Roll call.

So if you are on the public safety committee, if you'll go ahead and you will mark your attendance on the device in front of you.

Okay.

And I do show seven members present, so we do have a quorum today.

Thank you, everybody, for marking your attendance.

Moving up next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from our previous meeting on Tuesday, September 16th.

Move to adopt.

Okay.

I have a motion second to adopt our minutes from the previous meeting.

If you agree with these minutes as presented, if you will denote that in a vote on the device in front of you.

Okay.

And that item does pass.

Okay.

Moving on to the next item on our agenda being new business and ordinances to be introduced.

First ordinance on the agenda is ordinance 2503.

An ordinance to amend chapter six of the alcoholic beverages to comply with the changes to the Arkansas law regarding private private club permits.

Could you give us an explanation of that or tell us the highlights of what's changing?

I can.

Essentially, what happened, and I wish I brought the definition with me because I probably won't quote it word for word, but essentially what happened is that the state in the last legislative session changed the wording of what constitutes a private club, and they removed the requirement that it be a nonprofit corporation.

It can still be a nonprofit corporation, but it can also be just a regular corporation, an LLC, a partnership, a sole proprietorship.

So they basically removed the requirement that you have a nonprofit corporation involved in forming a private club.

So what this does is it just changes our definition of a private club to match the state law definition of a private club.

And then it also took out references that required things be submitted for the nonprofit corporation because it though they may not be applicable.

Does that make sense?

So it brings us into compliance or into alignment.

It changed it changed our definition to match state law definition.

Yes.

I'll make a motion we recommend to the full council.

I have a motion and a second on the item as presented.

Um if there are no more questions from anybody on the committee, we will go ahead and we will call a vote.

Okay, and that item does pass.

Thank you.

Moving on to the next ordinance on the agenda is ordinance 25036.

An ordinance to create third party inspection requirements for the passive fire protection.

Whereas Chapter 34 of the Jonesboro Code of Ordinances addresses fire prevention requirements within the city of Jonesboro, whereas the Arkansas Fire Protection Code adopted under Chapter 34 authorizes the use of expert opinions when addressing unusual, detailed, or complex technical issues.

Whereas passive fire protection is recognized as an unusual, detailed, and complex system.

Now therefore it be ordained by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that section one, any time passive fire protection is used by an architect as part of their design, the owner or owner's authorized agent requesting a building permit shall retain a third-party inspector for passive fire protection.

Section two, the third party inspector shall inspect all components of the passive fire protection system subject to inspection, including but not limited to those listed in the most current edition of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code.

Provide a written report for the findings to the city.

Section three, the city hereby adopts the creation of the third-party inspection requirements for passive fire protection based on the building and occupancy type.

Mr.

Chair, am I understanding it right that right now the city inspection department does the passive fire protection and it'll remove that from the city inspection requirements and it'll hire a third party?

Is that I know Chief Hamric's here, but I believe it's the fire marshals that the fire marshals that do that inspection, I believe.

But maybe they can speak to that, I'm not sure.

I guess my question is right now who does it is the architect or is it Tim and them?

Right now it is what is happening is we're having the developers do it as a third party, but it's not a mandated requirement, and so it's it's a a bit arbitrary, and we think by doing this, it'll just make it more consistent across the board that it is a requirement to have third party inspections on them.

Um because honestly, when without the third party, the inspections are not being done as thorough as they should be, and this will rectify that problem.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may, um so this doesn't eliminate the fire marshals going out.

This just is a the developer has to get a third party come out and they give us the a report to the city and the fire marshals.

The the fire marshals are going to continue to do sprinkler system inspections.

Okay.

That that is their primary role is to do sprinkler system and hood suppression systems.

They don't typically do the uh passive fire protections, so it's kind of a combination of massive fire protection.

Give me a uh instead of using a sprinkler system, they'll use fire corridors, fire doors, fire rated walls, extend uh walls all the way to the ceiling and penetrate through just a bunch of different uh ways to not have to sprinkle a building.

But if they're done improperly, they're ineffective.

Um it takes a lot of time for the fire marshals and the building code official, the department to go out there and look at all these different pipe penetrations and wall penetrations and make sure they're all compliant.

Um this would require the builder if he's gonna use passive fire protection as his source of fire protection for the building to have a third party inspector do that work or use a sprinkler system, which is you know what what would be preferred from the city but is not mandated by the code to do.

Eric, is this just apply to commercial construction or does it were apply to residential also?

Uh it applies for anything that requires an architect to design, which would generally be commercial.

It's really where it becomes uh being used mostly is in the hotels, uh stick framed buildings, uh multi-story uh stick frame buildings where it's becoming the an issue.

Trigger is if you need an architect, then you'll have to have passive.

