City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. We'll call the meeting to order. This is the meeting at Bella Vista City Council for August 24, 2026. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. A roll call, please.

Council Member Isbell. Here. Heinz Scholl.

Here. Carter.

Here.

Hughes. Here. Newport. Here. And Wilms. Here.

Thank you. The first item on the agenda is citizen input. Per the rules, there is a three minute per person time limit to address the council. on any subject of that person's choosing. And the first person is Ginny Vance of 5 Glencoe Lane.

I'm short, can you hear me? Very good. Mayor Flynn, members of the City Council, and members of our community, thank you for allowing me a few minutes to talk tonight. My name is Jenny Vance, and I am the president of Grow Native Bella Vista, and I'm here to talk about something small that can make a big difference, a patch of milkweed, a few native flowers, and a community willing to work together. Earlier this year, the city of Bella Vista made an important commitment through the mayor's monarch pledge, a commitment to protect the monarch butterflies, increase pollinator habitat, plant native milkweed and nectar plants and educate our community. Grow Native Bella Vista wants to help the city turn the pledge into something residents and visitors can actually see growing throughout Bella Vista. We have already begun. Today we have 10 residential monarch way stations here in Bella Vista that are providing milkweed for monarch caterpillars, nectar plants for pollinators and butterflies, and pesticide... Free habitat for, it needs to be pesticide free, put it that way. I would love to see us officials identify and celebrate these first 10 way stations and then challenge our community to turn 10, 25, maybe 50, and eventually create a network of pollinator habitat throughout Bella Vista. but we can take this beyond our individual yards. Our next initiatives is something we are calling pollinator pocket planters. Imagine attractive containers or small native plantings throughout Bella Vista at businesses, public spaces, community facilities, and other higher visibility locations. Each pockets would contain native milkweed, nectar pollinator plants, and specific to our area. Each could include a simple education sign identifying as part of Bella Vista's Monarch and Pollinator Initiative. These would not just be pretty planters, they would be a tiny habitat, stepping stones for food and shelters for our monarchs. Tonight, I call action something simple to help us identify the first locations of Pollinator Pocket Pilot Program and designate a city liaison who can help us to begin this working this together. We could educate through classrooms, showing residents that we all can do this together. Now let's connect the dots, one yard, one business, and one pollinator pocket at a time. Together we can make Bella Vista not only a beautiful place to live, but a community recognizing the natural beauty and wildlife that we have. Let's help Bella Vista a place where monarchs don't just fly through, they call it home. So thank you, but I'm calling an action for the city to help us identify these locations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Patty Foss of Carroll Drive.

Good evening. I'm going to get right to it for time. I'm not here to comment on whether the AMP tax should remain or be reduced. I think the question to be answered before this one is, what are the goals for Bella Vista and what kind of community are we trying to become? We're having conversations about short-term rentals, tourism, recreation, growth, development, and how much to spend promoting Bella Vista. But we haven't had the larger conversation about how all of these pieces fit together. Bella Vista has an unusual structure. We have city government, POA that owns and operates the amenities being promoted to both residents and visitors, the AMP commission charged with attracting visitors, significant private development interest, and of course, the people who actually live here. Last month, this room was filled with residents speaking about short-term rentals. Much of that discussion was about something larger, residential character, tourism, growth, infrastructure, and what we want Bella Vista to be. Tonight we're talking about a significant cut to the A&P funding. The ordinance does that, but the agenda packet doesn't provide a fiscal impact or explain the larger policy objective behind the reduction. Before reducing the investment or increasing it, I think we should understand the strategy. What visitor growth are we trying to achieve? What economic benefit do we expect? What capacity do we have for it? How does the strategy align with the POA, developers, and most importantly, the people who live here? I don't think the questions need to be answered tonight, but I do think we need a way for the community to participate in answering them. Other communities have civic academies, listening sessions, town halls, and recurring community conversations to help residents understand what's happening, hear from the people making decisions, and ask questions and provide input. Why couldn't Bella Vista create something? Perhaps we start with a recurring Bella Vista community conversation in an accessible and neutral location. Bring together the city, POA, A&P, developers, and other relevant organizations depending on a topic. Start with the facts and information and then give residents an opportunity for conversation. I don't think conversations should stop at city limits. We are part of Benton County and NWA. Major issues involving development water, infrastructure, data centers, and decisions being made at county and state levels can affect our community even when Bella Vista is not a decision maker. Being an engaged community means understanding what's happening around us, being a good neighbor, and knowing when Bella Vista residents need to show up and have a voice. I've heard the concern that people don't show up or don't care, but the STR discussion showed that people will show up when they understand something affects their community. I think the question is how we create engagement before an issue reaches the point of controversy. I'm not asking council to decide tonight what we should become. I'm asking for us to create a way for the community to answer that question. I feel like I was at the award ceremony when people keep talking. Sorry about that.

