479 Show - September 14, 2026

Welcome back to the 479 Show.

The week in the 479 was shortened by the Labor Day holiday, and one hoped the Bentonville City Council was able to get plenty of rest the day before the marathon session, September 8th.

The Committee of the Whole was particularly busy with the discussions surrounding impact fees.

Colin McEnany from the consulting firm Tischler-Bice provided some highlights.

Hitting on a couple of things.

So I actually wanted to reevaluate our growth assumptions that we did in 23.

Probably no surprise, but actually you've exceeded what we projected and actually doubled what our growth projections were just a couple years ago.

Now, some of the approaches that we take aren't influenced by that, but some are.

Like you'll see in the fire analysis, we take a plan-based approach.

We look at that capital plan and essentially divide it by the growth assumption.

So if that denominator is getting bigger, actually the cost per unit, cost per home gets smaller.

And that's sort of a driving factor there on the fire side.

um evaluate those capital plans you know for example parks and rec um built that rec center that we were collecting for um now there's no more need to continue at least at the moment collecting for that component of the park impact fee and so we want to make sure that your collection is reflecting that or removing that essentially from from the collection um there has been some inflation that has occurred certainly since 23 so incorporating that here importantly we aren't elevating levels of service we're actually looking back at the 23 analysis so we're not sort of reevaluating everything we're saying okay the level of service that was adopted in 2023 we're continuing that just sort of making these refinements here um and then also what you'll see is is based on those capital plans we match that up with projected impact fee revenue to make sure we're not over collecting as well um say you know based on these impact fee revenues you're going to get 10 million dollars as an example um but we want to see at least 10 million dollars in the hopper right and your capital plans to justify that or we should lower that fee to make sure we're matching those expenditures with revenues

The committee would also consider an exemption on the impact fees for the downtown redevelopment district.

Meanwhile, Planning Director Tyler Overstreet discussed the apparent lack of parking available, particularly downtown.

So some of the things we've already flagged in here based on our conversation several weeks ago is, and some of our own kind of internal staff edits and looking at things was looking okay like reintroducing those commercial parking standards in t5 t6 at levels similar to what was in the old core and edge districts which still allowed us to build out great places in downtown bentonville so just an example of what that might look like it might be one per thousand for office or one per 500 for food and beverage or retail The other thing I know we've talked about is those parking reductions.

So if we're bringing it back, those reductions for core and edge having those similar things we talked about for existing buildings, but not doing a credit for race buildings.

That greenway reduction, I think it's really important to actually say or make clear that's not necessarily as the crow flies.

It needs to actually be feasible to walk or bike from the greenway to the development if you're claiming this reduction.

And then we did have in there a reduction for public art, but there's really no nexus there between vehicular demand and public art.

It was really meant to be more of an incentive, so we're going to take that one out.

We talked a lot

about supply.

What does the code require? Well, what about these other three things? Where does parking exist? How are we managing or how ought we manage our public parking? What does enforcement look like? So a parking study would be a logical next step.

It would help us answer some of those questions about how much parking is available and when is it available? When and where does demand for parking exceed the supply that is actually available? How long do those vehicles occupy prime spaces? Where is additional off-street or on-street parking needed? Then finally, where might better signage, management, or additional parking itself actually help solve or mitigate some of these issues? So what we would like to do is start preparing a scope and a funding strategy to actually do a full-blown parking study and parking management plan.

Welcome back to the 479 Show.

The week in the 479 was shortened by the Labor Day holiday, and one hoped the Bentonville City Council was able to get plenty of rest the day before the marathon session, September 8th.

The Committee of the Whole was particularly busy with the discussions surrounding impact fees.

Colin McEnany from the consulting firm Tischler-Bice provided some highlights.

Hitting on a couple of things.

So I actually wanted to reevaluate our growth assumptions that we did in 23.

Probably no surprise, but actually you've exceeded what we projected and actually doubled what our growth projections were just a couple years ago.

Now, some of the approaches that we take aren't influenced by that, but some are.

Like you'll see in the fire analysis, we take a plan-based approach.

We look at that capital plan and essentially divide it by the growth assumption.

So if that denominator is getting bigger, actually the cost per unit, cost per home gets smaller.

And that's sort of a driving factor there on the fire side.

um evaluate those capital plans you know for example parks and rec um built that rec center that we were collecting for um now there's no more need to continue at least at the moment collecting for that component of the park impact fee and so we want to make sure that your collection is reflecting that or removing that essentially from from the collection um there has been some inflation that has occurred certainly since 23 so incorporating that here importantly we aren't elevating levels of service we're actually looking back at the 23 analysis so we're not sort of reevaluating everything we're saying okay the level of service that was adopted in 2023 we're continuing that just sort of making these refinements here um and then also what you'll see is is based on those capital plans we match that up with projected impact fee revenue to make sure we're not over collecting as well um say you know based on these impact fee revenues you're going to get 10 million dollars as an example um but we want to see at least 10 million dollars in the hopper right and your capital plans to justify that or we should lower that fee to make sure we're matching those expenditures with revenues

The committee would also consider an exemption on the impact fees for the downtown redevelopment district.

Meanwhile, Planning Director Tyler Overstreet discussed the apparent lack of parking available, particularly downtown.

So some of the things we've already flagged in here based on our conversation several weeks ago is, and some of our own kind of internal staff edits and looking at things was looking okay like reintroducing those commercial parking standards in t5 t6 at levels similar to what was in the old core and edge districts which still allowed us to build out great places in downtown bentonville so just an example of what that might look like it might be one per thousand for office or one per 500 for food and beverage or retail The other thing I know we've talked about is those parking reductions.

So if we're bringing it back, those reductions for core and edge having those similar things we talked about for existing buildings, but not doing a credit for race buildings.

That greenway reduction, I think it's really important to actually say or make clear that's not necessarily as the crow flies.

It needs to actually be feasible to walk or bike from the greenway to the development if you're claiming this reduction.

And then we did have in there a reduction for public art, but there's really no nexus there between vehicular demand and public art.

It was really meant to be more of an incentive, so we're going to take that one out.

We talked a lot

about supply.

What does the code require? Well, what about these other three things? Where does parking exist? How are we managing or how ought we manage our public parking? What does enforcement look like? So a parking study would be a logical next step.

It would help us answer some of those questions about how much parking is available and when is it available? When and where does demand for parking exceed the supply that is actually available? How long do those vehicles occupy prime spaces? Where is additional off-street or on-street parking needed? Then finally, where might better signage, management, or additional parking itself actually help solve or mitigate some of these issues? So what we would like to do is start preparing a scope and a funding strategy to actually do a full-blown parking study and parking management plan.