, right? I think we did look at it.

Well, I don't, yeah, indoors is a different deal with sound buffering and things like that.

Point of order. Public comment has closed. Questions need to be directed to city staff or police chief.

Please. Do we know if outdoor amplified music closes at 11 in Rogers?

That's what I was going to say. I would pull their ordinance. I would just read directly from that. And again, I can't read it.

That's what we want to do.

That's what I'm saying, but I don't I don't doubt that some businesses stay open. I wanted to come directly from the ordinance, though, so let's pull that.

Well, there it is right there.

It's 11 p.m., all night.

11 p.m. and all night. Now, listen, if people are doing it and not catching attention, I can see that.

And that's why I say we're complaint-driven.

It is all complaint-driven. Well, I mean, I know the amp will unplug you at 11. Well, it says it right there. I've been at a concert that was delayed because of rain and they will literally unplug them.

So with all this being said, I would like to remove that portion of this. I think we have to do something. I want the equipment in our hands that can read the base as soon as possible. So we're not judging something that we're not able to measure. And then we stay with the times that we've got in the ordinance. Is everything else being the same?

Is that a motion?

I want to say table.

Point of order. I just want to clarify two things. I have not yet read the proposed amendment. Council Member Cindy, I also want to clarify that you would like to propose a motion to postpone to a future date tabling would be for later in the same meeting.

So would your... Motion to postpone to a later date.

Would we like for me to stop and read the ordinance before we start?

We have to first... Are you going to read the ordinance with the proposed amendments? Is that how you're going to do this? Okay. And then...

We have a motion on the table. That does not stop someone.

Does anybody want to second Cindy's motion? I believe is what he's trying to say.

No one has seconded, and there has not been a motion to amend. There has been proposals to amend. So I just want to clarify all of that. Thank you.

So is there a second?

Is there a second to Cindy's?

Not currently.

Then do we want to have a motion to amend? Yes.

There was two amendments, one from me and one from Dan. If you could read the one from Dan on keeping the 500 foot distance. If you have that.

This would be, Nick, under Section C-1, and it would read 7 o'clock p.m. within 500 feet of R-1, and then the rest remains the same. I second that proposal.

Yeah. A motion and a second on that amendment, correct?

Yes.

I just have a quick question on the construction. Does that take off the month, like October to whatever?

Sorry, 7 o'clock p.m. Okay.

Perfect. Thank you.

7 p.m. year-round. Every day. For construction.

We have a motion and a second to amend it as Tyler just read it and as I have written down. Okay. Thank you.

And then I would like to make a motion regarding the one.

We need to do a vote on that. So we've got that. Just do a roll call vote so it's very clear.

It's on Dan.

Yes. Everybody understands what we're voting on, the amendment on that five? Mm-hmm. OK. Souter? Yes.

Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Patterson? Yes. Acree?

Yes.

Pass.

Do we have a motion for a second amendment?

I make a motion that we amend section 58-107 and remove that section in its entirety. Second.

Can you clarify what exactly is being

It's removing, oh, me or him. I've got it here, too. We're removing subject to provision of this article, no person shall create any unreasonable, loud, and disturbing unnecessary noises within the city. B, no person shall create a noise of such character, intensity, vibration, or duration as to be detrimental to life or health. All of our what you can't do is already listed in here.

So it's taking out that unreasonable noise completely, like that won't remain anywhere? Was, I feel like I remember there was a reason that was in there. Do we feel like?

That's the way we were going to do the ordinance without the decimal reader.

But now that we have black and white.

Yes. That's why we went to keeping the decimal reading in our last discussions was to make sure we had a measurable device because you can't even win an argument with unreasonableness. It's subjective. You can't go to court with subjective arguments.

Chief, do you agree with that? Like, do you feel like that, as far as your officers having to enforce that?