If if it if it meets a requirement for uh fire prevention safety code, you know, for either a sprinkler system or passive fire protection, then it would be required.

But most of the time that is commercial.

Um I say this this is more fire uh marshal's office and the building inspections.

They're more involved with this.

I was just involved with the with the writing of the ordinance to try to resolve this issue.

That's been a recurring problem for for some time for for us.

Craig, what kind of professional person would be doing the third party?

Uh there are some credentials.

Um I'm not sure what fire protection companies locally do that.

There's some out of Memphis that do they specialize in fire protection.

I actually had lunch today with um used to be Geotechnologies Inc.

I think it's E UES consulting engineers, they do that's that work, and I had lunch with them today, and they're interested in in that.

So they have an office here in town, but that they have not provided those services in Jonesboro before.

Greg, if I understand it's still incumbent on the developer to come up with the third party inspector, it's gonna be their responsibility, correct?

Correct.

We would get to we would get to approve who that inspector was as long as their license meet the meet the requirements, but the developer would still be required to be able to come up with that.

Yes, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Any more questions for Craig?

Okay, good deal.

Thanks, sir.

Okay.

If there's no more questions or statement, oh yes, sir.

Mr.

Problem state your name and address, please.

Carol Caldwell.

I'm concerned about the third party inspectors.

I don't want to call somebody from Memphis to get a CO.

So I think y'all need to make sure there's some people in Jonesboro that can do these third-party inspections.

Uh I wouldn't even know who to call, and I'll be the first one to have to call somebody.

Are there anybody that qualifies in Jonesboro?

Every CO, every business wants a CO and the building inspection department can verify this.

They want it the next day.

They want to move in.

You think I'm gonna call somebody from Memphis, try to find somebody from Memphis that does that?

Is it gonna come over here fairly soon?

I don't think so.

I'd also like to have a ballpark price.

I don't even know where to get a price.

So I'm not complaining.

I'm not saying it's not a necessary thing.

I'm saying let's do a little bit more due diligence and make sure we got some third party inspectors.

If not, you're not gonna I'm not gonna get a CO.

Thank you.

Well, and that does raise a point.

Do we need to have a preferred vendor's list for the city?

And this may get more into uh without getting too deep into the woods.

It's part of the requirement that we've been asking developers to do this for a while.

This is not new.

There's just nothing that requires by code that they have to do it.

The architect, the engineer, whatever they're designing, whatever the development.

This is part of the ongoing process.

It's not at the very last minute, but through the process, someone has to verify certain aspects of the development that is very complicated and very specialized, that sometimes can be too detailed for the fire marshal's individual or the inspectors in the uh the inspection department.

They need a basically a third party, an independent person to say yes, this meets the requirement as the building is being developed and as it moves along.

Uh again, this is something that we've been asking developers to do, especially in complicated situations for years.

This isn't totally new, but we don't have anything on the books that says it is required you have to do it, and that burden has been falling back to the inspector's department and the fire marshal's office, the way I understand it.

And is did I understand it's an alternative to the sprinkler system?

Depending on the addition to the sprinkler system.

Do you have depending on what the building triggers if the building meets certain requirements, it has to have certain fire protection.

That protection may be you have to put in a sprinkler system.

Sprinkler systems can be very costly and cumbersome.

There are ways to do engineering where you can build the building a certain way with fire-rated sheet rocks, fire doors, fire penetration, where you can do it that way without having to sprinkle it.

It can be one or the other depending on what the developer wants and the cost associated with it.

So and those vary depending on the project and the size, whether it's a multi-story hotel or a restaurant, it's going to vary widely depending on what the project is.

Great.

Thanks, sir.

Yes, sir.

If you'll state your name and address for the record, please.

You know, passive fire protection could be very minimal, like fire-ready doors.

I mean, do you have to have the third-party inspector to come verify if you got a fire-rated door or not?

Um, I'm I'm all for fire protection safety and making sure things are done properly.

Um and I know there are complicated cases, uh, but there are some simpler cases too.

So I would propose maybe tabling this vote until maybe we could have more discussion with local architects and the city with respect to this ordinance.

So that'd be my suggestion.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Chairman.

Yes.

Move to postpone indefinitely.

Indefinitely or definitely.

Indefinitely.

Well, we can bring it back when it's cleaned up.

I need to do number days.

I was there in if it's definite, you have to do a number of days.

If it's indefinite, it kills it.

I do indefinite.

Okay.

I have a motion.

I have a motion and a second.

Mr.

Moore.

Mr.

Moore.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second on the floor for a vote to table this item indefinitely.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Okay.

April, would you mind to call the roll on that one just to make sure we got the right count?

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh, Mr.

