All right, good afternoon, everybody.

It's four o'clock.

I'll go ahead and call today's meeting to order.

Um please record your attendance by pushing the appropriate button.

All right.

Uh next up is approval of minutes from the finance and administration committee meeting on February 10th, 2026.

Move to approve unless there's noted change.

Motion of second to approve the minutes.

Any questions or comments on the minutes as presented?

If not, please record your vote on whether or not to approve.

Um we'll move into new business.

First up is resolution 2621, a resolution to accept the bid authorizing the purchase of two vans for the transit department, whereas the City of Jones for Arkansas through its Jonesville Economical Transit operations has an ongoing need to maintain and improve safe, reliable, and ADA compliant transportation transportation services for the public, and whereas staff has located vehicles to replace current vehicles that need replaced in our current fleet, and whereas the city has identified the need to purchase two low floor ADA vans to support transit and mobility services, and whereas a quote has been received from created bus sales for two Braun ability low lone star ADA vans, and whereas the quoted vehicle is available for purchase through the state of Oklahoma contract number SW0797 FY2026, which qualifies as a cooperative slash state bid procurement method permitted under under applicable purchasing laws and policies for 156,933 each, three thousand eight hundred and sixty-six dollars total, and whereas this purchase is supported by the following FTA cost match 85% federal and 50% local, whereas efficient funds have been identified and are available for this purchase in the appropriate budget or grant accounts.

Now therefore be it resolved by City Council of the City of Jones for Arkansas that number one the City of Jonesboro hereby approves a purchase of two bron ability long star ADA vans from creative bus sales utilizing the recipient reciprocal bid from the state of Oklahoma contract number SW0797M FY 2026 in accordance with the submitted quote dated February twelfth, twenty twenty-six.

Number two, Mayor Harold Copenhagen, City Clerk April Leggett are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jones for execute all documents necessary to effectuate this this purchase.

Move to forward to full council.

Second.

I have a question.

Dr.

Coleman.

This I'll wait till you get here.

This might have already been asked, but I guess it since I don't remember, you know, when you get old, you don't remember certain things.

Uh do we have spare vans of spare buses?

That's one of the reasons why we're looking at this.

Similar to the bus purchases that we made.

We actually operate eight vehicles uh for paratransit service every day.

Um one of the vehicles that we are currently operating, which this will allow us to replace that, plus have an additional for spare.

Um that vehicle has actually been two vehicles put together to make one functioning vehicle.

Um this is just us trying to get our stock back up to a useful life benchmark and be able to have those spare vehicles for rotation, keep from running so many miles on each vehicle and allow us to do the standard services that are necessary.

How many more routes are we planning to have?

Uh I know we were rebuilding routes after COVID when routes were reduced, but what's the ultimate goal as far as how many lines?

Um ultimately for the paratransit we will use as you know what it depends on what our service dictates.

Um our service every day depends on the schedule as far as who needs trips.

Um, you know, we utilize that based upon how busy we are.

Like I said, on average, we usually operate seven or eight vehicles uh or seven or eight routes per day for paratransit.

Our bus routes we've been operating on uh four routes here recently.

Um we will hopefully by the end of the month be at our full five route service plus the two A state service routes for a total of seven routes on fixed route.

Is there any plan to and I know it's been mentioned at MPO meetings, Mayor Brooklyn about maybe extending our routes close to Brooklyn or up to Brooklyn area?

Has that uh has that is that being considered?

There's always a consideration uh just a matter of looking at the feasibility of something like that, uh talking with the various agencies that would be involved in that, trying to work out deals and concessions on that.

It would certainly be good for people that live in the Brooklyn area to come to medical appointments here.

I'm sure.

Yeah.

Anything else from the committee?

Anything else from staff?

Yeah, the the the cost share is listed on there just as a reminder.

The 8515.

Um I've been trying to make sure that uh we do a better job of highlighting that for our vehicles.

That 8515 is for uh any ADA vehicle that we have, that 15% is what the city has to have matches portion.

So all right.

Thank you.

Anything else from staff?

