I see it.

All right, good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the December meeting of Jonesboro City Council 2025.

And it'll be the last meeting of the year as far as City Council's concerned as a gathering in the home.

We obviously wish our community well.

And as we get tonight's meeting started, we'll go ahead and have our leaders in the Pledge Allegiance, and Dr.

Charles Coleman will lead us in prayer.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which the stands one nation and a God individual with liberty and justice wrong.

Amen.

Council, if you would please go ahead and mark your presence.

And we do have all members present.

So now we'll move on to item number four.

And these are items of special presentations.

And the last several years we've been blessed, and I didn't see any any different uh for that to happen this year.

Miss Chrissy Holmes has brought her Jonesboro Corral with us to provide us some joyous entertainment for the remainder of the year and for City Council to uh remember that our youth in our community make a positive impact on many organizations.

I do know for sure that they uh joined the ASU Corral choir this year in the presentation, and uh they did a bang up job and they sing at many uh chapters and communities throughout this time of year.

Um and again, some of these will be graduating and moving on to uh different choices in life.

So again, Miss Holmes, we appreciate it, and the floor is yours.

We are always very grateful for the advice, so thank you so much.

Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree, how the high wrenches, not only green when summer blows, but in the winter when it snows, oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree, I preach, oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree.

My pleasure to you bring me, oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree.

For every year is Christmas dream.

It brings to us such joy and glee, oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree.

How lovely are thy branches?

Sweetly singing the mountains in reply the joy is grains to my new Happy Mary Christmas tree of Christmas.

Right.

Folks, that's uh it's pretty amazing, wonderful acapella sound, and uh those are our youth in our community, so I know we're all proud of them, and uh that's what it's all about, joyous occasions.

So we'll go ahead and uh move on to item number five, and these are items on consent agenda.

I would like to make a motion to remove resolution one seventy-one, one seventy-two, one seventy-three, one seventy-nine, one eighty, one eighty-one, and one ninety, please.

Second.

I merick, can I add to that?

Just a minute.

Okay.

Councilman Hafner.

Um also like to add to that one ninety-six, one ninety-eight, and one ninety-seven.

Are they not on there?

Did they already get removed?

Yeah, they're on the uh, I'm sorry.

Yes, they're already off.

And I'll move to adopt with those additions.

Oh, yes, it now.

Second.

Overlooked it.

We do have a motion on the floor to adopt with those residons.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay, so we'll move on to I believe the first one is one seventy four.

I believe all of these are code enforcement that are needed.

Excuse me, one seventy-one.

That are needing to be tabled for some reason.

I mean, I'll pull them up and read each one if you want me to, but is Roper here?

Yes.

So uh resolution one seven one is seven, two, and seven three are all related.

Those three properties were sold prior to uh delay in place on the property.

Make a motion to postpone indefinitely.

Second all in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed.

Resolution one hundred seven nine and one and eighty uh are the same or properties right next to each other.

And um we're actually doing a condemnation on the that actual house of that property and found out the owner is deceased.

So uh during the uh during our uh attorney at Latem.

So we're gonna have to uh we'd ask that those uh be tabled as well.

Tabled as well.

Uh resolution one eighty-one and resolution one ninety have been paid.

So we need to table all four need to be start with one seventy-nine.

Motion postponed definitely for one seventy-nine, one eighty, one eighty-one, and one ninety.

Second.

Do have a motion on the floor to table and definitely those four items.

All in favor say aye.

I be opposed.

Now we can move forward.

Now council will move on to resolutions that are removed from the consent agenda.

The first resolution is 25178.

Resolution, let me get this closer.

Resolution by the City of Jack Morrow.

Council enter into a contract with Southern State Fire LO to purchase two Rosenbauer fire apparatuses.

Whereas the City of Jonesboro Fire Department Administration has performed comparative pricing and secured the commitment for reasonable delivery time to facilitate the replacement of a 2005 model 100 foot aerial ladder truck and a 2011 model comper truck within the department.

And whereas the purchase price of the aerial truck will be 1,558,852, and the pump for truck will be $860,915 for a total cost of $2,419,767.

And whereas upon delivery of the new units for replacement units will be sold with the assistance of the listing agent if necessary and the resulting sale proceed being returned to the depreciation fund.

Whereas the initial apparatus pricing estimate detailed in fiscal year 2025 budget has since been reviewed by the fire administration.

Extensive fire comparisons have resulted in the identification of a similar unit from a different manufacturer significant price saving.

Whereas the city appropriated $625,000 in the 2024 depreciation fund to find the anticipated future purchase, and whereas an additional $625,000 funding will be appropriated in the 2025 depreciation fund, and whereas City Water and White has committed to a two-year funding program that includes an annual contribution of $600,000 toward the purchase of these fire truck.

Now therefore be it resolved by the city council and city of Jonesville that section one, the city of Jonesboro enter into a purchasing contract with Southern States Fire LLC for two fire apparatus vehicles as described about and in the attached contracts.

Section two mayorhill Copenhagen and City Clark April Leggett are authorized to execute the necessary documents to effectuate these contributions.

Okay, it's working now to adopt uh any discussion by council.

I don't I don't know what it's doing.

I do have a question.

All right, councilman.

Real quick, um this part that says upon delivery of new units with the assistance of listening agents if necessary and the resulting sale proceeds being returned to the depreciation fund.

I was just wondering, and I'm sure this this is a lack of ignorance, but kind of how much has that been have what we have done in the past as it relates to some of our old parts being sold or trucks or replacements, just yeah, wondering.

Uh Chief, are you available?

Okay.

Uh and keep in mind, council, we're we're going to a new vendor this year, so uh it's gonna be a little bit different process, but again, Chief, if you would elaborate on that a little bit.

Yeah, I'll do my best.

So with our previous vendor, they were allowing us to trade in old trucks and they would pay us a nominal fee for that.

Uh we have determined that we can probably get more money out of the deal by selling them out right ourselves, and this particular vendor does not do a trade-in program.

They're willing to help us if we need it to find a a uh a listing agent to get those out there and find interested parties to do that.

Sale.

And typically they're estimating right now, like the excuse me, the uh aerial the 20 the 2004 model, they're estimating we can probably see about a hundred thousand dollars out of that truck alone.

Um the pumper being a little newer, probably eighty eighty to a hundred depending on the market at the time.

Would that be another municipality or something?

Generally smaller departments uh will seek out use.

There is a pretty robust used market out there for those trucks.

I've already had several um other mayors call in interest to the vehicle.

So but the delivery of this vehicle will be the first vehicle.

Yeah, the within 24 months of signing the contract is the longest it's supposed to take.

There is a penalty clause built into the contract, should it extend past that time.

They anticipate a shorter time frame, but it's uncertain right at the moment.

Any other questions by council?

I don't see any.

Thank you, Chief.

Anyone in the audience?

I don't see any as well.

So, council, if you would please go ahead and cast your vote.

And that does carry 12 to 0.

So next, council will move on to the next resolution.

This is resolution 194.

Resolution.

Oh, it's working now.

Okay.

Resolution, I'll back up a little.

Resolution by the city council of the city of Donesboro, Arkansas, to enter into an agreement with Pickering to provide professional services for prospect multi road multi-use trail.

Whereas the City of Jonesboro desires to enter into an agreement to provide professional services for the prospect road multi-use trail project.