Miller.

Uh no.

Mr.

Bryant.

Aye.

Mr.

McLean.

Mr.

Gibson.

Uh.

Mr.

Moore.

Uh Ms.

Porter.

Aye.

Okay.

The eyes have it for tabling indefinitely.

So that item is um tabled indefinitely.

Once again, for the record, that is ordinance 250 36.

Okay.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on to the next item on the agenda, we have ordinance 25037.

An ordinance to amend chapter 117, Article 8, Section 117324 G to remove the requirement to have a valid registration or license on a boat trailer or recreational vehicle parked outdoors on residential lots in the city of Jonesboro.

Whereas the City of Jonesboro understands that the citizens need to store a boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle on their residential lot that is not currently registered and licensed under state law.

And whereas the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, this I'm sorry, of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, desires to remove the requirement that a boat, trailer, and or recreational vehicle that is parked outdoors on a lot in a residential district be required to currently register and licensed as and licensed as required by state law.

Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, Section 1 that Chapter 117, Article 8, Section 117324G shall be deleted.

Section 2 that all other parts of the section shall remain in full force and effect.

Chairman.

I think David was gonna say the same thing as me.

Could somebody from code enforcement maybe fill up?

Somebody just explained why we're looking at Mr.

Rupper.

Sure.

What we found is we actually changed the in-op vehicle to remove uh registered insurance and license because we found uh in that there was a lot of people that had their dad's truck that was drival, but that didn't drive their saving it for their son or other vehicles that they were um had on the property that were operational but didn't fit.

And two things we wanted that to fit with this because there are trailers that um are in good condition that people are not using, and we didn't feel necessarily that they it was fair to make them have this vehicle trailers are a little bit different, but uh boat trailers per se, but and uh so just match the other ordinance is what our our goal was in in doing so.

Does the state not require this?

The state, I mean if you're if it goes on the road, they're required to have entrances.

Right, right.

But sitting on their property does not our ordinance does require that, and we felt that was being uh pretty tight on people.

I mean, if it's out of if it is if it's ugly and in disarray, we can deal with it, you know, an old beat-up trailer uh that's got stuff on it, but a vehicle that they're not a trailer that they're not necessarily utilizing for several years, which we come across, you know, more often than we not, that we wanted to have some leeway so that you know we could be consistent with our in-op vehicles, but in the same token, if they were um to get on the road, law enforcement still has the ability to take necessary arrangements if they're driving vehicles not insured or work is registered.

Scott, can you clarify for the public that it doesn't change the number of trailers or boats or things that you can park on your lot?

I don't want them to think that they can now park 20 unlicensed.

No, no, no, no, and neither do we have the cars.

Sure.

This is just talking about the registration alone.

It has to you saying if it's if it's something that's in disrepair.

We can still deal with yeah, I mean if it's if if stuff is a mess, we can deal with that.

But I don't have to have it licensed, registered on a boat right well.

Actually, I mean that was in there, you know, a boat, you pay registration what one time, and I think it's it's good to go.

We mean you know, you do see bigger far, you know, bigger people that have several acres, they'll use a trailer back and forth to move wood, and it's not registered, right?

So if it were to get on the road, a different issue.

But we just it felt like we could have a little more leeway on on dealing with some of these situations.

When it comes to recreational vehicles, I mean, what are we are we talking about a camper?

We talk about uh campers, that type of thing.

Okay, okay.

Um interesting registration or license.

Anything else, Mr.

McLean?

No, no, okay.

Uh any or any other questions for Mr.

Roper from anybody on committee.

Okay, good deal.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

If there's no more questions, is um there any public comment on this matter.

Okay, which brings us to our vote on ordinance 25037.

Who made the motion?

Motion didn't hear you, April.

Who made the motion and yeah?

I'll I'll make a motion recommend to the full council.

All second.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh Ms.

Chairman, the only thing I can we, if we do make it recommendation, can we make sure it's not on the uh consent agenda?

Yeah, yeah.

We can do that.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And and for clarification and ordinance one lever be on consent agenda.

That's right.

I'm sorry.

I didn't read.

I can remove it any night on the well.

I'm just um okay.

I didn't catch you with I thought it was resolution.

We usually have resolutions.

Thank you.

Okay, and if you will mark your vote on the device in front of you.

That item does pass.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to ordinance 25038.

An ordinance by the city of Jonesboro to place various traffic signs at designated locations as determined by the traffic control committee.

Now, therefore, be it ordained by the city council of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to make the following changes recommended by the traffic control committee, establishing a 25 mile an hour speed limit at the following location, white tail crossing all phases, and to place stop signs at the following locations.