Anything anything from the public?

Please Lee, you may want to please say your name and address for the record.

Patty Lack 4108 Forest Hill Road.

Um Lee, just how many buses do we have all together?

Not or you can include these two if you want to.

I've got to do the math.

Um so we have five trolleys and we have two trolley routes.

We have currently seven buses, and we're operating four uh fixed route.

We have seven pair transit vehicles, and we're operating an average of eight transit routes a day.

Anything else from the public?

If not, um please record your vote on whether or not to afford resolution 26021 to full council.

Resolution 26022 is a municipal lien.

I'll read this by title only.

Resolution by the city council of the city of Jones for Arkansas to place municipal lien on property located at 233 South Fisher, partial 01-144 or 181-44700, owned by Michael Kevin Kelly in the amount of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty-four dollars and fifty-six cents.

Move forward to full council.

Second.

Motion second forward to full council.

Any questions or comments regarding this item?

Well, Mr.

Chairman, is there any reason this one is so much more?

It seems like it's a lot.

Almost 10,000.

Oh I was toying with it in my mind, trying to make sure we had the correct address, but the name does uh register a bill.

That was the that was a demolition.

So we actually remove the structure of uh uh a citizen who had passed uh and there were no uh associated uh relatives.

Got it.

Thank you.

Anything else from the committee?

Anything else from staff or the public in attendance?

If not, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26022 to full council.

Resolution 26023.

A resolution authorizing the city of Jonesboro enter into a 60-month service lease contract for 12 copy machines, whereas the various copy machines owned by the city of Jones Road needs replacement due to lack due to age and lack of available repair and operating components, whereas the city of Jonesville wishes to enter into a service agreement with forest office machines for 12 copiers, and whereas upon completion of the service lease, the city will have an option to purchase the machines at fair market value in accordance with city purchasing guidelines or as funds to support the leasing agreement are included in department subsections of the FY 2026 budget, perhaps the proposal for the copy machines is attached here too.

Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jones rule that section one, the city of Jonesville agrees to turn to the terms outlined in the forest office machine service lease proposal for copy machines, section two, Mayor Harold Copenhaver and City Clerk April Leggett are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jones for execute all documents necessary to effectuate the agreement.

Move forward to full council.

Second motion stating forward to full council.

Any questions or comments from the committee?

Anything from staff or the public in attendance 4108 Ports Hill Road.

Is it because we're doing 12 because all 12 need to be I mean they're all not working correctly?

Um and the second question is is that the maintenance on it?

Does a forest company who's gonna we're buying them from, do they do maintenance free or do they charge for them?

Staff wants to handle that one.

What?

I can log in that information.

I can I didn't do the first part, so you've got to forgive them.

If all 12 of them are not working in case all the time, yeah, there we do have I I won't say all 12 are not operational, but there are a number of them that are non-operational.

And as we looked at whether or not to outright purchase, which we have done in the past or to lease, uh, we opted for the lease option at this particular point in time.

As with uh most items electronically these days, there's a uh a pretty good chef life uh uh of when I item is obsolete, and so what we're finding is uh the lease gives us a better option of uh keeping our stock current.

Uh currently, even if we purchase a machine, we have to get a service agreement with uh the copy or supplier, uh and so we're paying for that maintenance uh already uh as a part of our uh copy or agreements, and so this just allows us to uh uh lease and continue those maintenance agreements that are there to replace obsolete uh equipment and and equipment that doesn't work.

Just to follow up to what Tony was saying.

So do I know sometimes you have an agreement where you can print as much as you want at least for a certain amount.

Do we have that similar?

I can't, I don't I'm not sure on this one.

I know there are at I'm I'm fairly strong that there is um a charge for a copy or as a part of the maintenance agreement anyway.

So uh the maintenance agreement is predicated on how much you use uh the machine, and so uh we tally copies each month as a part of the maintenance agreement.

So, yes.

Anything else from the committee?

And I will say to this point, we we do something like this similar on the banking level, is that it also ends up encompassing your toner cost as well, which is a significant amount.