Whereas the selection committee has determined that Pickering is the most qualified firm for the project, whereas Pickering is agreed to provide professional services for the Prospect Road Multi-Use Trail Project as described in the attached agreement, and whereas the funding for the execution of the agreement shall come from the Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the agreement.

Now therefore be it resolved by City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Section one, the City of Jonesboro shall enter into an agreement with Pickering to provide professional services for the Prospect Road Multi-Use Trail Project.

Section two, the funding for the execution of the agreement shall come from the Capitol Improvement Revenue Bonds budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the agreement.

Section three, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesburg to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the agreement.

Move to adopt motion on the floor to adopt any discussion by council.

I don't see anyone in council chambers.

I don't see any as well.

If you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

And that resolution does carry.

All right.

So council will move on to resolution 25195.

Resolution by the Jonesboro City Council to accept an in-kind land donation of two acres plus or minus of land valued at $876,000 and authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Blazer Land Holdings LLC.

Whereas Blazor Land Holdings LLC wishes to donate approximately two acres of land to the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, and the City of Jonesboro wishes to accept said donation of property.

A copy of the warranty deed appraisal summary, land donation agreement and survey map are attached here too.

And whereas the property located at or near 6106 Southwest Drive is positioned along a major highway in one of the highest intensity growth areas of the city and would preserve the land for future public safety needs in the area.

And whereas it is in the intent, it is the intent of the city to perceive funding to utilize the property for a public safety benefit in the future is detailed in the warranty deed.

And as the aforementioned properties shall not be used for any purpose other than police, fire, fire police, or public safety, and whereas the donating party has identified an intended qualifying uses if developed to include but not strictly limited to a fire station, short-term severe weather, a disaster emergency shelter, police substation, or similar public safety benefit facility.

And whereas no portion of the agreement warranty deed or offering documents exempt adjacent property from general development codes or a guarantee of development by the city, only that any development of the property other than demolition or maintenance be of public safety benefit.

Whereas if the property is not in funded process of creating a public safety benefit within seven years, the property would return to Blazor Holdings LLC or its assigned representative unless additional legislation between the City of Jonesboro and Blazer Holdings LLC alters the original contract represented in this resolution.

Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council for the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas that section one, the City of Jonesboro accepts the in-kind land donation of approximately two acres from Blazor Land Holdings LLC.

Section two, the City of Jonesboro will abide by the warranty deed guaranteed wishes of the donating party that any development of the property be of a public safety benefit as detailed in the above resolution and attached warranty deed.

Section three, the Mayor Hill Copenhaver and City Clerk April Leggett are hereby authorized by the City Council for the City of Jonesboro to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this agreement.

The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized with execu executing of any and all documents reasonably necessary to acknowledge the donation by Blazor Land Holdings LLC with taxing authorities including but not limited to the internal revenue service.

Move to adopt second.

Okay, we do have a motion on the floor to adopt and council.

I think uh is there an amendment, Carol we want to make to that, Brian.

Yeah, let me go ahead.

Okay.

I thought I'd read these to y'all tonight.

This is what you mean.

Make sure your microphone is.

I'll let y'all read.

But anyway, there's that I know of 2500 lots being developed right now.

The infrastructure is going in right now in Valley View.

So you got the orchard down by 226.

You got Mark Moore's closer back over here, and you got us in the middle.

Mr.

Gare and I just decided that it'd be in our best interest to have fire.

You're gonna have fire fire and police down there.

There's no y'all know that.

So we'd rather have it where we like it than y'all having to pay money to put it somewhere we might not like it.

So we're willing to give it to you.

You can use the buildings like they are, they're in excellent condition.

You can tear them down, but just you gotta do it within seven years.

That should be plenty of time.

I don't know.

Hope I can come back in seven years and say congratulations on what y'all built.

But um that's just a long story short.

So it's a good piece of property.

We left it open for y'all a couple days, a couple months ago.

I don't know how many of y'all toured it.

It's an excellent condition.

So we're going to give it to you if you want it.

Then Brian, if you would please come forward and uh state a uh short amendment to that.

Sure.

After uh talking with uh Mr.

Caldwell and with with engineering, there were there had been a couple people that had asked about environmental conditions that may exist on the property, and they actually conducted a phase one environmental that that we have and that we looked at um that didn't necessarily uh identify anything bad per se, but just as a as a overwhelming caution, um Mr.

Cobwell, Mr.

Burnett, and Mr.

Gere have offered to conduct a phase two environmental on the property as well and um to you know disclose anything or remedy anything that might be involved that would take remedy beyond whatever kind of just general you know construction that might happen on the property might take care of.

So I would like to offer the amendment for somebody to consider a second on afterwards.

Um whereas the donor has offered to conduct a phase two environmental review.

Um if any significant issues are identified, the donor will remedy or disclose prior to transfer to the city of Johnsboro.

Move to amend my motion to reflect that amendment.

Second, all right.

We do have a motion on the floor to amend that.

Um council, any discussion?

Don't see any.

All right.

Um in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed for the amendment or for the resolution.

That was for the amendment.

And um resolution at this point.

Okay.

We have a motion to adopt.

Second.

Do you have a motion to adopt?

Um any discussion by council.

Any discussion by anybody in the council chambers.

I don't see any.

If you would please go ahead and cast your vote.

And that does carry.

Um I would like to say to the members of the LLC, thank you very much for your consideration for the community and and we appreciate uh your offer to the city of Jonesboro and uh to the future of the city, especially in South Jonesboro.

So thank you very much.

Okay, council, we're ready to move on to resolution 25196.

Resolution providing for the adoption of a budget for the city of Jonesburg, Arkansas for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026, appropriating money for each item of expenditure therein provided for and for other purposes.

Whereas the city council has made a comprehensive study and review of the proposed budget submitted by the mayor, and whereas it is the finding and conclusion of the city council that the schedules and exhibits of anticipated revenues and expenditures for the calendar year appear to be as accurate as possible for budgetary purposes.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of Jonesboro, Arkansas, Section 1.

This resolution shall be known as the budget resolution for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas for the 12 months period beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026.

The attached budget incorporated herein is if set out word for word and figure for figure reflects estimated revenues and expenditures as set forth on the succeeding pages.

Section two, the respective funds for each item of expenditure proposed in the budget for 2026 are hereby approved and adopted for the operation of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas by the city council on this date and constitute an appropriation of funds which are lawfully applicable to the items contained within the budget.

This budget may be altered or revised by action of this governing body, and unpledged funds may be subsequently appropriated to another purpose except as prohibited by law.

Arkansas Code annotated 1458-203A, section three, the mayor or his dealy authorized representative may approve for payment out of funds appropriated by this budget or otherwise approved by the city council for those purposes or may disapprove any bills, debts, or liabilities asserted as claims against the city, provided, however, that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the mayor and city clerk when authorized by a resolution in writing and approved by a majority voted city council present in participating.

Section 4 if any provision of this resolution or the applicable application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid.

Such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the resolution, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

And to this end, the provisions of this resolution are declared to be severable.

Move to adopt.

Second.

Do we have a motion on the floor to adopt director Perth?

If you would please go ahead and uh approach the center stage.

Council, um, as we begin this, uh, before you cast your your vote on this, um, I do appreciate uh several weeks ago or week and a half ago, we had an open forum and discussion, and many of you showed up, asked a lot of relevant good questions, and I hope we were able to answer and move forward.