Young Drive at Wimpy Road, Boone Street at Young Drive, Pope Street at Young Drive, Milo Court at Pope Street, both east and westbound, Milo Court at Boone Street, Pope Street and Crockett Drive, Boone Street and Crockett Drive, Crockett Drive at Wimpy Road, Edgemont Circle at Edgemont Drive, and Nathan Drive at Edgemont Drive.

Crockett Drive at Wimpy Road, Edgemont Circle at Edgemont Drive, and Nathan Drive at Edgemont Drive.

Move or recommend to the full council.

Second.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second to recommend to the full council.

Is there any questions or any concerns from anybody on the committee?

Any questions or comments from administration?

And anything from the public in attendance.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and we will call a vote on this item.

And that item does carry.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on to our next item on the agenda, we have ordinance 25039.

An ordinance to add section 2-289 to the Jonesboro Code of Ordinances titled Firefighter Bill of Rights.

Whereas the Arkansas General Assembly adopted Act 686 of 2025, which recommends a basic bill of rights for firefighters and municipalities in Arkansas, and whereas the City of Jonesboro endorses a firefighter bill of rights for firefighters who provide critical safety services for Jonesboro residents, visitors, and whereas the protective measures outlined in the Bill of Rights provide a clear and consistent guidance on how corrective and disciplinary actions are handled.

And whereas the act authorizes the city to adopt a local ordinance establishing any and all procedures under the act as a guide of negotiating personnel issues with firefighters.

Now therefore be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, hereby enact section 2-289 to be entitled the Firefighter Bill of Rights as shown in exhibit A here to and incorporated herein as set out word for word.

Move to recommend to the full council.

Second.

Okay.

I have a motion and a second to recommend this item to the full council.

Do we have any questions from anybody on the committee?

Chairman, could somebody kind of fill us in on this?

I emailed with the city attorney some today, and I'm a little smarter, but I still don't know that I fully grasp it.

I did my best.

I thought you did great.

You had to deal with me.

So Chief Henry.

So what this does for us is just provide those protections.

It gives us a guideline to follow pre-discipline.

So we'd have to bring the employee in, say, here's what you're being charged with.

Here's the process, the investigation phase, all that takes place before the disciplines actually issued.

So it gives them those rights, gives them right to counsel, and those things.

We follow our civil service guidelines.

They apply to hiring promotions and an appeals process after discipline.

The discipline this refers to is anything that will affect a pay status.

So a suspension, demotion, or termination.

All other discipline issues is not governed by this policy.

Anything else?

Explain it for me.

Yeah, that's good.

Thanks, Chief.

Okay.

Anything else I can answer?

Anyone else have any questions for Chief?

Is there much difference than what's the process now?

I mean, they go through the we just don't have a formal pre-discipline process.

We have been doing what this recommends already as part of our regular routine practice.

This just makes it where it is official that we have to go by it.

And this just came out of the last legislative session.

So we're just adopting it gave the cities the option to adopt it if they wanted to, but it came out of the last legislative session, the firefighter bill of rights.

It's very similar to what uh the police department already has in place in their law enforcement bill of rights.

Thank you, Chief.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from anybody on the committee?

Okay.

Any from administration?

And any from the public in attendance.

Okay.

In that case, we will call a vote on this item.

And that item does pass.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on to resolutions to be introduced tonight.

We have two.

To begin, we have resolution 25137.

Resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to condemn property at 233 South Fisher Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, 72401.

Parcel number 01144 073 1750.

Moved forward to full council.

Okay, I have a motion and a second on this item to move it forward to full council.

Do I have any questions or comments from anybody on the committee?

Okay.

Seeing none.

Any from the administration?

And any from the public in attendance.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and we will call a vote on this item.

Okay.

That item does pass.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on to the final item.

Um, resolution that's being presented on tonight's agenda is resolution 25138.

A resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to condemn property located at 50 Foot West 505 West Woodrow Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401, parcel number 01144 073 17500.

Moved forward full council.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion of second before this item onto full council.

Do I have any questions or comments from anybody on the committee?

Any from the administration?

And any from the public in attendance.

Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and we'll call a vote on this item.

Okay, and that item does pass.

Thank you, everybody.

Moving on to the next item on our agenda being pending items.

I know of none.

In other business, we do have an end of year report from Vector Mosquito Control.

Um that's um in your packet.

Does anybody have any questions or comments about that um report that Vector had sent over for end of year?

Okay, seeing none.

Moving on to our next item being public comments.

This is an opportunity from anybody in the public to comment on anything that was not on the agenda tonight for public safety.

Is there anybody in the public that would like to address the public safety committee?

Okay, seeing none.

That moves us on to our final item being adjournment.

So move.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

And we do stand adjourned.

Thank you, everybody, for your time.