So anything else from the committee, staff, public in attendance.

All right, if not, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26023 to the full council.

All right, resolution 26024, a resolution by the Jonesville City Council Council to accept an offer to settle existing liens indoor litigation efforts between the city of Jonesboro and Laurel Park LLC, whereas Laurel Park LLC representatives have made an offer to settle a lien established by Jones Row City Council resolution 25106 for demolition costs of the structure located at or near 100 West Washington Avenue, commonly known as Citizens Bank, whereas a settlement offer of 110,000 has been presented for consideration, and whereas upon acceptance of the offer a certification of funds received has been completed, the city wait, and certification of funds received has been completed, the city of Jonesville would terminate lien claims by the city on parcel 01-144, 183-42300.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jonesboro that section one, the city of Jonesville, Arkansas hereby authorizes a settlement of the lien established by resolution 25106 in exchange for payment of 110,000 dollars by Laurel Park LLC.

Section two, upon certification of funds received by the city, the city of Jones Road will remove current lien claims held by the city on parcel 01-144, 183-42300.

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 proposed settlement.

Move forward to full council.

Second.

Motion segment forward to full council.

Any questions or comments from the committee?

Uh comment or qu I guess a question to Carol first.

Um how much do we have so far in legal fees on this?

I don't have an exact number.

I think it's around 13,000, somewhere in there.

So if we take 110 and we got to subtract 13,000, or so we're gonna be under 100,000 for uh a release of a lien.

Um best case scenario if we say no to this, if we don't pass this what best case scenario beyond continue litigation, and again what could happen from that.

I know obviously we're gonna encourage every time you ask me to predict what a court's gonna do, and I can't do that.

So I mean, what's what I've been told and what I've said repeatedly is that the appraised value of the land is approximately 300,000, give or take a smidge, and that our legal counsel believes that we would be limited to that top dollar amount in our recovery because what would happen is if we are successful in pursuing the lien and we get to a foreclosure, then you're gonna sell it, you know, on the courthouse steps, just like you would anything else that you foreclose on, and it just depends on what whoever bids at that courthouse sale bids up to as far as what you recover, and then from that amount you're gonna deduct the legal expenses that it took you to get there.

I I guess I and I'll say this, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm I I think 110 is too low for us to take, and like I said, if we don't have 113 or 13,000 that comes out to be less than 100,000.

I I don't think is a good deal, and I I don't think we should accept this offer.

That's just again my opinion.

Ms.

Duncan Umce you're have your crystal ball out.

Right.

Um I can predict all things.

Yeah.

Well, let me ask let me ask the question this way.

Okay.

When when I know right, early things have been happening, you know, like um when is this set to go to trial?

It's not yet.

So it does is there a do you have any anticipation on the date that it would go to trial?

Don't so right now we filed an answer, and we filed, I believe, a motion to have as I I think I told y'all that we had filed a motion to remove city council that had been served separately from that.

They filed an answer to that motion that has not been ruled on by the court yet, to my knowledge.

So the next step on our side, if we continue litigation, would be to file our counterclaim and our um foreclosure, which would be more legal documents that we would file.

And then at some point, I would assume the court would first rule on the motion to remove city council as parties and leave just the city of Donesboro as the primary defendant, and then um and then it would go from there and it would get on the circuit court calendar.

Well, because where I was going is I saw I read in the paper today that there a court date was recently set for a case and the court date was in 2028.

Um kind of depends on what case I can't remember what court it was.

Right.

I do think that they move quicker on these types of things.

We didn't have to wait that long to get our first court date on Ice House, for example.

Um I do think that they give a little bit more priority to something like a lien.

Um so I don't think it would be that bad.

But you know, once you get into circuit court and you have your your hearing there, you would you have to assume that if we're successful there would be an appeal, just like there was an Ice House, and then we go up to the Court of Appeals, that's where we have been in limbo for quite some time on Ice House and just got a ruling, and you know how long ago.

I don't even remember when we filed that foreclosure, but it's been some time ago.

You have a uh a guesstimate on what you think our legal fees would be on this case, and does the recent ice house ruling in your opinion impact this case anyway?