And I think it's imperative that we have that open discussion.

And then we followed up with the finance meeting and finance team was there as well.

And I appreciate that committee.

And I do know that uh those of you that might not have been able to attend did call the directors to ask questions, and that's what it's all about.

And so again, the floor is open.

Um and tonight we're up for the vote of the budget.

Uh, do we have any questions by council on the budget?

I have one.

All right, council.

I did watch and um when I wasn't able to be here, and I appreciate all the hard work.

And um I did watch those meetings that I miss.

And everyone did a phenomenal job.

Just one question on the personnel deferment uh during the first quarter.

Umce those decisions are made, then will that come back through here that type of thing?

I didn't hear that asked, so I was just wondering if that was that's right.

Okay.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Any other questions by council?

I don't see any.

Anyone in council chambers.

I don't see any as well.

So, council, if you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

Council, thank you very much for your vote and your confidence in the work that uh the city team does uh in moving forward.

And and uh again, that's really important.

Steve, thank you again for all your staff and the directors for participating and giving their input.

Uh, it was challenging.

It was challenging.

So again, I appreciate uh everybody and all the directors in the room for your efforts.

So thank you again, council as well.

All right, we'll move in to resolution 25197.

Resolution of the city council of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to amend the city salary and administration plan by including updated pay ranges, pay ranges, job titles, and grades.

Whereas resolution 24184 amended the city salary and administration plan, and whereas a need has been identified to amend the city of Jonesboro's current salary administration plan to include pay ranges, job ranges, job titles, and grades consistent with the 2026 budget.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas that section one, the attached listing of approved job titles of the salary and administration plan is hereby adopted.

Move to adopt second.

We do have a motion on the floor, council.

Any questions by council?

I don't see any.

Anyone in audience?

I don't see any as well.

If you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

Council.

All right, council.

I do appreciate your vote, and that does carry.

So next we'll move on to the final resolution.

Uh this is resolution 25198.

A resolution by the city council by the Jonesboro City Council to accept an offer and enter into a contract to purchase property and end dual litigation efforts between the city of Jonesboro and Laurel Park LLC.

Whereas Laurel Park LLC representatives have made an offer to settle ongoing litigation and convey sales of all properties owned by the corporation and any subsidiary entities to the city of Jonesboro for a total of 750,000, whereas a recent appraisal of the property immediately beneath the condemned and demolished building, lot four, commonly known as Citizens Bank Tower property appraised at $307,000 or $71 per square foot at 4,320 square feet.

Whereas the offer includes multiple holdings by Laurel Park LLC at the general location of 100 West Washington outside of the litigating parcel, including lots 7 and 8 located near the original tower property.

And whereas the total approximate sum of square feet for the three parcels of land holdings by Laurel Park LLC property is 10,100 square feet, plus or minus, and whereas an agreed and executed purchase contract of all Laurel Park LLC holdings will result in the termination of any current and future litigation claims by Laurel Park LLC and terminate any lien perfection efforts by the City of Jonesboro.

And whereas neither Laurel Park LLC or the City of Jonesboro will seek restitution for any legal procedural or financial injury for past current or future expenses associated between the two entities or their associates.

Now therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jonesboro that Section One.

The City of Jonesboro, Arkansas hereby authorizes the purchase of property located, the purchase of property detailed above, located at 100 West Washington, Jonesboro, Arkansas at the purchase price of 750,000.

Section Two, the City of Jonesboro and Laurel Park LLC agree to end all ongoing litigation.

Section three, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the purchase of this property.

Move to adopt.

Okay, we do have a second.

So I'll go ahead and open the floor.

I know council that we're gonna have some questions and discussion, but I think it's imperative that uh I bring this forward to council.

Uh this is a um uh a long going process that obviously this committee has dealt with for 20 plus years, and we're to a point of an opportunity or deciding on what your vote is this evening, what direction we might move in.

Um to be honest with you, this is more than one property that's divided up, and I think Jerry is here to represent uh do we have uh somebody on the phone as well?

Okay, okay.

Um it's three parcels of the citizens bank area, so the corner lot that we hold a lien on, and then two other parcels that one and Jerry, you have the one in between.

Do you mind coming up, Jerry?

I want to make sure that we present it right and and uh we get right.

Uh in ongoing conversations with Mr.

Smith over gosh, the past ever since uh the litigation really started.

Um, you know, we we went ahead and appraised the value of the land.

It was 71 dollars, I believe, as it says here per square foot.

Uh, which would total those three properties about eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Uh Mr.

Smith has made an offer to city council uh for 750.

And uh Jerry, if you want to go in more detail, you're more than welcome to, or I can Mr.

Smith.

I I believe that's got a cost of about 920 uh from years ago.

I do know that he one time he had some lease land lease, and uh I don't think he's collected any monies on that as well.

So he's just kind of he's put his money in and uh is looking to get his money part of his money out.

Well, and I think we're all aware that uh the city uh had to condemn the building and we had to invest some of our ARPA funding to maintain the the availability for our downtown residents to have a business, and so it was imperative that we move forward with that.

I think that uh as the best way I can explain it, it's it's kind of like dominoes.

If one of the dominoes starts falling, then the rest of them will fall into place.

If we pick the dominoes up off the table, then there's nothing on the table.

Um, and so this is a vote tonight on this resolution.

Um, and I know we're gonna have some questions, so council uh, you know, we'll help explain anything we can.

Brian's got a little bit more input as well if we need to.

So, council, if you have any questions, I'll open the floor.

Oh, I'll start councilman.

So you said, and I want to make sure I understand what is the administration's um what are your thoughts?

Number one, as far as how the land could be used, but then also um, you know, we were at least I was under the impression we were going to try and get our money back that we you know that we spent.

Our three million bucks.

Um so first we'd like to hear um number one.

What's the administration's desire as far as if we were to acquire the property, what will we use it for?

Number one.

Number two, um, I guess why we wouldn't pursue the lien.

Okay, and then I'll I'll refer that then to legal on pursuing the lien.

Uh Brian, would you like to come forward and kind of speak to a little bit more to what councilman McClain has has asked, you know, our desire really is to do whatever council, it's our job to bring it before council.

Um, you know, I again I mentioned the domino effect.

I think there's an opportunity there for uh green space uh for the city of Jonesboro.

Um that's obviously in conversation, uh, but I can't speak to that yet.

Um that's just not on the table at this point.

So if you would, Brian, if you can uh elaborate a little bit more.

Sure.

I mean, I I guess as mentioned in finance, really kind of the four options here are or three options really pursue, you know, continue pursuing our litigation and just kind of let the chips fall where they may on that.

Um there's a definitely an expense associated with that legally, even if if we're victorious, um, even more so if not.

And at the end of the day, what you get is a land put on one parcel of property that's underneath the the tower where the tower property was.

Um you know, I know there's some confusion.

It's nobody fully understands the lien process, right?

Um doesn't mean you get the property, it means that if the property sells, you get a chance to recoup some of that funding.

Obviously, we're thinking that property's worth somewhere around three to four hundred thousand dollars.

So, you know, even with the perfected lame when your collection efforts are pretty uh, I would say collecting back three million dollars, there's no short-term path to get that back in a chunk.

I think it's probably a pretty fair statement.

Um so you know, you could continue that lien process.

The city could purchase the property and either a turn around and immediately put it up for sale, um, and that would potentially remove some of the legal barriers from this property and allow it to be developed.