I think it would be okay because the way the rest of the ordinance is written, this was just kind of a general term saying, hey, nobody can be unreasonable. Then below, it's like, this is what we call unreasonable. We call unreasonable. Doing the following unreasonable. And so it was just kind of a general terminology that wouldn't be an enforceable aspect of it. I don't believe removing that is going to give us any concerns as far as enforcing that. If it causes any type of confusion on the front end, that's the last thing we want. So I don't think it's going to harm us in enforceability.

I'm good with that. She's good with it, I'm good with it.

Well, and I just want to re-emphasize, this has been ongoing for years. And we've had people come individually almost once a month to one of the council meetings complaining on the noise. I appreciate all the work. I appreciate, I want to say my phone rang what, four years ago or three years ago at two in the morning when the momentary was having something on and they have worked beautifully on with us and they're actually in approval with us and i remember getting those calls i i don't know what why i thought i had to answer it to in the morning but i felt compelled to but i know covered so much immediately we met with them and they they heard us and they worked with us and i appreciate that so i do want everyone to understand it's not one specific business this has been across town for several, several years. My notes go back to 2021. So I definitely want to emphasize this, that this, we need to put something in writing tonight.

Point of order, public comment has closed for the evening. Public comment has closed for the evening. I do not wanna ask anyone to have to leave. If we can let the city council speak with each other and to the city staff and be respectful, I'd greatly appreciate it. Bonnie is joining. If anyone has questions about 58-107, and as that would apply to the bill, if you would have questions for that.

No, I'm good. I'm fine with hearing what her thoughts are.

As I read it, I did not write this. I was not involved in it. I did not do the legal review. You have a generally prohibited that gives the unreasonable standard. And then you have exceptions to that. And then you have the things that would fall into what would be unreasonable. To me, the police are not going to go out and ticket someone for being unreasonable. I don't want to speak on behalf of the staff attorneys. They're not going to prosecute someone for being unreasonable unless they meet those definitions of the decibel violations and the distance violations. because they're not going to ticket someone and prosecute someone with something that they can never prove in court. So my hesitation with that is you've defined that you cannot be unreasonably allowed in the city. Here are some exceptions, and here's the definition of what we consider unreasonable with these decimal limits. That's the way I read this. And Bonnie said she was going to try to join here in a second, if anyone had questions on that.

I appreciate that. I'll make it different. We had this discussion when we weren't going to do the decimal level. And that's the reason we changed the decimal number typically that was the reasons if we wanted to be measurable and not have unreasonableness or and a subjective opinion in this ordinance at all so. Very clearly remember that conversation and. More curious of why it's even in here and we had that conversation. and when it's not necessary, when it's all discussed point by point by point.

Bill, I think this paragraph is indicating the purpose of the ordinance. It does not specify absolutely anything. That's why it talks in general terms, unreasonable. That is the purpose of the ordinance. Now, it is not enforceable because it is only the purpose. But it is described on the exceptions, and it is described on the actionable actions that the police can take in order to find an individual or a corporation because of that. I think it is good to have it, but at the same time, if the police chief agrees that it is not necessary, then we can live without it.

It says it in the very first paragraph. And we have a noise ordinance that specifies that we have restrictions for noise. And it says in the first paragraph why we're doing it.

If you are unhappy with it, I will second your motion.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. I think we presented it how we thought it should be written, but we're also, I think, not Chief is telling us they can still enforce it. So I don't think that's something you guys speak up if I'm speaking for staff and any other reason. But if you guys feel like to remove that, I don't think it affects that. So I would ask if there's a motion and a second, let's just give a vote on that, please.

Grover? No.

Burkhart? Hold on. We're voting on the getting rid of, strike that, striking the unreasonable sound of yes vote says we want to get rid of the unreasonable sound, correct? Yes. Unreasonable noise.

Removed.

Over. You good?

Sorry.

Grover? No. Burkhart?

Yes.

Hook?

No.

Sanchez?

No.

Patterson?

No.

Acree? Yes.

Souter? No. It stays in. Correct is what we're voting on. OK. Now do we have a motion? Do you want to read the?