Thank you. It's now time for council member reply, if anyone would like to say anything. Okay, I think we can move along. Thank you for your participation. The next item is reports. The first item is the monthly financial report. We have the financials through June 30, 2026, which is one half of the year. So the total revenues were up 5.9% from last year, and they're operating revenues, and they're $833,000 more than budget. So that's good news. City sales tax continues to do well. It's 8.8% over last year. That's year to date. And the county sales tax is showing signs of life. It's up 3.3% over last year. On the expense side, total operating expenses seem to be well controlled. In fact, there's $611,000 under budget. So actually, after half a year, we're $1.4 million ahead of budget between the revenues and the expenses. So obviously I feel good about where we're headed at this time. So that's the June 30 financials. It's been very similar to what we've been seeing recently, perhaps even a little better. So that's encouraging. The next item is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation. And I'm gonna read a proclamation and then I'll present it. We have some folks here who are advocates for awareness of childhood cancer, and they've been very helpful to the community. Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation for Bella Vista in September is the month we thought we'd bring it up right before the month starts. That's why we're doing it tonight. Whereas childhood cancer is a leading cause of death by disease in children, And whereas one in 264 children in the United States will be diagnosed by their 20th birthday. And whereas 41 children per day are diagnosed with cancer in the US. And whereas the average age of diagnosis is eight years old. And whereas the prognosis for many types of childhood cancer has not improved in decades. And whereas one out of six children with cancer in America do not survive five years. And whereas 73% of childhood cancer patients will have chronic health conditions as a result of their treatment toxicity, with one quarter being classified as severe to life threatening. And whereas approximately one half of childhood cancer families rate the associated financial toxicity due to out-of-pocket expenses as considerable to severe. And whereas in the 30 years, only seven new drugs have been approved by the FDA to specifically treat childhood cancer. And whereas hundreds of nonprofit organizations at the local and national level are helping children with cancer and their families cope through educational, emotional, and financial support. And whereas researchers and healthcare professionals work diligently dedicating their expertise to treat and cure children with cancer, and whereas too many children are affected by this deadly disease and more must be done to raise awareness and find a cure, Whereas Elijah High, forever 15, brought joy, kindness, and quiet strength to those around him and his life, though far too short, left a permanent mark on the hearts of his family, friends, and all who knew him. We remember Elijah not only for the battles he faced, but for the love and courage he showed. I encourage our community and communities across the United States to observe childhood, Cancer Awareness Month and support a cause that so profoundly impacts children and families in every corner of our country. Now, therefore, I, John D. Flynn, Mayor of the City of Bella Vista, Arkansas, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. So I'd like to ask Dorian, Madison, Mandry, and Mr. and Mrs. High to come forward for a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Glad you got a picture. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you so much. Thanks so much. We're going to display the yellow bow in our lobby at City Hall until the end of September. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I had one more proclamation today. This could only be described as a weird juxtaposition, I guess. This is a proclamation city of Bellevue, Arkansas about Septic Smart Week. Whereas proper septic system use and routine care are vital to protecting public health, preserving our highly valued groundwater, lakes, streams, and waterways, and avoiding costly repairs that can result from neglect. And whereas nearly 78% of development in the City of Bella Vista treat wastewater from homes and businesses by septic systems. And whereas wastewater professionals of Benton County use their expertise in the design, installation, maintenance, and regulation of septic systems in the City of Bella Vista. And whereas the US Environmental Protection Agency's SepticSmart program used by Benton County health officials does educate homeowners about the need for proper septic system use in routine maintenance. And whereas residents in the environment of the city of Bella Vista benefit from properly designed, installed, operated, and maintained septic systems. Now, therefore, I, John D. Flynn, Mayor of the City of Bella Vista, do hereby proclaim the week of September 14 to 18, 2026, as Septic Smart Week in the City of Bella Vista. And I urge all people to join me in this special observance signed August 24, 2026. Thank you. The next item, I would like to entertain a motion to suspend the rules of order and procedure to allow all ordinances on the agenda to be read by title only.

So moved.

Second. That was Larry Wilms and Travis Harp. A roll call vote.

Council members Isbell? Yes. Hanchel?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you for that. And the next one is the consent agenda, which is approval minutes, approval tool design group for $101,000 and amending the city budget to appropriate 31,000 for the library. Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second.

That was Wendy Hughes and Travis Harp. Roll call vote on the motion to approve the consent agenda.

Council members Isbell? Yes. Hanchel?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Next item is unfinished business and ordinance requiring orientation and continuing education for elected officials, city of Bella Vista, Arkansas, establishing minimum training requirements, providing for reporting of compliance and for other purposes. And this is on third reading. Is there any discussion? Wendy.

So, Councilmember Harp, I heard what you said at the work session, that it would be hard to support this, or maybe last month. It was last month, I believe. That it would be hard to support this, but given that the firefighters are struggling to get their training done, that's necessary. And that really spoke to me. I reached out to the chief because I didn't know if it was budgetary or the reasons why that was happening. And I was relieved that it wasn't budgetary, but it's because we just don't have enough resources. firefighters on staff. And a lot of times they have to cancel their trainings because we just have not permitted additional stuff to be hired. And so I understand where you're coming from. I start to move forward with this. And we can figure out an avenue that we can staff the fire department and where I go away.

Travis.

Yeah, that's right. That's one of the issues that I have with it is that until our first responders can get the professional development and continuing education that the city allots in their training budget each year, it's hard for me to support additional training for us. But another part of this that I have an issue with is section 8A and 8B can't logically coexist together. So essentially it says the requirements established here and then our mandatory duties of office. And then the next section says nothing will prevent you from doing your job if you're dually elected. So those just can't logically coexist. And then on top of the problems that we're having with continuing education and professional development with our first responders, I'm not gonna be able to support this.

Anybody else have a comment? Anna?

Sorry, just a quick question. Wendy, could you clarify again? Is it that we don't have the funding to send first responders to all the required training, or that we do have the funding, but we don't have the manpower to man the facilities to go to the training?

Correct. So we have the budget built in for them to attend these, and a lot of times they do schedule these out, and they plan them for out of town or conferences or other trainings. And they are told maybe the day of or a few days beforehand that they are not allowed to go any longer because it's inadequate staffing. And I know that our chief has asked for additional heads for several years now in the budget, and it has been permitted. And so that's more the issue than it is. The money is there for them to go for the trainings. It's the manpower. So.

Well, actually, since I've been mayor, we've hired eight additional firefighters, and one of them was an extra training person. We used to have only one training person. Now we have two. We completed the fire training tower, so more training could be done locally. We have had some challenges, and every year I'm in consultation with the fire chief about that. number of firefighters and we just added three this July 1st as you may know, but we're in it so we'll be in consultation again this year about about the firefighters. We have had a big challenge with the firefighters last couple years in that a lot of them are take family and medical leave which is a federal law so sometimes when you perhaps can't go to training because there aren't extra people. It's because the amount of people on family medical leave are more than maybe were anticipated. But certainly we're gonna continue to look at that and continue to try and make sure all are. I might add the budget for firefighters. The year before I was mayor is 6.3 million, this operating budget. And this year it's 10.2 million. So it's gone up 50, something like 56%. It's gone up more than any other department, actually, in the last four years. But it's a budget issue, and it's something we need to look at every year, and I appreciate all of your input.

Larry?

In defense of the increase of the fire budget, it's resulting from our adding a fire station, first of all, which we started with no staffing and you had to staff it. So that was a part of that staffing and additional increase in operating costs. I think we, the city operates much like any private business in some respects is that we have shortages of staff, shortages of staff so that we're not able to send people to training when we would like to or when they're in they're signed up for it, but due to limitations in coverage requirements of our public safety offices and street departments or planning department or any of those, they're unable to go. And so it's not something that we don't acknowledge, but it's a reality of life for our business as a municipality, as it is for a private business. And we need to recognize that We can't guarantee training any more than a private business can guarantee it, even though it may be desired, required and encouraged. So we have to operate with those same kind of constraints that the private sector does.