Um, you know, that's that is one thing to note that if we do continue the litigation.

Uh I'm not a developer, but I highly doubt that you're gonna see much development there over the next couple years while the courts are involved with um you know with any kind of litigation efforts.

But so either the party the city could purchase the property um and then we could retain it and either develop it as an asset for the city, such as green space or a corner park, a town square, um, you know, ban shell, green space area food truck court, whatever you know, whatever we would want to do.

And and I do think there's community funding out there to help support that.

Um, or again, we could purchase a property and turn around and sell it and let it be developed.

Um, in order to, you know, to develop out of green space, I would suspect the next action you would see was be a proposal to potentially acquire more land right there.

Um, and that would just have to be something that is it's premature to talk about at this moment, depending this decision.

But you know, there there are other options out there that could be of a community benefit to um you know purchasing this property if we want to do so.

Um, you know, otherwise that we would just go ahead and take our continue our litigation efforts and it and I'll defer to to Miss Duncan on what that looks like in the legal world.

But again, this was a proposal that was brought to us by Laurel Park by uh Mr.

Smith, and you know, this is obviously a pretty public issue, and and we've talked about it for years, so we thought it only right to just bring it to the entire council unless you have an open conversation about what our options are.

Uh, hopefully the public was listening and you know, kind of picking up that that it's not it's not a very simple issue.

It's it's really complicated, and um, you know, just hopefully this is an effort to to educate everybody watching to what we're trying to do.

Do you mind uh responding then to the litigation?

Um possible cost.

I know they're unknown, it's hard to predict.

Can't predict possible cost.

I think I said that in finance, and I've answered that among the council members that have contacted me with questions.

I mean, I don't know how you you predict what the the legal cost would be.

Um it was stated from the beginning, and and we used outside legal counsel for the initial part of this where there was an attempt to join us into the litigation between Laurel Park and uh Burseboro, and I guess I blocked it, I don't remember what the name of his company was.

But anyway, um one main street, that's right.

And the the litigation between the two of them, they attempted to bring us into that at some point to stop us from bringing down the building.

We hired outside legal counsel for that.

They um appeared at two or potentially three hearings, I can't really remember on that issue, and filed some motions and kept us from we eventually were non-seated out of that.

Um, but I still think we incurred some some legal fees on that in the neighborhood of you know, 14, 15,000, if I'm not mistaken, um, for just that short amount of representation.

Um as far as the ongoing litigation, because of the complex property ownership and because of the fact that you know my office is we have what we have in our staff.

Um it was agreed from the beginning that we would seek outside legal counsel.

I mean, I don't know that there's ever been a piece of property more complicated over the 20 years than the citizens bank property with the landlease and the different owners underneath of the property and all of that.

Um much like you hire outside bond council for their expertise on bonds, you know, the thought process was to hire outside legal counsel that has more expertise in complicated property matters to seek any avenues that we would have to recoup any money from this.

So ultimately that's where your legal expense would come in.

What that would be and how long that would go on, I can't tell you.

I I can compare a little bit to the ice house property, which we condemned how many years ago?

2021.

We condemned it in 21.

We started foreclosure proceedings a couple of years ago.

Um we were successful in circuit court in the court ordering the sale of the property based upon our foreclosure.

They immediately appealed, and it's still sitting with the appellate court.

They've written a brief, we've written a brief, they've written a brief, and we're waiting on the appellate court to set that for some type of either oral argument or to make a decision on whether they uphold our foreclosure on appeal.

Um so we still haven't collected any money on um ice house after years of litigation that we handled in-house, but that was not as complicated of a property ownership matter.

I mean, it was one family that owned all of that property.

So I mean, looking at that, you would have to anticipate the litigation would last a while.

Um so I can't predict those expenses.

I do think there's some confusion about what the litigation is.

Um the litigation is already started.

I mean, y'all were served with that.

Um we approved our lien, they immediately appealed that to circuit court.

You all were served with that that appeal.

Umce we put our lien on the property, they amended that and added some language in an amended complaint.

Um, I accepted service on that amended complaint to eliminate some of the cost for them of reserving you in exchange for them extending our date to file an answer to February 1, which would give us time to get through the end of the year, make decisions about this and determine how we want to proceed before having to hire outside legal counsel.

So our answer is due on their appeal um February 1.

So we have until then to make decisions on that litigation, but that litigation is started, so it's not a matter of if they're going to litigate that lien.

It they they are going to litigate that lien, it's already started.

And I think councilman, just to add, and I the beginning of your question was 3.2 million dollars.

I mean, the only way, and I think we all recognize that uh we had to do what we had to do, but to recoup that is to get production and productivity out of that land as soon as possible.

We're not gonna get the three million.

I mean, I said from the beginning, I think um spend the money as if you're not gonna get any of it back.

You know, spend what you're willing to spend to make down time is real safe.

And if we get anything back on it, it's a bonus.

But a foreclosure doesn't, it's not like when the bank forecloses on your house and then they own your house.

The foreclosure in this circumstance just forces a sale of the land.

We don't own the land at the end of the foreclosure, it just forces it to be sold.

Now we can obviously bid on it at that sale just like anybody else, but there's no guarantee that we own the land at the end of that or how much we get is subject to whatever it sells for at that, which right now, as you know, it's appraised around 300,000.

So it's no, it's nowhere near the three million.

I I appreciate the the clarity on the legal side.

I think the other issue I have, um one Brian just pointed out, we would we wouldn't even own all the property right there.

So there's two other parcels, um an additional parcel in the back that we would probably have to acquire because you're not gonna be able to you you I mean you won't buy it, but anyway, and and do anything productive.

And to be clear for the public, the foreclosure is strictly on where citizens bank sat.

Right.

It has nothing to do with the parcels of land to the site.

So and and the reason I'm bringing that up, if we acquire those, I mean, we've already set uh the comp of 71 bucks a square foot.

So now our price goes up.

Uh we gotta spend maybe if if we spend 71 dollars, I mean, if I if I owned it and you just bought at 71, I'm gonna sell it to you for 71.

So at that price, we're looking at an additional million dollars coming out of pocket, which if you think about it, all it's got to come out of reserves.

Um, so we would be all in almost five million bucks.

I I I mean, to me, I just don't see where it would make sense for us to do that.

Um we we could do a lot with with this type of money.

Uh just my two cents I think is a bad deal.

I don't think we owe him we don't owe him anything just because he got in a bad deal.

Uh I understand we want to own that property, but at the same time we gotta be responsible and not just spend money um on dirt that we won't be able to sell.

Fore close it, foreclose on it, hope it sales for whatever we get and move on.

But I I just don't see us spending that type of money.

I mean, I just astronomical.

I mean, I understand we had an appraisal, but if you look at a couple of lots in the appraisal, they were lots that he owned.

It's not like we you know compared.

I mean, uh anyway, uh I just I'm out on it, but go councilman Hafner.

Uh yes, I don't know who who to ask this question to, but um I know a little bit about a county, I know a little bit about taxes.

Um one of the things, one of the issues I have is this came up this came to our attention a little over a week ago.

Um it was on finance last week, but you know, we're we're being put under the pressure cooker of a decision has to be made by the end of the year.

Can someone explain why the decision has to be by the end of the year?

It was explained in finance that well, he's got he can only take the loss this year or something, but I just need to know about I mean with capital losses, you can have a long-term capital loss, short term capital loss.