An ordinance amending Bentonville Municipal Code Article 58-5 noise and for other purposes. Second.

Second. Roll call, please.

We are currently voting on the ordinance.

The ordinance as amended per the motion that Councilmember Grover proposed and that was approved by the council. Thank you.

Burkhart?

Yes.

Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Acree? No. Souter?

Yes.

Grover? Yes. Passed.

Okay.

And I want to say I appreciate everybody that's come and given us comments. As you can see, there's a lot to this. And I appreciate our team.

they've worked on it for several months so thank you all i would like to work with our team again to i think there needs to be some additional amendments on the new code that we did not address and if there's anything that can and if we'd have postponed it we can also add in this thing if we can come up with better solutions that everybody can agree I just think it's irresponsible to pass something until we get all the kinks worked out. But I think there can be some future compromise for years. But I wanted to see a final copy. Point of order.

We have continued agenda items. Point of order. We are moving to item number

City Council Chambers, or start our consent agenda, so do you want to read all of our consent agenda items, please.

City Council Chambers, The door. Okay. just to clarify we're moving to the consent agenda for me to okay new business item number four a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to accept a grant from fidelity in the amount of 22 500 to fund the 2026 great neighborhoods partnership tree program amending the 2026 budget if i can right if we can close the door and then if we can ask make sure

I couldn't hear you. We can't hear you. Sorry. Please start over. I'm sorry.

Moving to consent agenda, new business item number four, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to accept a grant from Fidelity in the amount of $22,500 to fund the 2026 Great Neighborhoods Partnership Tree Program, amending the 2026 budget and for other purposes. New business item number eight in the city council for the city of Bentonville, Arkansas. New business item number nine in the city council for the city of Bentonville, Arkansas. New business item number 10, a resolution authorizing a budget adjustment to recognize donation from Harps Food Stores, Inc. in the amount of $563 and for other purposes. New business item number 11, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to recognize and accept a justice assistance grant for additional police equipment in the amount of $12,824, amending the 2026 budget and for other purposes. New business item number 12, a resolution authorizing the Bentonville Police Department to declare the 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe VIN number 1GNSK2E05DR293944 as surplus and approved for trade-in toward the acquisition of a new vehicle and for other purposes. New business item number 13, a resolution authorizing the Bentonville Fire Department to declare two 2016 Ford Excellence ambulances, VIN number FDUF4HT6GEA33521 and VIN number 1FDUF4HT0GEC34122 for sale through internet auction or other available means and for other purposes. new business item number 15 a resolution authorizing the bentonville municipal airport to dispose of obsolete property no longer used by the city through internet auction or other available means and for other purposes new business item number 16 a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with milestone construction for phillips park phase three in an amount not to exceed two million sixty six thousand nine hundred thirty three dollars and eight cents and for other purposes business item number 17 a resolution accepting the donation of the historic morningstar schoolhouse and adjacent property and for other purposes new business item number 18 a resolution authorizing acceptance of ffy 2026 nwarpc stbgp-a grant funding in the amount of 2 million 372 920 dollars for right-of-way and utility activities associated with the Greenhouse Road Improvements Project, amending the 2026 budget and for other purposes. New Business Item Number 19, a resolution accepting FFY 2025 NWARPC grant funds in the amount of $2,500,000 for I-49 slash J Street interchange improvements, amending the 2026 budget and for other purposes. New business item number 20, a resolution accepting FFY 2025 NWARPC grant funds in the amount of $1,544,000 for Vaughn Road improvements amending the 2026 budget and for other purposes. Utility board item number two, a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with Recycling Partnership Inc. for a recycling partnership grant and for other purposes. And planning item number three, a resolution amending the future land use map for the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, pursuant to Arkansas code annotated section 14-56-414 and for other purposes. Second.

I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Cook? Cook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Acree? Yes. Souter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes.

Item number four was on consent agenda. We'll go to item number five, which is a public hearing and ordinance vacating the utility easement. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in person or online to speak on this public hearing? Seeing and hearing none, I will close the public hearing.