Anyway, I think it's slightly off topic from the issue at hand, which is about the training of the elected officials. So are we ready for a vote?

I believe we have to approve the amendment first and then go forward. So a motion to approve the amendment to the training proposal, which just cleaned up in the language that was issued.

So that's in the packet, it is in writing, Mayor. This did three things. Just to refresh, it made sure that we put the city clerk position in there separately, like the other elected officials, just to clarify that. There was a second part of it that would not require the initial orientation for an officer that was reelected, basically. It would be upon initial election. And then the final one was to provide a clarification regarding the approval of who conducts the orientations. We had switched all that over to mayor, except we found one place where we had not put that, and so that corrects that.

So we need to pass the amendment before we vote on that?

Yes, sir. So there's been a motion to amend according to this, and there would need to be a second and then a debate on the amendment.

So Wendy has a motion to amend. second by Larry Wilms. So that was Wendy Hughes and Larry Wilms. A roll call vote on the motion to amend.

Council Members Isbell? Yes. Hancho?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried 6-0. Shea?

I did just want to say I think it's Council Member Wilms brought up how and oftentimes our government is run similar to a business. I know a lot of people in their professional careers need to do continuing education, things like that. So I really support that. I also think it's really important to note that we have a lot of people running for office with zero government experience. And so it would certainly be my preference if any of them are elected, especially if they're going to run our city and have the highest position within our city, that they at least have some training. So I think it's really important to keep that in mind, that it isn't just about those of us sitting here today, but that this would future impact our city as well. So for that reason, I support it.

Okay, I think we're ready for a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

That was Anna Isbell and Wendy Hughes. A motion to approve the ordinance as amended.

Council Members Isbell? Yes. Heinschel?

Yes.

Harp?

No.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried five to zero.

No, one.

Five to one. I'm sorry. Okay, next one is a new business. Ordinance amending ordinance number 2017 dash 15 to reduce the prepared food and beverage tax rate from 1%. To 1 half of 1%, and for other purposes, and this was Travis.

Thanks, Mayor. So I think I think her name was Patty who spoke on this. So essentially, from my understanding and from the lengthy conversations I've had with the Advertising Promotion Commission director, the goal of their organization is to promote Bella Vista predominantly to advertise and get people to come stay here, which only currently we only have short term rentals for. visitors to stay in. And I think everyone heard loud and clear from our residents how they feel about short term rentals. So I just I can't help but think that our our citizens are ready for us to reduce the amount that we spend on advertising. We've clearly been discovered. Another thing about the food and beverage tax is that's not just a pass-through tax. There's certainly residents that live here that are going to our restaurants on a daily basis, on a weekly basis. And I know last week, Council Member Hughes mentioned that it wouldn't save very much money by reducing this tax per member, but neither does the coupon things from Subway that we clip out of the paper and bring with us. And it also doesn't save very much money to drive 30 minutes out of your way to save 3 cents or 5 cents a gallon on gas, but people do that. So anytime we can help the citizens save money, reduce taxes, and limit government, I'm all for that.

Wendy Hughes.

I'm absolutely hearing you. I do have a couple questions to see if you'd be agreeable to some things. Are you agreeable if we were able to put to a ballot vote for the residents to vote on? to increase the lodging pass-through tax to a 3% while we reduce the food and beverage by a half percentage point. And then, in conjunction with that, see if the A&P Commission could do things like take some of these city expenses that are tourism-based, like the trail counters or the water spigots, and take some of those costs away from the city and put it onto the A&P Commission. is that's meant to be more palatable. That way the budget doesn't really change for the A&P commission, but they are taking on more things away from the city and on their own.

I mean, yeah, those all sound good in theory. You're welcome to put something in front of us, but I'm not willing to withdraw this for that. But yeah, if you, I mean, I think anyone has the right to get enough signatures to put something on the ballot. So if that's what you're interested in and by all means, send it to the voters, I would never, discourage anything from making it to the voters, especially since we have the general election coming up. It would be a good time if you could get something on there. But I think this is just a good thing for the residents. It's reducing tax from the food and beverage tax by 50%. And I don't think the citizens are going to struggle. The city's not going to struggle. None of this money really comes to the city anyways. But predominantly, the majority of this money goes to just a select few people to get paid videos to ride bikes and promote SDRs in Bella Vista. I certainly can't fathom that this is a needed tax. It's certainly not needed. I believe everything would be just fine without it. Look, we have a... main bike park attraction in northwest arkansas uh we're right in the middle of you know we're 10 minutes away from the largest employer in the world uh we have a lot going on for us and this is a tax that's not needed and i believe the citizens support lowering taxes and limiting government and so if if you don't want to do that then i believe they're watching shea

I do just want to take aim at the characterization that the majority of people were against STRs when I counted my emails and when I counted the folks who came and spoke, it was evenly split maybe by one or two people. So I just want to, for the public record, say I disagree with your characterization that the majority of people were against that. I think it was really evenly split. Next, I just want to say this is a 25% reduction in their operating budget. So I think that's hefty and worth considering, but this is the first reading. And then lastly, my question would be to Mr. Kelly. Does the City Council have the ability to create a resolution that then puts something on November's ballot?

The council can refer matters to the voters. Any action it takes, it can refer to the voters. As it relates to A&P tax increase, it's required. But it is not required for purposes of reduction of A&P tax.

Right, but we wouldn't have to necessarily gather signatures.

No, the council could do that on its own.

Okay, thank you.

uh jason i don't know if you know off the top of your head i'm not so sure about the timing for the november ballot i thought it might be too late already i don't know off the top of my head i was asked and i haven't had a chance to look it may uh it depends on what we're talking about putting on the ballot uh because there are certain legal timings that have to take place and it also may come down to the ability of the election commission to accommodate uh but If that's a path we need to go down, I'd be certainly happy to research that and give a timetable to the council.

It's pretty late in the day. I mean, you'd have to figure out the language and everything in a heck of a hurry. Mayor. I looked at a bunch of other cities, and I couldn't find anybody who was less than 1%. And a lot of people were way above that. I'm not saying there aren't any. I didn't find any in my quick research.

travis yeah just to answer i know she didn't really ask a question but just to address something she said that there are people who are short-term rental owners and people who are advocates for that business but they also support this uh they they actually are bigger advocates of supporting just eliminating the advertising promotion commission altogether and they're the ones that it's supposed to help and they don't want it and whenever i tried last year to just disband the AMP, there was also not a restaurant owner that I talked to that wanted to continue paying this. They would rather reduce the prices of either their nightly stay or reduce the prices of the meals and food at their restaurants. So even the STR advocates, they don't want this either. They would rather just go away and they would rather reduce the price and increase their nightly stays.