Can someone explain the timing issue?

I can just tell you what I know.

I and I d I'm not an accountant, but my understanding is he has a financial gain that is not related to this purchase, and it's a one-time opportunity for him to take the loss and minimize his losses.

So he's just trying to try to do it.

He told me today, uh, even with this sale, he still has a loss, but at least it's not as great uh because he can offset it with a one-time opportunity that he had this year.

So he's just trying to help himself out on taxes.

He's just and that's he's he says that he can give the discount.

Feels like he can go ahead and give the discount and you get the bit benefit be the beneficiary of that.

That makes some sense, but I don't think it's our responsibility to help him with this taxes.

But so and and and I I agree, but in his thinking, you know, if there's gonna be an opportunity, if there's gonna be a time frame when he's going to sell it short, he's gonna sell it short this year because he has an opportunity.

Right.

And after January one, it's his opinion that he's not going to sell it short, he's gonna stay in it for the long haul.

So this is a one-time opportunity that's come up that's been presented.

He is not in any way trying to be heavy handed.

He just this you know, we had the discussion, and he said, Hey, I can do this if they can do this, and it was very much a trying to trying to get to an end result that's beneficial to everybody.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I agree with uh some of the things that David mentioned.

In fact, he brought up some of the questions I had.

Number one, we had to take the bank billing down.

I understand that it needed to come down, probably should have come down years ago, but I think we're basically rewarding them.

We've already spent a pretty sizable chunk of taxpayer money, even though it was our funds, it could have been used for something else.

So it's pretty big expenditure.

We don't have a specific need for that small lot.

It's even with the pieces they put in there, it's not a lot of utility with that.

So without some specific use, we'd have to put additional money into it, and it'd be even more of an expense.

Um I just don't see rewarding them for that.

I'd rather fight it in court and and keep the lien on it if it ever sells.

You know, I'd rather do that.

I think that's more responsible.

It's not gonna be 775,000 dollars worth of uh or 750,000 dollars worth of legal expense.

I'd rather take our chances and try to recoup something.

We shouldn't be paying anything for that in my opinion, but that's just me.

Um let me ask uh Jerry, if you don't mind if you'd come forward and and just kind of ask.

Now, obviously um you do have some ownership and some other property that's obviously next to it.

What have you seen as far as development opportunities that still could remain with that property, or are there difficulties with development opportunities?

No, we actually had we've we've had some uh people look at it.

Uh the we've had two inquiries that just said when the litigation goes away, we'll be glad to come back and visit, but they didn't want to be involved during that time.

Um then past that we really haven't gone to the market, just we don't have anything to take to the market.

Though those were inquiries uh that we had personal relationships with again, council, these are conversations we need to have, and that's why I have a question, please.

Okay, is it is it an option that that we could decline to purchase the lot and drop the litigation?

It is.

I think it would need to be done in two different like what's before you today is purchasing the property, yes or no, essentially, to simplify.

And then um this council has already voted to place a lien on the property, so we would need to bring back if it's the desire of the council, you would bring back a resolution trying to resolve that lien in some way.

I mean, I think it's still open to determine whether you could resolve the lien without litigation in some way.

Um and that negotiation, I guess, would begin depending on what you vote on today.

But I mean, there's always options.

Could I have one more clarification?

Sure.

And I I really want you to I I know none of you probably know Andy Smith, but he he's the owner of of the property.

And and he is in no way, I mean, super nice guy.

And and I agree, you know, his investments are not your worries.

But at the same time, uh he has made the investment, and his offer is hey, I'm willing to give a little bit to get this.

He he he doesn't want to spend his money fighting this in litigation for the next three to five years.

He knows that's going to be expensive.

He knows he doesn't have uh the opportunity to develop it while it's under litigation, and his his response is hey, let me take my loss and I'll figure out something else to do.

So I want you to understand the spirit in which this was offered is not hey, you take it or leave it this this year.

It is hey, I've got an opportunity that has come my way, and since I've got an opportunity, I'm going to pass the opportunity along.

And that's the spirit in which he has made this offer.

So please just want you to know that.

And just one more question, if I may.

All right, clarification.

The the parcel of property that we have the lean on is water appraised for the 307.

Correct.

So the most we can probably expect to get back from the from the lien is 307,000.

Less whatever legal expenses you spend.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just a couple of comments that are observations, not for you, Jerry, but the uh I mean, obviously, we're gonna we're in fixing go on five years of litigation with the ice house, so uh I can't imagine it taking any less than that on this property.

So we're probably looking at anywhere from five to seven, maybe longer years that property being off the market or uh out of use.

The uh Carol, uh I couldn't hear what you told Joe the answer.

So the most we could expect to recoup and litigation would be the value of the property if we perfected a lien on it.

Is that we perfect a lien, it would be whatever it sells for at the foreclosure sale.

And I think the the fair thing to say is less whatever you've spent on litigation, right?

So I mean the reality of ever collecting our three million dollars is gone.

Right.

So the most we're looking at being able to uh if we succeed in dragging out litigation is gonna be 400,000.

If we spend 750,000, we'd at least have some say in how that property was developed down there, and that say would be something that would be uh financially advantageous to us.

I'm not interested in making a pot pocket park or anything like that.

I don't think that's the right location.

If we were gonna buy it, it would simply be to steer the development of that property into something that's advantageous to the city to recoup our money.

I think when the uh discussions were going on with tearing down the building, we talked about we have several taxes that uh could apply to that property where we could recoup our money over the long term through revenue of taxes.

Jerry, is that still in an economic development zone or is opportunity zone opportunity zone?

So I mean obviously there's some advantages to a developer to come in and do what we want.

Is it 10 years that you have to keep it in order to I'd have to go back and look at I'm gonna I'm gonna go out of the limb, but I think when I read it last time, a developer who comes in there and develops that property and owns it for 10 years can sell it without paying capital gains tax, so there's quite a bit of incentive to come in and build on that property and build something nice.

But uh I'm I'm not in support of making a pocket park or an open space.

I I think that's premier entrance to the downtown.

I think we need a hotel, I think we need something big there, and I think the only way that's gonna happen is if the city helps with that uh development.

I'm also not interested in seven or eight more years of ongoing litigation where our net return would be 400,000 minus litigation.

I think we're losing money on tax revenue to drag it out over that length of time and litigate it.

So can I have uh mixed statement or ask a question?

Um, and you brought up something that that really I thought about it.

I agree with you on on many of those those points.

My um concern is making that decision today.

It to me, when I listened to the finance meeting last week, and then I heard a bit of change today, Jerry, that it sounded like to me it was buy it now or lose the opportunity last week.

So has that changed or are we able to come back on another time to consider this?

The offer on the table is specific because he has a timeline that he has to meet.

And after January, after December 31st, he no longer has the opportunity for the tax relief that he has.

So from hit his statement is after January 1, he can't continue to make this offer.

And and I would just add counsel, you know, ongoing uh conversations with Mr.

Smith uh since this began.

Um I think he has looked in every aspect on how he could make it work for the city and us to be able to just make an offer on the table.

He has come down uh considerably.

I think Jerry had mentioned the 900,000.

Again, we're looking at three parcels of land, not just one.

Um and uh with that, I mean, I think he's he's done everything he can uh to do that, but again, um I think it's uh good discussion for council.

Um and do we have any other questions?