New business item number five, an ordinance vacating utility easement located at lots 12-15, block 9 of Gilmore's addition of the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County, Arkansas, VAC 26-0037. Second.

Motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Acree? Yes. Souter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook?

Yes. Item number six is a public hearing and ordinance vacating a utility easement. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in person or online to speak on this item? Seeing and hearing none, we'll close the item.

New business item number six, an ordinance vacating utility easement located at lot two, block four of Dunn and Davis addition of the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County, Arkansas, VAC26-0038. So moved. Second.

in a second. Any other discussion? We'll call please. Patterson?

Yes. Acree? Yes. Souter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes.

Item number seven of the public hearing, an ordinance vacating the utility easement. This time I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone online or in person to speak on this item? Not seeing or hearing any.

Noise ordinance violation.

Unreasonable.

I'm just saying. I don't see anybody to speak on this item, so I'm going to close the public hearing.

New business item number seven, an ordinance vacating utility easement located at lot three, block four of Dun and Davis addition of the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County, Arkansas, BAC 26-0040. Second.

Motion and a second. Any other discussion? Call, please.

Acree? Yes. Sutter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart?

Yes.

Luck?

Yes.

Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were on consent agenda. So we will go to item 14, which is the ordinance to waive competitive bidding to purchase an up bid of a 2026 Chevy Silverado.

New business item number 14, an ordinance authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement with Superior Automotive Group to purchase and upfit a 2026 Chevrolet Silverado in the amount of $55,510.55 after a trade-in credit of $3,250 for a 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe, waiving competitive bidding and for other purposes. I motion to be a second. Second.

A motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Souter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Acree?

Yes. Items 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 were on consent agenda. So we'll go to utility board item number one, which is the ordinance approving a waiver of bed for purchase of 161 KB breakers from GE Grid Solutions.

Utility Board item number one, an ordinance authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into an agreement in the amount of $755,988, waiving competitive bidding, providing for the emergency clause and for other purposes.

Second.

There's a motion and a second in any other discussion. Roll call, please.

Souter? Yes. Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Acree? Yes.

Section 3, emergency clause, the need to make this purchase is immediate and an emergency is hereby declared to exist. And this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from the date of its passage and approval.

So moved.

Second.

Commission in a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Grover? Yes. Burkhart? Yes. Hook? Yes. Sanchez? Yes. Patterson? Yes. Akring? Yes. Diva? Oh, sorry. Souter? Yes.

Okay. Item number two is on consent agenda. So we'll go to planning item number one, which is a rezoning from our one suburban single family to T3.2 neighborhood to transition.

Planning item number one, an ordinance changing real estate in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas from its present zoning classification of R1, Suburban Single Family, to T3.2, Neighborhood Transition and for Other Purposes. Project number RZ26-0039.

There were a lot of people at the Planning Commission. There's nobody here to speak. Nobody signed up on this one.

I do not see anybody.

I mean, I feel like planning committee, I mean, during the planning commission meeting, it was very thoroughly discussed and explained on both sides.

And there are several letters on the agenda manifest in opposition to this reasoning. And I wanted to ask Tyler, is it just the regular review or is it enhanced review? It's standard review. Can it be a standard review if you were to go to 3.1?

That would also be standard review, yes.

So standard review is 3.1 and 3.2, those two categorizations?

Correct. The primary difference between those two is twofold. They have the same front setback, same side street setback. Setback-wise, the main difference is going to be the rear setback. It is 15 for T3.2 versus 25 for T3.1. Height is the same at 36 feet. And then T3.2 also allows for two dwelling units per building, so duplexes, like a two-family townhouse structure. Those are allowed within 3.2, where 3.1 is more of a small single-family district. Is that possible within the dimensions of the parcel?

You could, yes.