Greg?

The question I have, Whenever the 1% sales tax was installed, was that by voter approval or no?

I can answer that. When all this was adopted and the commission was created, it was done by council action only. After that, state law changed and it became a matter where the voters would have to approve that in the future. Ours is grandfathered in. The way it is right now, anything the council does, it can undo. If it has the sole authority to do it, it has the sole authority to undo it. You can reduce it Without going to the voters, but at any point if you were to decide to raise it back or to raise it now That would take voter.

Okay. I just didn't know what? initiated what Okay, so well and I mean my thought is is that it seems like councilmember Harp has really had it out for the A&P since he's been here And I don't see If it's really not a problem as far as financial impact. I mean, initially it was said that since we didn't pass the increase on the STRs, that this was kind of the next step, something to that. But I know that there's close to 600 STR owners that are relying on any kind of promotion that they can get for their business through the city. I don't see this as like some huge burden for people to carry half cent on a purchase. I'm not in favor of it. I just, I don't know. I really don't get why other than I don't know if we're trying to impugn the city for not increasing the STRs or whatever it is. But, I mean, we've had more A&P Commission conversations than I've ever thought I would have. But maybe I won't be in favor of this, no.

Well, you know, this is only on first reading. People brought up some interesting issues. It's interesting the way state law was set up. I was surprised to learn when I was on council that it's illegal for the city to say, hey, there's a place called Casano's and maybe you want to go eat there. Whereas the A&P can do that. They can put a list of all the restaurants. So that state, when they initially created all this stuff, was kind of looking for a way that you could promote things And yet still keep that lower hey the city can't take sides and say I go here go there, so if you're giving up the MP. I think we need to study and make and figure out exactly what we're giving up and and what we think is a good idea and what isn't and. And since the land first reading seems like it'd be a good opportunity for people to look into a little i'm not saying one way or the other, but it'd be a good opportunity to look into understand a little better. I noticed some people don't think the AMP's advertising has an effect on business. There's so many different things happening at once. It's hard to tell sometimes. Business has gone way up since they've been created, but there's a lot of different things going on besides just the AMP. It is tough to figure out what's doing what.

If we reduce this tax, who or what group is affected primarily. Is it the A&P Commission?

Yeah.

Totally.

Yeah, they would lose, I think they said, one quarter of their budget.

And I guess I, for one, am very supportive of what the A&P Commission does. They do a lot of outreach and advertising for the city of Bella Vista, which brings people here. There are people who plan to come here because of the work of the A&P Commission. And I think cutting their their budget in half, if you will, from at least the city standpoint, would totally tie their hands in terms of their effectiveness. And I can't support that. I think Bella Vista has a lot to offer and they do a great outreach in that endeavor to a lot of areas that otherwise would not be connected with what the POA or the, the poa does or what the bentonville chamber does or others like that so i think i think bella vista definitely benefits from their activities travis yeah just to go back to your point about uh the city can't advertise for a restaurant but the amp can well anytime i've ever stayed out of town i've never

been on the landing page for advertising promotion commission to figure out where I want to eat. I look at my map or the short-term rental that I'm staying in has recommendations. And that happens here too. Another thing is the frustrating part that I keep hearing from the council is this helps the small businesses. This helps the restaurant owners. This helps the short-term rental owners. They don't want it. They don't want to pay this tax. They don't want to pass this tax on to their customers and to their clients and to their guests. I speak with them, have a conversation with them. join some of the groups where they're talking about this. The people that you claim this is helping don't want to pay this tax, and they don't want their clients or their customers to pay this tax either.

Anna.

I mean, I've spoken to residents as well, so I think you're characterizing, you're trying to speak for all residents. It's the impression I get, and I don't think that that's fair or accurate.

Okay, well, that was a good discussion. I think next, if it's all right with you folks, maybe we can go to second reading next month. Okay, next one is an ordinance establishing an advisory green committee providing for membership, providing for its organization and duties, and for other purposes. Wendy?

Yeah, it's just another way for community members to get involved. It would be a board not unlike the Tree Advisory Board, the Active Transportation Advisory Board, the Public Safety Advisory Board, but it would be a board created of seven members of the public who have expertise or a background in sustainability, environmental issues, and who also are passionate about it. They would be able to make recommendations to council regarding legislation. They would be able to find grants and create educational opportunities for the public to make us a better, healthier, more sustainable city. I don't feel like this is a very controversial topic. It is an ordinance. I am fine with it going third and final if you guys were agreeable with this. I understand if you're not, but I don't think it's very controversial. It's trees and plants.

Hi, Travis. Just to piggyback on my last comment, I talk to residents and I've heard this topic so many times, so I know this is important to them, kind of like I know the last one is important to them. So I'm supportive of this because I've heard so many people mention that they care about this.

Well, I do think that people in Bella Vista care very much about the environment. And so it's a good idea from that point of view. Some of the things we have that work on the environment now are the tree board, Monarch City, Tree City, Garden Club, Grow Native, Fly Tires. The POA does testing of the lakes for water quality. Walton Family Foundation gives us, you know, everybody knows about the trees they give us for our yard, but they also give trees for the canopy, particularly the trail canopy, and our trail people think about the environment. So I think it's nice that we do so much and care so much. But having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with having something like this. And people seem to like the participation in the advisory committees. You know what Patty Foss was talking about. It's another way to get people involved, really. So anybody else?

Travis, I guess I would just want to know what's the goal of this border, because we do have so many things in place that are, you know, kind of relevant to this. What what is the desired outcome of this? I do support this because the citizens care about this, but I'm curious what the desired outcome is.

Part of it was to ensure that we didn't actually overlap with the existing boards and committees. The Tree Advisory Board is a fantastic organization and they actually deal with native species and things like plantings. So I wanted to make sure that it kind of didn't hop on their end, but we see people who are very passionate about herbicides and best practices regarding those. We see people who are very passionate about greenhouse gases and about composting and yard waste and recycling and just best practices but they don't know where to start maybe they came from a community that had all these things available and now they're moving here and we're the natural state it's wonderful but we don't have the educational resources for the residents and so just keeping educational opportunities also if they can find grants out there for our public if we're able to figure out ways to have additional giveaways or things that could impact our city in a positive way It's educational, the big part of it.

Anna?