I I make one more go ahead.

Okay, Mr.

Mr.

Thank you, Mayor Yeah, I guess my question, I'm sure you'll have this discussion in my mind.

I'm just thinking, why don't we only buy the corner and have him write down the corner so he can get the tax benefit.

I mean, is there been a thought process around that, Mayor?

That was the initial thought process.

And um at that point, you know, we had we're talking about negotiations.

Uh his price point was close to what we came back 307.

He was he had in it a little over 500,000.

Um, and so the negotiation piece then came into the other two lots on the parcel.

So again, from that standpoint, then the value of adding the other two parcels really that came into play um because the value then was lowered for each piece of parcel.

If you divide it out, we're paying 250,000 for each piece of parcel.

So um that's uh it was on the ongoing, but as far as the negotiation, um we never got to where we needed to get from our standpoint because I I remember we had conversations that we'd might be able to purchase it for 300,000, whatever the case may be, and uh his cost was about 550 in it if I remember right, councilman.

So we were off on that.

Yeah.

And he was looking for tax incentives, how we can make that work and a gift to the city.

Uh we look through all those avenues.

So again, I think this is broken up, and Brian uh remind me on this.

Basically, what he's looking at is a a dollar for for the citizens bank property, and then the other two properties were is that correct?

Yeah, the the way the the uh the actual real estate contract that's attached to the resolution, the uh the lot where the tower was is actually listed as a dollar, and um you know the the the balance of that is between the the other two lots to the to the west.

So um it's all the same to us that the offer 750,000 dollars.

I mean, um, but how he divides that up per parcel, and that's that's reflective of essentially gifting the uh the tower parcel to the to the city, and I would assume that's where the the tax benefit comes in.

And that's where I went with him initially, was just on that one parcel.

I would also mention that historically one of the problems in develop redevelopment of that property has been multiple owners of multiple lots.

It took 10 years to combine and get down and get titled to multiple.

I think there's a total of seven lots or six lots that come around.

So if we just acquired the one lot, and then he had two lots, and Mr.

Halsey has one lot, and somebody else has a lot.

We're back in the multiple owners, and that's probably not gonna work in a large development.

I mean, a large development there is probably gonna need all the property from corner to corner.

One more thing, just like you said, any large development will need all the property, so I guess we would be the ones acquiring the property, which I again I think the price if we buy at this price is gonna be high.

Um, but the other piece, I mean, I I don't see um I don't see how we get around that.

And I don't see how um I don't think someone's gonna come to us.

I know Jerry, you own the property, but I mean if we pay again, we pay 71, we're probably gonna pay 71 again.

And at the same time, you still got a parking issue uh down there, so you're still gonna have um I just again it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me for us to spend this kind of money.

Halsey or the city and somebody else is a lot less complicated than having five owners and uh some of the development plans have included a parking garage there to address parking and at one time there was a proposal to build a second tower right behind Citizens Bank that floated around so I mean there's there's a lot I don't see us selling that property for whatever we pay I don't see us selling it for that we we're gonna take a loss there's that doesn't it's again it doesn't make sense for us to spend the money then lose money I I don't think there's even more money I should say yeah I I don't think there's a possibility of us making money on the property sale for sure I think that's I think that's out the window I think the way the city would come out would be to steer the development into something that generated revenue for us or generated revenue for the downtown not in selling the property I I would highly doubt we pay 7500 and turn around and make a a profit on the property.

I would think it'd be we'd pay 7500 somebody would come along and make a proposal that we were in agreement with we would either give them the property lease them the property or something else I but I'm with you on that Mr.

McClare yes another comment and I know this kind of goes against what we originally believed but long term would would we be better off if we did not purchase this property for 750 but instead remove the lien because if the most were going to get back's 307 remove the lien hopefully that would end the litigation the legal fees stop the property's clear to sell if Mr.

Halsey said that they've had interest but there no one's gonna be interested while the litigation's going on would we not be better off to remove that well and to your point uh I've had several discussions with large developers that are obviously interested in where the location of the property is but as long as the lien is on it they're not interested.

I much rather do that than go into the real estate business for $750,000 and no and believe we're gonna sell it at a loss.

And I'd I'd also like to make a comment in the our working session on our budget the comment was made that it's a really tight budget and I feel like if if we purchase this we're pushing ourselves towards a uh tax increase sooner rather than later.

All right Mr.

Okay Council um now I I certainly don't mind to continue negotiations as well.

Carol where are we if the uh on the time frame of February um I mean on the lien I had this question asked of me prior and I do think that there would be time for staff or you or whoever to negotiate a settlement of the lien um and what that would look like and whether we could get any money out of the lien in a settlement versus litigating I think you would need to bring something back to finance on the 30th is that the day it would be the 30th and then it could go to council at the first meeting in January that would give you enough time um to make that decision either way I think whatever council wants us to bring back on the 30th we would we would need to bring something back on the 30th to either you know a negotiated settlement of the lien or council deciding to remove the lien whatever decision is made there would come back to finance on the 30th and be approved at council early January which would give us time to have it settled before our deadline to file an answer.

And if that for whatever reason did not pass council and council decided to move forward you would still have time to hire counsel and have an answer filed by February one.

I much rather go that route than spend 750 and go into the real estate business.

Well there's there's actually a there's actually a third option that goes along with your line of thought rather than remove the lien and allow the guy to sell it and hope for the best we could uh have the lien and it would be a de facto vote on what project it would go there in other words if the current owner and the adjacent owners come up with the project that we think is suitable for the city and in the city's best interest we could agree to drop the lien at that time so we could basically hold the lien to give us the vote in the project.

The only difference I see there is that we have to file an answer February one.

So we would incur legal expenses with that option.

Yeah, I mean we'd have.

And as and they would.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Mayor.

I move we postpone temporary till January 30th and let you look at this a little further and then we come up with a better idea.

But I'll second that.

Wait.

So you're postponing something from council agenda back to finance.

Because finance is the only meeting we have on the 30th.

So you're sending finance would would send it back to uh so you're I want to make sure I understand the motion.

I think what your motion would be is to return this to committee to the finance committee.

Is that what you're saying?

Postpone temporary till January 30th finance.

But I okay.

Ultimately, I think that kills this.

December 30.

Well, I think what's the third.

What Carol's saying is instead of a postponed till January 30th, we just make a motion to return it to the finance committee.

Is that what you're saying?

That's what I'm saying.

I I think that kills it essentially, um, because there would not be time to then close by the end of the year, so the offer would be off the table.

It's the same difference as voting it down in my opinion.

We can it doesn't affect the lien.

All right, it just I think kills this sale opportunity.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry.

But there would no if you if you bring this back to finance on the 30th, it would then have to come back to council in January, at which point the the offer's off the table.

I think the there's a expiration in the contract this afternoon or tomorrow.

So it would expire.

Uh so no point in sending this sale contract back to finance, is what I'm saying.

I mean you vote you vote no and it it's it's rejected and we move on.

Finance would just need something clean to work new to work with right.

I think that would be a new resolution to whatever that looks like.

Settle the lien.

Pursue the well, we already are pursuing the lien.

You don't need an you don't need a motion for that to settle the lien or dismiss the lien or whatever that could come back to finance on the 30th.

Although there's a there's a motion on the table.

I don't know if there was a second.

So then I think you need to there's a motion and a second, and either needs to be withdrawn or voted on.