Yeah. But that really is the most, that two townhouse or two units. I think, I mean, it is, I think, you know, it's hard because it's right next to that, you know, historic overlay. But Mr. Kallstrom, am I saying that right? Made a really good point in the planning commission meeting that like, if it was a single family home, it could be ultra modern too. Like, so no matter what's built there, there is no, you know, the neighbors are very concerned because we've created this lovely, you know, overlay district to kind of protect this. And then there's that, there's this, you know, it was right there, but it's not included and it's not included. So no matter what they built, whether it was two townhomes or one very large home, either way, we don't really, you know, it could be, you know, a not fit with the lovely historical charm. We just have to hope that the people who are building have a desire to fit with the, you know, but they, you know, either way we, you know, they're, it's really up to them what they, what they build. So it's, is it, do we, are we okay with two smaller unit, you know, townhouses, or do we insist that it stay, you know, basically one? I feel like it's kind of the decision to be made.

I just went through this one. We all agreed to a plan.

Not only that, but we did a historical overlay area.

But we did. We picked that area. We've spent a lot of years working on our land use plan from 18 on, really. And we picked a code. We have changed to transect zoning. This is right down the middle of the zoning. No enhanced review required. And it is predictable to assume that everybody that has spent six to eight months behind the scenes before they even come to do a rezoning would expect standard review following the land use plan to be able to do standard review projects without being impeded or lack of predictability. And so if it was outside in the enhanced review or pushing the boundaries on something, I get it. But we adopted this. And we need policies easier. The hard part is following it. And if we don't follow it and there's one-offs everywhere, we're right back where we started. So I'm in favor of this as it is.

I have a couple comments. Point of order, public comment is, do we have anyone signed up for public comment?

Do we not have anybody signed up?

I represent the applicant.

Okay, but for them to call up the applicant, they would call you up or you can sign up for public comment? Certainly, but may I be called up?

I would like to call.

Absolutely. Thank you. No, that's totally fine. So Will Kellstrom here on behalf of the applicant. I try to, at City Council, sit down and shut up and let you all do your thing, but I do have a couple comments here that I think could help. One, I want to call out the form-based nature of your code. All of these different zoning districts prescribe basically what is a cube on a piece of property that you are allowed to build in. And as you go up through the zoning codes, it allows different numbers of, y'all's zoning code in particular allows different number of units within that cube. The cube for T31 and T32 is nearly identical, which is something that Tyler kind of got at with the setbacks and heights mostly being the same for these two zoning districts. The other thing that I want to point out is that this lot cannot be split. You will have max two dwelling units on this in one building. You can't split it. Thirdly, Tyler, if you could turn on the future land use map for me.

Sorry, council has to ask me.

Could you turn the future land use map off, please?

Thank you. So I think earlier it was pointed out that this is not in but is at the very edge of the downtown overlay. What it is also at the edge of is this whole section of traditional neighborhood, and it's right on the border of urban neighborhood, which is actually two steps up. In urban neighborhood, this orange partial 303 to the south, the lowest density that you're allowed to have is T32. And so it's – the question that I'm getting to with that is I'm finding – I have a hard time believing that a duplex is suitable at 303, but not at 301. And I think that within y'all's code, it's built in, and it's usually used for ER or enhanced review, not standard review. But for enhanced review, there are factors that go into play, which is, are you at the edge of a district? Are you in an area where you're transitioning to a higher zone? And I think If you look at all those factors, we are at the edge of this, and we're only asking for standard review. So those are my comments. Thank you for inviting me up here to yap at y'all. Thank you.

We already have a motion and a second, right? Correct.

Any other discussion? Okay, roll call, please.

Burkhart? Yes. Hook?

No.

Sanchez? Yes. Patterson?

Yes.

Acree? Yes.

Over?

Yes. Pass.

Item number two is a rezoning DC curated collections LLC from R1 single family to T3.1 neighborhood edge.

Planning item number two, an ordinance changing real estate in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas from its present zoning classification of R1 suburban single family to T3.1 neighborhood edge. And for the purposes, project number RZ26-0040. Second.

motion in a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please.

Cook?

No.

Sanchez? Patterson?

Yes.