I think it's very timely with our speaker today because this is a perfect type of board that's going to help educate the residents and potentially help us put together a plan for the baskets and the gardens and the pollinator beds. So I support it.

Shea?

Motion to suspend the rules and move to third and final. Second.

Second.

That was Shane Newport and Anna Isbell. Motion to suspend the rules and move to third and final. Is there any more discussion? Okay, roll call vote.

Council members Isbell? Yes. Hancho?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

No. Motion carried, five to one. I'll read the ordinance for the third and final time. Establish an advisory green committee, providing for membership, providing for its organization and duties and for other purposes. Any more discussion?

I guess my thoughts are is that reducing greenhouse gases is a great idea. Electric cars were thought to be a great idea, but the public was not ready to accept them. Reducing the beef cattle enterprise is another one that would reduce greenhouse gases according to some scientists and proponents. I for one enjoy eating beef. And then there's a budget for some of the things in here that may affect the committee's action or ability to act. which are not identified. So are we looking at some additional budget costs to the city? I feel that one of the things should be added in here is to recommend that the recommendations of the committee are non-binding on the council decisions. And the reason I say that is that they may propose that we go all electric vehicles for the street department because it would be less impactful on the environment by the exhaust, but that's not very practical, but it might be something they would come up with. And so I think there are some hazards in here without discussing this further and giving it additional readings and time to be considered by ourselves. as the electorate, as well as the public. So I have to vote no.

Mayor. Travis.

Yeah, I understand your concerns, but this is just an advisory board. It's not a quasi government that can tax you and be independent of the city like the AMP.

I don't know that we need to rush through. I guess with approval of this is my point. I think that there's some language in here that might be amended or adjusted to better suit the comfortability, at least of me. There may be other council persons who have a similar feeling about some of the language that's in here. So I'd like to at least go to a second reading as opposed to adopting it tonight. And typically we've done that.

Wendy, oh, I'm sorry, Anna.

I wanna make sure we're all reading the same copy. You mentioned beef.

What's that?

Cattle, you mentioned beef. Is that in here? Am I missing it?

No, that's greenhouse gases. The argument is that the animals release exhaust gases, and that's a pollutionable thing. It's a big argument, certainly in the environmental sector. I hear it all the time on the public news media. but that's a greenhouse gas, and so we're saying we don't want any more large farm animals in the city, and we do have areas that are conducive to that. Our neighbors around us is a lot of farmland, and so I think we need to be a good citizen to our neighbors as well.

Sir?

Wendy?

That particular line that you're citing just says to educate the public about best practices regarding sustainable practices, recycling, herbicide use, yard waste, and reducing greenhouse gases. It doesn't say that they have the power to have any regulatory. It's just education about best practices.

I guess my feeling is we don't need to rush through and adopt this on the first reading. I think that's unlike us as a council, first of all. Typically, if there is some concern or reservations raised, we like to read it twice before we vote on it, give the public some time to input. The public's not had any time except one week And I don't know how many of them are really cognizant of all of the things that come before this. So I think our residents deserve some respect as well.

Well, I could see it's not a rush item, but I think we already voted and go to third and final.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion to approve by Wendy Hughes and second by Shea Newport. A roll call vote.

Council members Isbell? Yes. Heinschel?

No.

Harp?

No.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. Wilms?

No. Mayor, you may vote in favor if you desire.

Okay, let me ask you a question. So they voted to go to third and final, so it wouldn't be on the agenda next week then?

If you do not vote in favor, then the ordinance would fail.

Yeah, of course, you could bring up a new one, I suppose.

It would be something different next time.

Could be brought back, is that correct?

Yeah.

There's no debate allowed during the roll call.

It's so true. I'll say yes. Yeah, the final vote is 4-3 and the motion passes.

The ordinance passes.

Okay, next one is a resolution expressing the willingness of the City of Bella Vista to utilize federal aid monies for replacement of the Browning Creek Bridge on Cullen Hills Drive. Is there anybody from the street department here? Oh, there you are. It's a big crowd. Karen, if you want to say a few words about it.

hi i want to first start by saying a little history about the browning creek bridge which is on colon hills just east of the intersection with scottsdale so the browning creek bridge is a city responsibility to maintain and make repairs on that bridge The best I can tell by the date stamped in the concrete deck was 1984, which means at least part of this bridge is 42 years old. So we do have an aging infrastructure that we're addressing here. We're fortunate that RDOT has certified bridge inspectors that inspect the city bridges on our behalf, and they give us a report. In 2017, that bridge rating, it was inspected and it had a rating of routine D out of a five scale rating, A being the most serious, E being preventive maintenance. So in 2017, we had a routine D. Then in 2023, RDoC came out and they re-inspected the bridge and at this point we've removed up one level of the rating to a C, which is important. You may not know, all of you may not know, but I didn't become in this management position until April of 2023. So that 2023 bridge inspection was one of the first tasks that I needed to address along with Dan Downing, our assistant street superintendent. We both felt at that time it was important for our street department to begin a bridge maintenance plan. And so that following month in May of 23, we started seeking funding opportunities to take care of the aging infrastructure. That led us to the R DOT local bridge program, which is a program ran by the Arkansas Department of Transportation that covers a 90% federal funding and a 10% city funding for bridge maintenance. We submitted our request for consideration and we did meet the project eligibility requirements. However, for RDOT, that's not their only factor they take into place. After that, they must prioritize the projects they've received. At that point, they received a lot of requests from multiple counties with bridges that were rated below ours in poor condition and some bridges that were even closed. Later that year, in 24, we received a response letter from RDOT saying we weren't selected to participate in that first attempt. In 2025, knowing that this was coming up, the city council voted in our 2025 budgeting to create a fund with a $500,000 start to address any type of major street repairs or bridge maintenance that may come up. In 2026, RDOT in January of 2026 this year, RDOT performed another inspection. At this point, our rating had again changed from an important C to a pressing B rating, which according to RDOT, that means we need to set a completion goal. I'll read a little bit from the 2026 bridge inspection just so you can fully understand what we're looking at here on this bridge. So a bridge is formed. The main three structures of a bridge is your deck, your superstructure, your substructure. So the deck will consist of your top surface where the cars and people travel. It's your concrete slab, your surface, and your rails. Our deck received a satisfactory condition, which means the structural elements show some minor deterioration. It included spalling, which is a cracking or popping, flaking of the surface. Those are typically caused by water seeping inside and then freezing or resting the internal structure itself, the internal rebar. Our superstructure, which is your main upper portion of the bridge that sits above the bearings, is going to be your girders and your beams. That one received a rating of fair condition on those, which means all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss. When we get to our substructure, which is the lower part of the bridge, now this is over a water crossing, the Browning Creek, the lower part of the bridge is going to be the part that connects to the foundation. It will be our piers, abutments, and our wing walls. This is when our inspection gets a little more serious. Our substructure was ranked in poor condition. This means we have advanced section loss, deterioration, spalling or scour, the overall poor condition of spalling with exposed reinforcing steel and active corrosion with flaking rust and holes rusted through. This is what led us to the more serious classification of it being a pressing issue. Once we received that updated inspection, we obviously resubmitted our application to participate in the RDoC Local Bridge Program. This time they deemed us eligible. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the city to take advantage of with the 90% federal funding and the 10% city funding. I reached out to RDOT after the work session to get a little more information about the program. Just to be clear, at this point in time, we are talking about participating in a $5,000 feasibility study. What that study will provide is the beginning preliminary engineering, 30% design plans, and a planning level cost estimate. We did reach out to get quotes on what that would cost if we were to do it in-house, anywhere between $50,000 and $150,000, depending what all it entails. So at $5,000 for us to participate, that would be financially responsible for us to do also at that point when we receive our feasibility study back which they said would take approximately three months to complete so early twenty twenty seven we should have the results of the study including the recommended most appropriate improvement type that could be a bridge replacement that would meet the federal standards or it could be a repair What would that take to repair it? Can it be repaired? With ours listed as a substructure, which is the very base of the bridge, more times than not, it is more cost effective to replace the bridge than to try to repair only the substructure. So if we were to vote on this today, it would be a commitment of the $5,000. We would get a lot of information. RDOT would spearhead it. And this step is required if at the end of that feasibility study, we decide as a city we're going to move forward to participate in that 90-10 split. This is a necessary step that's required.