I don't think it impacts this case any, no.

I mean, I think the rules are still the same as far as how you pursue a lien.

So I don't know that it impacts this case.

I just know how long it took to get us there, and we still haven't really gotten to the sale point.

We're waiting to get an order in with the circuit court to pursue you know a sale of lots five and six of Ice House.

So and I believe too that this isn't the first offer that they made.

This is you know, I guess I guess second time or third council.

50 the first time, 55 the second time, and then somewhere in the middle, 70, 75, somewhere in there.

I don't know exactly.

Somewhere in this mid-range, you know, so to where we ended up, yeah.

Anything else from staff or the committee?

I I guess one point I wanted to make also I understand we would have we would incur legal fees, but he would also incur legal fees.

So I mean he would have he would be just as um incur and I I would think incurrative to settle beyond 110 if he's got to continue to fork out money as well.

And so that's why I'm I again I think the one ten is um not enough.

At the same time, uh I guess another question, we're not responsible for his legal fees, correct?

Not right now.

I mean, if we were unsuccessful in court, it's always up to the court whether we would be responsible for any of his legal fees.

I don't I don't know the answer to that today.

I mean, I'm saying has it has of right now that that has happened where these foreclosures don't happen very often like this.

This is an Ice House is the only other one I've ever experienced where we foreclosed on a lien this big.

Um so and we were successful in that one in circuit court, so we weren't there wasn't a question of should we be responsible for any other legal fees.

Now would we?

I don't I don't know.

I would have to research what the case law says on that or what the potential liability there is.

So I don't I don't know the answer to that.

Um I know when you're unsuccessful in court in most cases, there's always the possibility that you get ordered to pay some of the other side's legal fees.

I just don't know if the law is the same on this.

I would have to do that research.

You could I I'd like to know, but at the same time, like I said, he's going to incur legal fees as well.

So I I think it would encourage him to, if we say no, that it would encourage him to come back to the table.

And again, as as we expressed to counsel before, you know, it's 100% up to you guys what y'all accept or don't accept as far as the settlement.

Um I think that you know, when the mayor and I had a discussion about it, we both agreed there was no point in bringing anything under six figures to you guys to even review and determine.

We knew that you know that wasn't going to be anything that y'all would accept, but anything above six figures we agreed to bring to you guys for you to for your consideration and vote.

So that's why we're here.

Anything else from staff?

Anything from public in attendance.

If not, um please cast your ballot your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26024 to full council.

We'll go to full council.

Resolution 26025.

A resolution expressing the willingness of the city of Jones, Arkansas to authorize the grants and community development department to apply for the Federal Transit Administration, FY 2025, 49 USC section five 5339 formula grants for the Jones Row Economical Transportation System, whereas the Arkansas Department of Transportation is the FTA designated recipient of the 49 USC section 5339 and the City of Jones Royal, Arkansas, a direct recipient of this grant through RDOT.

And whereas the City of Jones Row was allocated 120,446 in 5339 funding for JET and FIFA Years 2025, and whereas JET request 120,446 and 5339 funding with up to a 20% local match for capital projects, and we're as 5339 funds are available during its allocated physical year plus three additional years.

It must be applied for and obligated or the funds will be returned.

Now therefore, be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that section one, the Jonesboro City Council supports applications submissions to FDA for the FY 2025 Section 53 39 formula grants.

Section two, the mayor or the mayor's exit and e are hereby authorized by the city city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to execute all necessary documents to factuate the grant applications.

Section three, the grants and community development department is hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to submit all necessary documents for this federal aid program.

Section 4, the merit or the marriage exit are hereby authorized and directed to execute all appropriate agreements and contracts regarding any future award of the FY 2025 section 5339 formula grants.

Move forward to full counsel.

Second.

Any questions or comments regarding this resolution?

Anything from staff or the public in attendance.

And you just said that it goes into the capital projects.

Does that go into the capital projects for the jet bus system or does it go into a capital project for the whole city?

Yes.

And then what would that be used for specifically?