Acree? Yes. Souter? Yes. Grover?

Yes. Burkhart? Yes.

Passed.

Okay, item number three was on consent agenda, so we will go to, if we can get a motion to adjourn from our formal Voting agenda? Second. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

We don't see anybody signed up. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. We do have some public comments on non-agenda items. Jason McCrory?

Hello. Jason McCrory, 3508 Southwest Borough Creek Avenue, Mill. Two weeks ago, Chief Bertrand was asked whether flock cameras were placed at someone's residential road, and he started with his explanation with public roads, but then he pivoted, I'm gonna move up here, to an example of a willing individual and a house, and a stalking case, and answered in the affirmative. Here are those elements again. A camera, an individual, and a house. Not a word about a warrant. Not one sworn person in the room thought to ask. So the line on this is clear. The Fourth Amendment is accidental. The right of the people to be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be infringed. This is why we have the Constitution. Kylo versus the US 2021 made clear using the technology to explore details of a home requires a warrant. No debate, the line exists. And while we'd like to think that we'd resist the allure this technology affords, a Springdale officer was fired days ago, hit the news just hours ago, arrested for climbing through his ex's doggy door after misusing the city's flock surveillance system to track her. Do we need five-year-old systems full of unpatchable vulnerabilities run through Amazon Cloud, processed by AI, connected to a national network that once had a wide open federal back door with deep government Pentagon even ties and financial incentives? Flock expects city councils, that means you, not Flock, to be sure that You don't violate laws. You must track announced and somehow unannounced pilots and opt-out features you didn't adopt and initially allow them. Blocks change only after the max exodus started. Cities removing flocks cameras are not renewing. Centerton, Pea Ridge, Farmington, Springfield, Fort Smith, and likely Asylum Springs and Springdale after the news story that just broke might be expected. Does this justify the expense? The expense of privacy, not just money? I want safety, but not at the risk of a nanny state for me and my kids, especially when we're flock is involved. I simply do not trust them. The alternative is clear, local infrastructure, human review before alerts, finding constitutional amendments. Point of order, public comments reach three minutes. May I be allowed a moment or two longer to finish? Benjamin Franklin warned. Those who give up essential liberty to purchase little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. They deserve flock safety. Stop the expansion of flock, set an independent review, evaluate alternatives. If the courts will not draw a line between simple and mass surveillance, then it's on us, the city, to figure out an alternative. Thank you.

Dylan Chattox.

I just have Dylan Chattox, 2604 Walker Street. I just have a funny story and a police officer that needs a recognition. This past Friday, my grandma, she lives on Northwest 10th, has for 30 plus years. And she was sitting at her computer, which she does a lot. in the late evenings answering emails on Facebook, whatever. And she gets a knock on the door about 5 o'clock in the afternoon on that Friday. It's a Bentonville police officer. And, you know, to her surprise, it's her birthday weekend. She just turned 90 yesterday. And she's like, what's going on, officer? And it's Officer Trevor Mitchell. And he was just checking on her because someone had called the police for a... welfare check that's what it's called and it's because she leaves her doors open in her car during the summer time just in case she needs to get going you know where wherever she's going whatever time it is because the car gets so hot and to her knowledge the car is less hot if her doors are open so a nice neighbor or passerby noticed that her doors were open all day and at 5 o'clock. And it's funny because this is the third time it's happened. So there's three reports of a welfare check on Northwest 10th for Connie Burns. And I just want to say thank you to Police Officer Trevor Mitchell for being so nice and answering that call and dispatch taking it so seriously. Because at 90 years old, you never know what could happen. So thank you to the Police Department and Trevor.

And JD's pretty cool, too. Amen. We have great police officers.

Okay, that's all that I have signed up for public comment on non-agenda items. So we will go to committee reviews.