I'm waiting on Chris to jump in with his Robert's rules of order.

There's a motion and a second on the floor.

I think it needs to be there's motion and a second to adopt the original resolution.

What is uh is John's motion still to postpone to the 30th or to send it back to committee?

That'll supersede it.

Right.

So you need to call a vote on that.

Their discussion or not.

Wasn't a second on that, was there?

I'll second it.

Okay, now there's a second, so it after correct that I mean or I think we already no longer valid.

Yeah, no matter which way to take it clarify if we approve John's motion, that basically ends it.

Is that correct?

Because the timeline won't this form this offer.

Okay.

Any more discussion by council?

Anyone in council chambers?

Anyone in council chambers?

I don't see any.

So council John John's John's amendment.

Okay.

If you would please go ahead.

Return it to committee.

If you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

You should do vote.

I think you'll have to do a voice vote on that.

Voice votes.

All favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay, so that amendment does carry.

All right.

So council now we'll move on to items on new business, and these are ordinances on the first reading, and the first ordinance is 25041.

Move we suspend the rules and offer by title only.

Second.

We do have a motion and second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

An ordinance amending the membership of the stormwater management board.

We have any discussion by council.

Anyone in council chambers.

Anyone in council chambers?

I don't see any, so that ordinance will move on to its second reading.

Now we'll move on to ordinance 25045.

Move suspend the rules and offer by title only.

Second.

In favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

An ordinance to amend chapter 117, known as the zoning ordinance providing for changes in zoning boundaries from R1 to PDRLUO for property located at Cortebella.

Any discussion by council?

Anyone in Council Chambers?

May I already have one question?

On this one, I didn't see the staff report.

It was added this afternoon.

We just received it today.

Okay.

I just don't see it on line.

So if you have any questions in councilman, just give us contact.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

If you would please state your name and address.

Yes.

Patty Lack, 4108, Forest Hill Road.

And on this one right here is that listening to the MAPC meeting that was held last week.

Is that there was a lot of back and forth talk about how this was being not approved, but the uh quote, it was going to be senior living.

And I think that people, you know, we can't say that it was uh senior living because that's all going to be up to the POA when it gets established.

But I saw today on Channel 13 news that they had a big segment saying that we're going to have senior living now.

And so this is just a rezoning, and I think it's unfair to the public.

But where I'm concerned, and I wrote Daryl, is that when you do a rezoning is that you're supposed to send out certified registered mail to the neighboring uh neighbors to let them know that there is a rezoning and that it is always on an attachment to that rezoning.

There's no certified letters on that.

So Daryl said that the letters were sent out, but that was about three weeks ago.

So I think it's really unfair because were they sent out?

Because they should have been back by now.

So I don't know if they need to resubmit them again because they should have been back, but that is just a process that needs to happen.

So those neighbors know exactly what's going to go in that property.

So I hope that they can follow through with that and get that done properly.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else from the audience?

I don't see any.

And so that will now move on to its second reading.

We'll move on to items on item number seven.

Ordinance is on the second reading, and we'll start with ordinance 25037.

An ordinance to amend chapter 117, Article 8, Section 117-324G 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.

Any discussion by council?

Anyone in council chambers?

I don't see any.

That'll move on to the third reading.

Now we'll move on to ordinance 2504.

An ordinance to amend ordinance one ordinance 17026 relating to towing services in the city of Jonesboro.

Any discussion by council?

Any questions?

Okay.

Anyone in the chambers?

I don't see any as well, so that'll move on to its third reading.

Next we'll move on to ordinance 25042.

Any discussion by council?

I don't see any.

Anyone in council chambers.

I don't see any as well.

That item will now move on to its third reading.

Now we'll move on to ordinance 25043.

Ordinance to amend chapter 117, Article 3, known as the zoning ordinance of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, providing for changes in zoning boundaries from R1 single family medium density district to C3 General Commercial for property located at the 2000 block of West Matthews, Washington.

Jonesboro, Arkansas is requested by Ron Kraft.

Any discussion by council?

Any questions?

I don't see any.

Anyone in Council Chambers?

I don't see any as well.

So that item will move on to its next reading.

Now we'll move on to the final ordinance 2504.

Any discussion by council.

I don't see any.

Anyone in council chambers.

All right, I don't see any as well, so that'll move on to its third reading.

All right, council.

Now we'll move on to Mayor's report and and I'm gonna go through this.

First of all, I want to uh reach out to our officer that's in the hospital that had a is involved in an accidental shooting yesterday, and and trust me, he was fighting for his life, but um I can't say enough for the personnel at St.

Bernard's Hospital that worked on him for tireless hours yesterday and then again today.

Um and he is he is resting.

Uh he's gonna have a long recovery, but he is alive.

And so it's it's nothing more than God's hands uh uh getting involved in order to save that individual's life.

So we're we're proud of that.

I do appreciate again uh all the the work that our police department does and the members of the police department, they have come together as a family.

I was very fortunate to meet with his mother and dad last evening late and uh they're four hours away, and so uh it was peaceful for them to know that he had such a loving community around him.

I also on the same note want to recognize one of our officers, umfficer David Stout.

Um he received uh the state's top officer uh for this county in Craigeg County, Sergeant Stout, and uh I'll have him later at one of our meetings to recognize him formally in front of you.

But uh, if you see uh Officer Stout, please uh pat him on the back.

And he's one of those individuals that he doesn't like per uh personal recommendations, he likes a group, and uh, but uh again we always appreciate that, and I think it's duly noted that uh he be uh recognized this evening.

So two weeks ago in my comments I referred to the 12 days of Christmas that Brian wrote, he he enjoys that.

So ever, however, and uh in-house researcher says we're not actually in the 12 days of Christmas because the first day of Christmas was actually is actually December 25th, you know, with the partridge and a pear tree and so on.

But you might be happier with the following an advent calendar.

So today is the 16th day of the calendar, which happens to fall on national chocolate cover anything day.

So anyway, I know there are a lot of individuals that would like to have that this evening.

So with that thought, uh bear with me in the next few minutes.

You may recall September we authorized a third-party review of our building permit process.

That review has been underway.

Um it's called Matrix, uh, the organization that we approved as a city and city council uh for a couple weeks now, and they're doing surveys and they're being shared uh information with contractors, architects, and developers.

I'm telling you, this is a process that we've been looking for for a long period of time to make sure that our our processes with our community uh work sufficiently and effectively.

And the process can only though work correctly if we get our community involved in the process.

And so I'll be sending out letters this week uh to almost a thousand individuals that that have permits in the community for them to make sure that they get on the QR code.

I'm asking the public as well.

We want the public engagement in this process, uh things that you like, things that your concerns are when it comes to the building and the processes of the city.

This is the time that we're gonna be making a huge impact.

Um, and uh I'm looking forward to how that turns out.

Meantime, I hope you're as proud of Jonesboro as I am for all the brilliant holiday celebrations going on.

Many joyous family-oriented and charitable events have already taken place, and many are ongoing.

For example, we had a great turnout for the mayor's Christmas open house on the 8th, which is something that started last year, and I hope our citizens enjoy the opportunity to come to the municipal building and see how we work and celebrate the holidays with those that we serve.

We still have something else that is very popular to look forward to, and that's the holiday trolley uh for Christmas at the park.

That starts Saturday evening beginning at 5 30.

It runs through 8 30, and you can check Jet's Facebook page for the exact time.