So first off, this is the standard formula that we use, the 5307 and 5339 funding is what we use every year.

That's that's what this is for.

But this funding is what we use for our departmental for capital purchases in order to make these purchases of vehicles, buses, things like that that are needed for the operation of our service.

Any other questions or comments regarding resolution 26025?

Not please record your vote on whether or not to forward a full council.

All right, resolution 26026.

A resolution expressing the willingness of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to authorize the grants and community development department to apply for the Federal Transit Administration FY 2025 49 USC Section 5307 formula grants.

Excuse me for the Jonesboro Economical Transit Transportation System, whereas the Arkansas Department of Transportation is the FDA designated recipient of the 49 USC Section 5307 urbanized area formula grant and the city of Jonesboro is a direct recipient of this grant through RDOT, and whereas 50 Section 5307 funds are available during its allocated fiscal year plus five additional years and must be applied for and obligated for spending or the funds will be returned.

And whereas the FDA has apportioned 1,489,359 and Section 5307 formula funding to the City of Jonesboro, and whereas JET request 1,489,359 in Section 5307 formula funding with 819,150 local match for operating assistance and capital projects.

So there you can see the operating assistance federal 595,743, local 595,744, capital projects 893,615, local 223,406 dollars.

Now therefore be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas.

The Section 1, the Jonesboro City Council pledges it is full support for the submission of the applications for FY 2025, Section 5307 urbanized area formula grants to USDOT-FTA.

Section two, the mayor or the mayor's exit need are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to execute all necessary documents to effectuate the grant applications.

Section three, the grants and community development departments hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to submit all necessary documents for this federal aid program.

Section four, the mayor or the mayor's exit are hereby authorized and directed to execute all appropriate agreements and contracts necessary regarding any future award of the FY 2025 section 5307 grant application.

Move forward to full council.

Second.

Motion forward to full council.

Any questions or comments regarding resolution 26026?

I just wanted to ask if if where it says capital projects, that can be used for like shelters and sidewalks to bus stops.

So the 5307 funds and the 5339 funds are different different types of funding.

The 5307 also encompasses our operational budget, but there is also some allocation in there for capital purchases.

Now those could be I mean literally anything from your paper and ink pens all the way up to a vehicle if that's what's needed.

That is just for use for the service in order to be able to do whatever our service needs.

That that these funds are the funds that we've utilized for uh purchases of vehicles, purchases of shelters, upgrading of equipment, different things like that.

Now the shelter project that we have that's ongoing right now, that was a specific grant that stood alone apart from these.

Thank you.

Anything else from the committee?

Anything from staff or the public in attendance?

All right, if not, please record your vote on whether or not to afford resolution 26026 to full council.

All right, resolution 26027.

A resolution to this to the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to accept the low bid and issue a purchase order to Wilkins Electric LLC for the Huntington Avenue Lighting Project, whereas the City of Jonesville desires to accept the low bid and issue a purchase order for the Huntington Avenue Lighting Project, whereas the low bidder and the firm selected for the project is Wilkins Electric LLC, whereas the funding for the execution of the purchase order shall come from the 2026 capital improvement budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with terms of bid number 202602.

Now therefore bit resolved by City of Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Sounds like some stuff was left out of there.

Section one, that the city of Donesville shall accept the low bid and issue a purchase order to Wilkins Electric LLC for the Huntington Avenue Lighting Project.

Section two funding for the execution of the purchase order shall come from the 2026 capital improvement prop budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the terms of bid number 2602.

Section three, the mayor and the city clerk are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesville to direct the purchasing slash finance specialist to issue a purchase order for this project.

Move forward to full council.

Second I motion second to forward the full council.

Any questions or comments regarding this resolution?

Anything from staff or the public in attendance.

I think Craig, can you just kind of the bid was a hundred thousand hundred thousand?

The two other bids were a hundred thousand dollars more.

Is that because maybe the people didn't want the project?

Why would that be a big difference between that?

It was just kind of odd to see.

Would you know?

Or they just think that they're really good at their job.