The library had a very successful summer in the sense of feeding the schoolchildren. As we heard a little while ago, almost 58,000 meals were served during those seasons. The library is organizing a volunteer fair event next month. Also, four authors have been invited to do their presentations in the month of September. And those are the most important news in the library. As for the utility board, we approved the breakers, which is obviously a contract that the city needs to do. But at the same time, we accepted a partnership with a recycling organization that will provide funds for the city to promote recycling, which is a very good thing. So that's what we'll be doing. We already approved that because we'll be improving the recycling efforts in the city. That's all I have.

I don't have anything. AMP was canceled today. I did just want to note just on kind of our procedures. I really like that they enforced that we call up the developer to ask questions. I think last time We were like, well, the developer gets to speak. And last meeting, we had a 10-minute infomercial from a developer. It was hard to cut them off. And so I think there does still need to be order. Yes, we need to be able to ask our questions to developers. the project, you know, owner, developer, whatever. But at the same time, that doesn't mean they get to just go on forever and ever and ever. Like there still has to, because I feel like a lot of the residents mentioned they felt like it was really unfair that rich, you know, property owner, whatever, got to just talk as long as they wanted, but we cut off all the residents at three minutes. So I think it's good to be um tight on that yes if we want to call them up and if we still have questions we can continue asking them as long as we want but that does not mean you know anyone on any project can just go on as long you know forever and ever and ever without um you know the same regulations as regular you know everyday citizens so anyway that's just my my thought on the agenda to speak about but

the applicant, in any case, has additional information that needs to be provided than somebody asking a general question in three minutes. Absolutely. It cannot be described in three minutes.

That is carved out in the rules that you may call a developer an applicant's representative up, and that is not a part of public comment.

Absolutely. That's just not what happened last time. That is not what was going on last time.

There is no time limit for that, right? There is not, but they are at your...

you are welcoming, you're inviting them up. So they're up there at your discretion. Council Member Patterson,

If we're still asking questions or getting valuable information, that's different.

I think you just need to be cognizant of, because we have had the feedback from residents that they feel like they don't get to finish their comments that we'd like.

So I think you need to be cognizant of that. This was just kind of repeating an ad over and over and over and over. And so I kind of expressed that I felt like we needed to tighten that up a little. And so today we did. And so I think that was good, like brought We invited Mr. Kallstrom up. He answered our questions, gave really good information. If we'd had more questions, he could have stayed longer. But I just wanted to say I really like that we're keeping order there. So thank you.

A similar subject. It is very good that our lawyer is enforcing that, as well as our clerk is enforcing the three-minute rule. And more importantly than that, perhaps, is the participation of the audience when they are not allowed to speak, they should be quiet. Otherwise, your intervention has been strong, but sometimes it needs to be stronger in the sense of asking their absence out of this room because they are disturbing the process that has been, I'm very pleased, I'm very proud of all of you colleagues, council members, as mayor and others, because of the cordiality, because of the respect that we have shown to each of us when we are talking, all of the others listen. Thank you.

We've moved our meeting for traffic and signage to the 14th of September because of Labor Day weekend.

We do have a McCollum Pass groundbreaking. Are you going to?

No, you can go ahead.

No, go ahead. Talk about that with Parks and Rec. I just wanted to make sure.

Yeah, I'm not going to be there. But it's at 9 o'clock in the morning, which is coming right up at 1101 McCollum Drive, which is a pavilion by, what's the name of that church?

The LDS Curtis.

Yes, right in there. So 9 o'clock, there's music and refreshment. I'll be sure to be there.

No updates from the finance team.

Tree and landscape, the giveaway for the fall is going to be on the 10th of October. So it's going to start at 730 in the morning and it's going to be at the municipal building. They will be putting social media and other ways to let your constituents know. And also, I just wanted to publicly, they're not here, but say thank you for the Morningstar old schoolhouse and the property. I think that's huge value to our city. I like how Parks and Rec are thinking to use it. And I just appreciate that we're going to have some green space there and some history. So they're not here and present, but I appreciate the donor as well as Parks and Rec taking it on because with everything, it will come with some maintenance and things, but I love it.

Okay, we had a round and you're done. Thank you all.