So here's how it works.

Come to the municipal building.

You buy your tickets at the collection department during the res regular business hours.

The trolley pickup location is the bus stop on Madison Street next to Winter Wonderland.

Only 20 tickets per time slot, and they run about every 15 minutes.

The cost is five dollars, and the tickets for kids is are free.

Buy your ticket very soon in the collections department and municipal building and share right at Christmas Park on one of our trolleys.

Now, this trolley, if I'm not mistakenly, uh actually will not stop.

They'll go through the park and then turn around and come right back.

So again, I think it's this is wonderful that we offer to our city employees and then to the public on different evenings.

And in the season of giving, let's also remember the creatures great and small, including those who can't ask for help.

In honor of Operation Santa Paul Month, we're asking our community to help support the animals cared by the Jonesboro Animal Service Department.

Every donation helps warmth and nourishment and comfort to pets awaiting their homes forever.

Preferred item, Parina Dog Chow.

Just take it to the shelter and some furry ones will be very grateful.

We're also hoping to help showing Christmas cheer at our dispatch center with a holiday celebration for our Jonesboro E911 team who work around the clock, even throughout the holiday season.

Help us fill the December appreciation calendar with daily tokens of gratitude to brighten their days and show how much our community cares.

All the details for ways you can help can be found on our social media pages, and you can just call us.

By the way, we know they love thank you notes and coloring sheets done by the kiddos.

I'm very proud to tell you about a couple of great things that our city workers have accomplished since we last met.

One was the food bank collection competition between departments.

The winner was Chief.

There we are.

Um for the food bank, but I know it was over 2,000 pounds of food.

And this was competition from City Hall, Police, and fire departments.

So it's a giant thanks to everyone who helped participate.

As the weather starts turning colder, I'm happy to say that the new bus shelters.

I hope you've noticed throughout the city.

Uh new ones are going up.

We just had one here put up today, north, um, and we are still lacking some of the uh technology to be implemented, but the shelter itself is going up, so that's been over a two-year process.

So I'm real thrilled to see that happening.

So they've been put together another one uh next, as I mentioned, to the municipal building.

The ASU Newport Connection Shelter is also done.

They're getting there, folks.

Please understand the funds granted as long as four years ago and were now becoming available for us to start the project.

The folks at JET, as well as in the marketing communications, are anxious to share the behind the scenes work that's been taking place to get all the improvements coming to the public transportation.

In closing, I want to share with you news of honor we received as a city.

I hope you'll be proud as I am.

We have been notified that we've been named a volunteer community of the year, earning top honors in the category of most youth engagement for its commitment to youth leadership through the mayor's youth council.

The volunteer award means and is co-sponsored by the governor's adversary commission on national service of volunteerism, engage Arkansas and the Arkansas Municipal League, recognizing cities and towns as strengthened civic life through volunteer-driven initiatives.

Jonesboro was selected for its innovative and high-impact MYAC program, which has expanded from 40 to 99 student members and contributed nearly 1,200 volunteer hours during 24 and 25 years.

To so many students that are participating in these opportunities and getting the resources and support they deserve.

In addition, your city government has won other awards.

They will be announced periodically throughout the next four weeks, which will be announced every I believe on we're gonna try on Mondays.

Is that correct?

These are warded by the Arkansas Municipal League to demonstrate great determination within our departments and find unique solutions to challenging all cities faced today in the changing world.

We're showing our state and our residents that our community can be an example of achievement, innovation, and service to the citizens.

Thank you for allowing me those comments.

Next, we'll move on to City Council reports.

Mr.

Wish everyone a merry Christmas.

That's all I have, Mayor.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman.

Mr.

Miller.

Mr.

Bryant.

I'll be brief, and I know April sent us an update since we got rid of the public services committee.

I think I'm a little bit more clear about kind of who's reporting to who, but whoever is kind of taking over the parks piece of things.

I hope they'll look at Matt Modelleschi and Jerry Morgan's message about the sports commissioner.

And I can't remember if we decided finance to kind of taking over parks or what we had decided.

I need to go back and reread your email, April.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Hapner.

No thanks.

Dr.

Anthony Coleman.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Be safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

McLean.

Merry Christmas.

Mr.

Gibson.

Yeah, I just I want to elaborate on just a couple of comments just briefly.

One of Councilman Bryant's that he just brought up.

The email that he's referencing came to all of this council.

And it was in regard to a community sports commission that would be community-based to help head up the sports leagues going on in the city right now in light of what's going on with the investigation.

I am going to advocate for that as well.

Um, and I would like for us to have some kind of resolution on the table or at least consideration on the January 6th meeting.

Secondly, I just want to elaborate on what the mayor said in regard to the install of the of the Jets bus shelters.

Lee, shout out to you and your team.

That's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Williams?

No, thank you.

Mr.

Moore.

The questions I sent you about Act 505.

Do we have any answers on that?

We do.

And I I saw that again today.

I did get an email from the municipal league, and I'll try to get that drafted up.

I just got a little sidetracked.

Very good.

But I'll get that to you.

I know you were gonna tell me that.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

That's all, Mayor.

Thank you.

Dr.

Charles Coleman.

No, thank you.

Mr.

Emerson.

First of all, Merry Christmas to everybody and happy birthday, Jesus.

Um, second of all, we had a public safety council committee meeting earlier this evening, and it was approved to walk on resolution 25167 to this body.

Um, if it's approved.

Um, just a side note that this was more of a clerical error that happened in the previous meeting, and since this uh piece of property does still serve as an imminent threat to the safety of the citizens of Jonesboro, we felt that it was uh better to go ahead and bring it to this committee, and once approved, I believe that they're getting ready to actually start demolition on this property tomorrow.

I think is what I heard, or at least by the end of the week.

I will second that motion for the walk on.

All right, council.

Do we have any discussion?

See anyone in council chambers?

Just walking on.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed.

Resolution by the city council of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to condemn property located at 233 South Fisher Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas, 72401, parcel number 01-144181-4470.

Owner Michael Kevin Kelly.

Legal description follows, whereas the above property has been inspected and has been determined unsuited for human habitation, whereas all the stipulations have been met in the condemnation process to proceed with the condemnation of this property.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas that the city should proceed with the condemnation of the property located at 233 South Fisher Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401.

Move to adopt.

Second.

Do I have motion on the floor and discussion by council?

Just for those that weren't here for the committee.

Um this was approved at the last council meeting, and everything was correct in the notices that were sent and done according to our procedure for a condemnation.

The only issue was there was a typographical error in the parcel number on the resolution.

So that's why we're representing it tonight so that it can be approved and they can move forward with demolishing the unsafe structure.

Questions by council.

Anyone in the chambers?

I don't see any.

If you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

I have to have a voice vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, that does carry.

I had the pleasure of attending the municipal center's Christmas open house, and it was a lovely event, and I really enjoyed connecting with members of the community and our city employees.

And I would uh like to thank those who are involved in the planning.

It was a wonderful event.

All right, that's the end of our council comments.

Next we'll move on to public comments, and anyone from the public can come forward, and you have five minutes to do so.

Make your statements.

Before we adjourn, can I say go red wolves as my public comment?

That's Thursday night.

I know Thursday night, eight o'clock.

I can't believe nobody said go red wolves in this court.

All right.

I don't see anyone.

We'll move on to item 11.

That's adjournment.

So moved.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.