I I have no idea why the other contractors bid so high other than they weren't familiar enough with the project to give a competitive bid.

Uh Wilkins Electric did the Crest Street project.

Uh he's he knows what he's getting into, and I don't have any concerns about his bid.

Anything else from the committee or staff or public?

If not, please class your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26027 to full council.

All right, last item under new business, um resolution 26028.

Resolution authorizing the city of Jones for to enter into a contract to lease office space for the E911 administration administrative staff and amend the FY 2026 budget, whereas following the closure of the non-reinforced portion of the justice complex, E911 administrative and training staff have been temporarily housed in open office space in multiple areas at City Hall.

And whereas 911 administrative staff seek a longer term office arrangement that allows for more efficient communication, training needs and general uses space, general usage space, and whereas new staffing has been hired and office space is currently occupied by 911 administration or now needed by other department staff, and whereas it is it has been determined that it is more cost-effective to rent a temporary space rather than repair the damaged justice complex building until the new 911 center is completed, whereas research has been performed and the space proposed has been identified as the best option in regard to pricing, layout, and location, whereas the unit is located at 624 South Main and includes approximately 1,700 square feet.

That includes office space, a conference room for training, private restrooms, and a break room area, whereas the proposed initial lease term is six months with the ability for the city to renew under the same terms at a rate of $2,300 per month.

Whereas in order to support the lease payments, moving costs, and miscellaneous expenses associated, an FY 2026 budget amendment of $25,000 is requested.

Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Jones, Arkansas.

That section one, the city council approves the lease contract attached to this resolution with Continental Limited Partnership.

Section two, the City Council hereby approves a 25,000 amendment of the E911 FY 2026 budget.

Section three, the mayor Harold Copenhaver and City Clerk April Leggett are hereby authorized by the City Council for the City of Jones for execute all documents necessary to effectuate the agreement.

Move forward to full council.

Second motion segment to forward the full council.

Any questions or comments from the committee?

Mr.

I did have one.

I just I'm I noticed the lease amount that was necessarily here, and I'm good with that dollar amount.

I think it's fair for the area and for the square footage.

Does this including any kind of furniture fixtures and equipment, or do we already have that inventory?

Uh we already have some of that inventory because some of that's over in the old office spaces, and and we do have some miscellaneous furniture.

There's also already some budget line items that they have that would cover some of the ins and outs, and and that's kind of why this the uh the exact lease amount isn't the budget amendment because there will be some some miscellaneous expenses that are involved in this process.

Good deal.

Thank you, sir.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, why was the lease only for six months?

And we expect to be out of there in six months or well, you know, as we are and the lease can auto-renew, that's part of the language in it.

But as we're we're also exploring the possibility of a you know some sort of police, temporary police complex.

Um leave that option open in case whatever complex is could be rented in case there was space thousand that that would work as well.

Um so just want to leave options open on that.

Anything else from the committee?

Anything else from staff?

In attendance Patty Lack, 4108 Forest Hill Road.

So Brian, are you saying is that the reason why that we're doing is to just to let them have more room right now because where it says we're the justice complex, we're not going to it there they're not in a damp, if they were in a damaged part of that building, we'd probably have a moved out already.

So I'm not understanding maybe I'm getting this.

So for clarification, this is for the administrative staff of 911, not the 911 call takers.

The E91 call takers are in their reinforced fortified part of the old justice complex.

The administrative staff was located adjacent, but outside in the unreinforced part of the justice complex.

Whenever the justice complex closed down, Carol E911 staff, police staff, and district court and associated services all had to move out of that building.

The estimated repair cost of that was at a minimum 100 to 150,000 dollars, and probably climbing higher than that.

And even then there was still no guarantee that it was going to be safe.

So this is obviously the cheaper option.

And right now the 911 administrative staff, there's they're in the grants office, they are in part of engineering, and they're using a uh conference space for training here.

One that's not in that's not efficient, two, we have hired additional staff to fill those once were what were empty offices, and they are working on a temporary alert spaces, which is obviously not efficient for them either.