Travis. So just to be clear, the grant right now, the 90-10 grant, is for the feasibility study and not for the construction. Is that correct?

Correct, what we'd be voting on today is just to proceed with the feasibility study. Once we have all that data, then we would come back with the numbers to present to council to go on to the next step. And if we did that, the 90-10 applies to all phases of that bridge reconstruction and repairs.

Awesome. And what's the lifespan of a bridge? I have no idea how long it should last.

I Googled it because I wasn't certain myself. We seemed to be in the ballpark as soon as we met that 40-year mark. And I just want to point out, if you go off of how we've been rated, we went from routine to important to pressing. There's only one more level beyond that, and that's an immediate need. So I think it is an important time for us to act on this now.

Craig? Well, I would like to applaud your work. I think anybody that's driven around Bella Vista knows that between Mercyway, McNally, Lancashire, Sunset. Didn't that street fail? Was it Sunset?

Oldham is the one.

No, he's gone back. Sunset did.

Sunset failed also for different reasons. He did the Oldham replacement recently.

So, I mean, I think this is great that we're looking ahead and looking for problems before they become a huge thing. I'd be fully supportive of this. I think $5,000 is a pittance in comparison to what it would take if we did get ourselves in a situation where it was a must-have type repair, sudden. But anyway, I just did want to say thank you for doing great work.

I appreciate that.

Anyone else? Is there a motion to approve? Larry?

I think the 40 years is probably a good number for bridges. There's a round number for streets. They say it's a 50-year cycle that you really need to start rebuilding completely that street. It has a 50-year life, no matter how you've maintained it during that time. So 40 years for the structure is probably realistic. I'D LIKE TO COMMEND THE STREET DEPARTMENT FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE OF, IN 2017, THAT WAS TEN YEARS AFTER WE INCORPORATED, FOR INITIATING THE EFFORT TO LOOK AT OUR BRIDGE STRUCTURES OR CROSSING STRUCTURES. SOME OF THEM ARE JUST CULBERTS. SOME OF THEM ARE MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THAT. AND SO THEY WERE ALL INSTALLED BY COOPER COMMUNITIES, UNLESS IT'S ON A STATE ROAD, AND WE HAVE FEW OF THOSE. So they were constructed, obviously, with an engineering design. But we've heard rumors about how construction was with their systems in some cases. So I commend you on your initiative to do this. $5,000 out of 100 is only 5%. Out of 150, it's like almost 3.5% or 3%. I think it's a bargain any way you look at it. And it'll get us through the door if there's a need to replace it or do major work. And we're in line then for 90-10 relationship. So we only get 10% of the cost. And the grant would get us 90%. So I think it's a bargain. Thank you.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Thank you. Motion to approve.

GREG MCKENZIE- Motion to approve. Second. That was Shane Newport and Travis Harp. Okay. Should be here a little bit. That's all right. Okay. Roll call vote on the motion to approve.

Council members Isbell? Yes. Hunchell?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you for that. Next one is resolution, amending resolution number R2026-45, amending the 2026 city budget to appropriate $155,000 in development impact fee revenue related to public safety building additions. Chief Graves.

Thank you. I'll just go over everything real quick for the sake of a couple council members who were gone last week. Last month, the council approved the resolution in question for $120,000 to install or build a public safety sidewalk out front of the public safety complex running along the property south of the complex, north across the front of the streets department to the adjacent property that the VA is now building on. THAT SIDEWALK WAS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT A FEW YEARS BACK. IT WASN'T. AND THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. SO TO GET WITHIN CITY GUIDELINES AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, WE GOT APPROVED LAST MONTH $120,000 TO COMPLETE THAT SIDEWALK. AT THE TIME WE WERE WORKING OFF AN ESTIMATE FROM OUR ENGINEERING FIRM THAT THEY SAID $120,000 SHOULD COMPLETE THE PROJECT. Of course, shortly after the council approved that, I received an updated estimate from an enduring firm. They thought, well, that probably won't be enough. You'll probably need in the area of $150,000, $160,000. Our two bids then came in and it did bode true because our bids were in excess of $120,000 for the two companies to complete the project. So our lowest bid is the one we took. It's just over $150,000. So I'm asking for the last month's resolution to be amended for an amount not to exceed 155. I don't think I'll go over that, but I want to put a little cushion in there just in case so I'm not back again. So we can get that project completed. So I'm asking for the resolution to be amended for an amount not to exceed $155,000 to complete that sidewalk project. And it will come out of impact fees, as was stated.

Timing. Timing on that, Chief? Timing on completing the project?

Yeah, they're ready to go. And so they'll probably be out there turning dirt within the next month or so, I imagine.

So we'll be done before the end of the year?

Yes. Well, okay. I'm not a construction person, but I can't imagine it would take them more than that to complete a sidewalk.

Is there a time in the contract? Is there a time for the... Is there a time of completion in the contract?

I don't have that with me, no.

Motion to approve.

There probably is.

Seconded.

I said motion to approve. Sorry, Mr. Wilms, I thought you were done.

That was a, we could still have discussion. That was a motion by Shea and a second by Larry Wilms. And Wendy, you had something?

Just a couple questions for clarification. So was the sidewalk in the original plan with the bond and it got missed or was it not in the plan? And then two, whatever happened, do we have something in place now where this won't happen again in the future? Some checks and balances?

Yes, so all I can say is we have good management in our planning department now, and so I don't think things like that will be missed in the future. I don't want to bag on any previous folks, but it was never brought up in our original design for this building. So it was not something that was in the plan, but we didn't do. It was just something that was not done and was never brought to our attention.

It was not in the plan. This is really why it was missed. I understand.

So so the reason we know about it now is because we're doing an additional project on the on the back side of the streets department. We have some property back there. We're in the process of doing that project while we were doing that project. It was brought to our attention that that should have been done by the current folks in the planning department. That should have been done when this building was built. And so they've allowed us to continue with a portion of our project in the back, which is the expansion of the impound lot. But we're being told that we can't go any further than that until this project out front is completed. Anything else?

Okay. I think we're set. We had a motion by Cheyenne, a second by Larry Wilms. So roll call vote.

Council Members Isbell? Yes. Hanchal?

Yes.

Harp.

Yes.

Hughes. Yes. Newport. Yes. And Wilms.

Yes. Motion carried six to zero. Thank you, Chief. Next one is a resolution authorizing the mayor and city clerk to enter into a guaranteed maximum price contract amendment with Kleiner Construction Management, Inc. and the additional amount of $3,471,293.38 for purposes of renovation and remodeling of fire station number one and administrative offices. And this is for phase four A and B. I think Chief Sims is here to speak about this. And this is, I should add, this is under the bond that was passed last November by the voters.

What do you want to know? I know that Councilmember Wilms and Isabel were gone at the work session. Do you all have any specific questions that you might want covered?

I think Larry Wilms, I'll get to in a second. Larry? One question I have, Chief, is all of this cost of $13 million, what the total is here, $13,162,624.67,

That's correct.

Covered by the bonding that we have set forth in the city, or has some of that come out of our capital funding allocated each year?

So a majority of it has been paid back to the city. I believe there was maybe a couple of million, Mayor? Do you remember if there was a couple of million?

Well, we had the revenue bonds.

We did, but it didn't cover the full amount, maybe a million. There were some that come out of capital, because we started this project before we entered in any bonds. I remember this had been going on for about, what did I say last time, three or four years, I don't know, five years, something like that, and we started this project. But the majority of the bond, the 2025 bond, when the voters approved that, they approved $8 million to finish phase three and phase four A and B. They also approved separately, on a separate line item, they approved the franchise fee bond that the city had went out for, got to do phase, I believe it was one, and phase two. So yes, most of that was paid back, but there was a little bit that had come out of capital that wasn't paid back by the bond because of the time frame that there was. They couldn't go back and capture... that amount of money. But it was like a million or something.

So the first sales tax bond that was approved by the voters covered a shortfall there of the total of the first parts.

So you're talking about the first sales tax bond we had?

The 2020 bond.

So the 2020 bond did not cover any of this project here. That covered the Branchwood Fire Station rebuild, the fire training facility.

In this building, yeah. So we did have some monies because you can't reach back. Or did the new bond that was authorized by the voters, did that cover all of this? No, we had some of this project done on our own before that.

Yeah, but in between we had a revenue bond, and then the new bond in November, he paid off the revenue bond. The revenue bond didn't need voter approval. Well, franchise fee bond, he called it.

Yeah, there's a lot of the capital we spent on the project, started the project out with. A lot of that was captured back with the 2025 bond by the voters.

Because we authorized a vote on the bonding ahead of time that brings that back into eligibility for funding.

Yeah, they can go back so far, and I don't know exactly what that time frame was. You'd have to ask the finance director, maybe the mayor knows, but there is a time period that you can capture and not capture, and I think there's a little bit we weren't able to capture in the 2025 bond approval.

Yeah, I think your recall is correct about that. There's a little bit, wasn't there? Kim wouldn't know the exact amount.

But it was, we didn't capture all of it, but we did capture most of it back.

Mayor?

And we're looking like we're going to be under that amount that's in the bond currently to finish those projects, and that project's going to take about, we think, around 12 months to complete, but that completes the whole phase project at Town Center.

Grand opening will be a year from roughly now. I still have Anna.

That's what I've been told, about a year.

Anna?

You just answered my questions around does the amount in here, is it completely covered, and will we finish on time? Which you said yes and yes.

I'm hoping it's sooner, but yeah, we should.

Travis?

Yeah, how many times has the guaranteed maximum price contract been changed since the voters approved the bond?

It's been several times, because you've got to remember this is done in phases. So it started out with phase 1A, phase 1, 2.

You said since the voters approved the bond.

Since it's it's been a pretty it's been done I believe this is our second one since the voters approved the bond because we captured back got to remember the the revenue bond we done the revenue bomb was done separately on top of the voter approved bond in 2025 so we spent several million dollars we we captured back at several million dollars with that bond and started that bond to start the project and keep the project going until we went out for the 2025 bond issue. So I think this is the second one since the 2025, which would have been phase three and phase four.

How many phases did you anticipate when the voters approved the bond?

left or did we total total we knew there was about four phases okay so we knew it was going to have to be done in four phases because of what we had to do as far as moving people people are coming out of no rent down the town center we had to make space for them so we knew there was there's going to be at least four phases in this project just done at different times which has made it very very difficult for everybody involved but it's worked so far

We're on phase four, but we're on 4B, or that's what we're approving.

We're doing 4A and B, and that's completely taking out the old fire station training room over to the engine bays and completely redoing that whole area with two new engine bays, a mezzanine, another level two-story that will connect to the other two-story of space, fire department space, station one space.

Is there any more after B? Go to 4Z?

This is it.

This is it.

Better be.

Promise? Yeah, I think this is definitely it.

I think I can promise on this because I know this is the last phase. This is the last phase to complete the project.

Shea?