So this is the most economical and viable route that has been researched and found to help give them a more centralized communication ability, better training opportunities, and and better efficiency for not just the 911 department for the grants department and engineering department as well.

Anything else from the public?

If not, please record your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26028 to full council.

That was the last item under new business.

I'm not aware of any impending items.

Today if not, we'll move into public comments.

This is where the public can comment about something that was not already discussed on today's agenda.

Patty Lack, 4108 Forest Hill Road.

Um, there's two things that I need to say.

Um yesterday I um emailed Brian concerning how emails are given to all of you when a citizen writes you.

Um it came, he told me that whenever a citizen writes aldermen at Jonesboro AR.gov is that I assumed that it went to just you guys.

Brian told me that it goes to the administration that goes to the mayor and the administration staff.

Kind of disappointing because if I wanted to message Brian, or I wanted to message the mayor, I would have copied them.

And I think people have assumed, and you know when you assume, is that you guys were the ones seeing it.

I don't think it's right.

I don't think it's fair.

And I was told that if I or any other citizen wants to get in touch with you, that we have to address you separately.

I think it's something that has to change because people know that.

And when I look back at things that um I have come up here, and other people have come up here, is that I always thought how did they get prepared for what was coming.

I don't think it's fair to the citizens because when I address you guys, that's who the email should go to.

And I think it really needs a change.

I don't know how long it's been going on, but I really think it's fair to the citizens that I message you guys and not Carol or the mayor or Brian or Tony.

I can answer that, Patty.

It's been going on since 2004 since Mayor Broadell.

And since April's predecessor and my predecessor, like it's been that way from day one because it's a listserv type situation.

It's not, I get that the naming is unfortunate, and we're working on a change to that.

Um we don't know exactly what it's going to be named at this point, but there's going to be it's it'll be separated.

You can email city at you know Jonesborough AR.gov and get the same people you would have originally gotten under Alderman, and then we'll have a separate address that will be city council direct or something like that, where it'll go straight to them.

Okay.

But it was my guess is done that originally because Mayor Bardell probably didn't have a computer and that he used on a daily basis, so therefore he had it going to his staff.

I know Philip Crago, who was my predecessor, did not have a computer, and so I think at that time it went to our office, our legal secretary in the office is who got those emails.

So I really think it was just set up that way in the beginning, and it just stayed that way through all four mayors that I've that I've worked for.

Um just for public information, any time that you're sending something to a group like that, you can always click on the name alderman or council comments or whatever it is that's a group type email address.

If it says city clerk's office, you can click on city clerk's office and it'll give you a drop-down list and it'll tell you everybody that that email is going to just for future reference for people that are emailing and not not sure who it's going to.

But um, I think it was for efficiency in the beginning.

If somebody was complaining about a flooding street, the mayor's office knew about it immediately and could go handle it.

I do understand the confusion, but I I don't think that when it was set up under Brodel and Crago and you know Donna.

Um I think that it was done originally because some of those people were not super computer literate if they were computer literate at all, and therefore they had their staff added to it so that they had a way to get knowledge of the emails, if that makes sense.

Well, I certainly understand it, Carol.

Right.

But the point I get the confusion.

I was just explaining the history.

Yeah, and I I certainly understand it, but there is a reason why I email all my city council people versus emailing the administration part of it, and I think people don't really appreciate that, and I think they don't know it.

Um, and I think the same thing goes back to the MAPC having a pre-meeting, you know.

It it was a couple years ago that I finally realized that there was a pre-meeting before the meeting, and really necessarily is that they should be holding that meeting here in the council room to just be transparent, you know.

And what happens at that pre-meeting is that there's usually two or three of the commissioners that are there that come here and they approve something and there's very little conversations, but up in that room there there is, and I think that should be handled here.

But I think that it's just um I I I'm upset about it, and I think people will be also too knowing that when I email all of you guys, is that I think that it's only going to you, and I always copy April to make a record of it, but I hope it changes because it's just not fair to the citizens.

So thank you.

Anything else from the public?

If not, the next item's adjournment.

So in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any of owes, we stand adjourned.