I'm a big believer in government accountability. However... I don't think it's really too fair to grill our fire chief over what is one of the most difficult economies we've seen in decades and especially in the face of tariffs. So I really appreciate you doing all that you can to control costs in this really difficult environment.

And you're welcome. Thank you so much for that. I do want to add that when this is completed, we're looking over 28,000 square foot of space.

So... Motion to approve. Second.

That was Shea Newport and Anna Isbell. A vote on a motion to approve the resolution. Roll call vote.

Council Members Isbell? Yes. Hanchel?

Yes.

Harp?

Yes.

Hughes? Yes. Newport? Yes. And Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried 6-0. Thank you for that. Next one's a resolution referring to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation as zoning and development code change regarding changes to minor plat approval requirements and to remove development waivers from Chapter 107. Larry, since you weren't here at the work session, Taylor explained it to us, but I thought you might want to speak about it a little bit.

I do. It came to my or our council's attention that when a administratively approved plat for five lots came back to us because one of the lots had a split, meaning that it was a six-lot split now requiring council approval by our code, that we weren't requiring minor subdivisions, if you will, or administratively approved subdivisions to conform and perform to the same standards that one that came over our desk here required. So they had lesser standards, and I thought that that was a little unfair, a little unfair to the developer of a subdivision of six or more lots first of all, but I thought it was grossly unfair to the city because then the city assumes the responsibility and the cost share for any improvements that would have been required by code but were waived automatically. I thought that was unfair to the city. I think it's unfair to our taxpayers. So I think all subdivisions and lot splits should be treated equally, whether it's an administratively processed approval for a short time to get through. It's processed faster because they don't have the time windows that we have to follow at the council, but they should still perform to the same levels. Secondly, waivers were requested on that fifth and sixth lot Situation which I thought was not fair, but they were granted and I thought that the City Council should really have the authority of granting waivers on performance of subdivision and development in the city rather than the Planning Commission The buck stops really at our desk here and we need to look out for our residents who pay taxes and cover our costs. So I think we have a responsibility to look after waivers for subdivisions. It doesn't change their authority on other things, I don't believe, but it does change it on subdivision plats, minor and major. So that's why it's here.

I have a question and a comment my first question is to Mr Kelly, can you please remind the Council what it would mean to send something to the planning Commission and whether or not what we send them if they must follow that directly or even make a recommendation.

Well, part of your zoning and development code says that for any changes to be initiated by the council as a whole, which is one option, then you have to refer the matter to the planning commission for study in a public hearing. So if you do that, they will put it on their agenda, conduct a public hearing, and may or may not Be in an agreement. But either way, the matter would end up back before the council. So no changes to the ordinance would occur without the council's approval. If that answers your question.

Okay. But the planning commission could also have a hearing and recommend nothing. Is that correct? They could research the matter.

They could. They don't. I would think they would either. vote to recommend something or vote not to or not recommend something either way they've taken an action which would then come back to the council we're kind of in new territory because we're talking about our new requirement that for the council to do this we have this particular procedure and so But I think that ultimately what the ordinance says is up to the council. So after the planning commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed that, it's always within the council's authority to take action at that point, and you could legally do so. Okay.

Thank you. Larry, I appreciate your attention to detail and the fact that you're always looking out for what's fair and what is balanced for our constituents and our citizens. So I support that. SENDING THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRUST THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THEIR JOBS WELL AND MAKE THE PROPER RECOMMENDATION. THANKS.

WENDY?

TAYLOR, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SO SORRY. IN SECTION 1, PART 2 SAYS REMOVE THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS FROM CHAPTER 107. WHAT WOULD THAT ACTUALLY DO IF THAT DID GET APPROVED?

If there was a public hearing and planning commission recommended it to you all, then that will, and if you guys approved it, 60 days from approval, nothing from 107 will be allowed to be waived. So it would just be the hard, steadfast ordinance. So all plots would have to meet all plotting requirements, all developments, all sidewalks, all of those items would just have to meet code, no questions asked, no topography consideration, things of that nature.

That'll be that.

Travis.

So would you would you agree there's a problem that needs to be solved or would you say that this is like blanketing every situation in our unique city?

What do you mean? Could you rephrase that?

Yeah. So is there a problem that this would address or is there not a problem? Because to me, I don't see it as a problem, but I don't have your your job and your frame of reference. So.

I think in the uniqueness of Bella Vista, the waiver option is a conversation that has had quite a bit. So removing it would be very different than what we're doing right now. Just driving from here to Centerton, obviously the topography and just the character of Bella Vista is different. So development codes in Bella Vista are a little different and are applied or should be reviewed in such a way that is to Bella Vista. And if our code was perfect, I can't think of a single code that's perfect anywhere. I think there's processes for a reason.

Taylor, are you aware of any city that does not have any potential for a development waiver of any sort?

It depends on where it's at in the code, but at least whether it's in the zoning code or unified development code, there is some process for a situation.

Always, yeah.

And I will say our waiver process, too, was... Increased in terms of requirements that are needed to be met with the new code. We went from four requirements I believe in nine pulling from the top of my head and then we went from for approval to five so the waivers are Supposed to be more stringent more difficult and they have more review criteria that need to be met more so than a variance on the zoning code So not sure if that helps with the discussion or not.

Well, I just think the way Bella Vista is set up it's It would be a big mistake to get rid of waivers and and i've watched the planning Commission a lot it's not like they're a bunch of softies I mean they're. willing to make the hard decisions and. If I was on a planning Commission i'd be insulted if we sent this back to them frankly I just would so. Anybody else? Are we ready for roll call vote?

I'm going to have a motion.

Ah, yes. Motion.

I'll move to approve this resolution referring the modifications of Platts to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation to the Council. Second. On Chapter 107.

Motion by Larry Wilms. The second, was that by Travis? Okay. Roll call vote.

Council Members Isbell? No. Hanchel?

No.

Harp?

No.

Hughes? No. Newport? Yes. Wilms?

Yes. Motion carried. Motion failed, two to four. Excuse me. The next item is announcements. Next City Council work session, 6 p.m. Monday, September 21 at District Court. City Council regular meeting, 6 p.m. Monday, September 28 at District Court. Planning Commission work session, 4.30 p.m. Thursday, September 3 at District Court. Planning Commission regular meeting, 4.30 p.m. or immediately following BZA Monday, September 14 at District Court. Board of Construction Appeals, 3 p.m. Tuesday, September 8th, if necessary, at Fire Station Number 1, Conference Room 103, Town Center. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much.