All right, good afternoon, everybody.

It's four o'clock.

I'm gonna call today's finance administration council committee meeting to order.

Um please go ahead and record record your attendance.

Text ups approval of minutes from the Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 meeting.

Move to approve listeners noted change.

Second.

Motion second to approve.

Um, any question or comments on the minutes as presented?

If not, please vote on whether or not to approve the minutes.

All right, we'll go into new business.

First step is resolution 26056.

It's a resolution by the city council of the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to accept a permanent easement.

Um I'm sorry, a permanent right-of-way easement from Arkansas State University for the purpose of the constructing and maintaining pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, whereas the city of Jonesboro hereby is desired to accept the following described right away for the purpose of constructing and maintaining pedestrian and infrastructure improvements.

Legal description follows.

Move forward to full council.

Second.

I must take forward full counsel.

Any questions from the committee?

Anything from staff?

Anything from the public in attendance.

If not, please record your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26056 to full council.

All right.

A resolution to authorize the execution and delivery of an escrow deposit agreement in connection with the defeasance of bonds issued to support Coast and Castro LLC and its affiliates to authorize the conveyance of real property related to the bonds and for other purposes, whereas the city previously issued its 11 billion dollar taxable economic development revenue bonds.

Um series 2022 A and its 4 million taxable economic development revenue bonds series 2022 B, and collectively with the Series 2022 A bonds, the defease bonds pursuant to the terms of a trust indenture date as of April 19, 2022 between the city and first security bank, and whereas the contemporaneous with the issuance of a of the defease bond.

Michelle, did you write this?

Um of the defease bonds, the city issued is not to exceed $9 million taxable economic development revenue bonds series 2022 C, and together with the defease bonds, the 2022 bonds, and whereas proceeds of the 2022 bonds were loaned to Coast and Castro LLC and its affiliates to finance acquisition and construction of manufacturing facilities, infrastructure, and improvements, and the acquisition and installation of facilities and equipment for the development, manufacture, warehousing, and distribution of casters and wheels located at 2121 Barn Hill Road, Jonesville, Arkansas, whereas contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2022 bonds, the company granted a um one or I granted a mortgage to first security bank as collateral agent to secure the company's obligations under guarantees from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission supporting the 20 2022 A bonds and the company's obligations with respect to the 2022 bonds and two implemented a sell lease back transaction with the city in order for the project to be eligible for ad valorum property tax abatement, and whereas the project was constructed and is operational, and whereas the company is exercising its option to repurchase the real estate and buildings comprising the project for a price that is sufficient to defease the series 2022 bonds and the series 2022 B bonds.

And whereas the city, the trustee, and the escrow agent will enter into an escrow deposit agreement to make adequate provision for the retirement at maturity and upon redemption prior to maturity on April 1st, 2027 of the defease bonds.

And whereas this resolution is adopted to authorize the execution of one or more Ds to transfer title to the reference real estate upon the exercise of the option in compliance with the provisions of Arkansas Code annotated 14-54-302 relating to the transfer of its real property owned by the municipal municipality.

Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jonesville, Arkansas that section one there be and is hereby authorized the execution and deliverance of the escrow deposit agreement by and between the city trustee and first security bank as escrow agent and the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the escrow deposit agreement for and on behalf of the city.

The escrow deposit agreements hereby approved substantially in the form submitting submitted to this meeting.

Section two, the mayor and city clerk authorize execute, acknowledge, and deliver all papers, affidavits, statements, documents, certificates, deeds, releases, and other instruments that may be required to evidence the transfer of title to the real estate and building to release or consent to the release of liens and encumbrances occurring or related to the fees bonds and to satisfy the requirements of the title company assisting with the closing of the repurchase repurchase of such property.

All such instruments shall be subject to the review and approval of the city attorney prior to execution and delivery.

Section three, severability.

In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase or word or mispronunciation of this resolution is declared or a judge to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the resolution, which shall remain in full force in effect as if the portion so declared were a judge invalid or unconstitutional were not originally part of the resolution.

Section four, repealer.

All laws, ordinances, resolutions or parts of the of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Move forward to full counsel.

Second.

Motion second forward to full counsel.

Any questions from the committee?

Yeah, uh, just layman's terms.

Well, it wasn't written in layman's terms.

Not at all.

Come on, this is one of the most simple things I've got.

Um so what has happened is that what y'all did previously, you incentivized to come build a state-of-the-art facility.

They are currently operating, they have about 70 employees.

I believe in uh recently they have implemented a second shift.

So things are going exactly as you hope they would.

For business reasons that are unrelated to their ongoing operation, they want to exercise the purchase option that was granted to them, so they're gonna unwind the pilot with respect to the real estate, they're gonna transfer it to a new entity and then lease it back.

But they were going to continue operation, nothing is gonna change with operation of the facility.

This is solely so that they believe for business reasons that this is a good option for them.

Um after this is all said and done, you're likely to see me back here requesting on behalf of the landlord that we re-implement the pilot for the remaining period.

So you granted them a 20-year pilot, they've used five of it.

This does not change anything on behalf of the city.

So there wasn't any liability on behalf of the city in the first instance, and this does not change that.

Still remains none.

It's basically like the the meeting we had the council meeting we had last week, or that was the very start of a new pilot program, and then this one they're five years into, and there's like, hey, we just want to make some changes.

Yep.

I mean, they're a good business, and they see um a benefit to doing this, and because y'all have incentivized them previously, they have to come and tell you what they're doing and request your assistance.

Any other questions from the committee?

Anything from staff or the public in attendance?

If not, please record your vote on whether or not to afford resolution 26058.

All right, next up is resolution 26059.

A resolution by the city council of the city of Jonesville, Arkansas to enter into a facility usage agreement with Jonesville Jets Incorporated for the year of 2026, whereas Jones Row Jets is an Arkansas not-for-profit organization organized to promote youth and adult sports activities through the operation of its swim programs, and whereas the city of Jonesboro is the owner of the of that certain public park amenities known as the Jones Row City Pool Complex, and hereafter referred to as the facilities, and whereas the proposed use of terms were drafted in accordance to guidance by the public services committee in a public meeting on May 6, 2026.

And whereas Jets and the City desire to enter into an agreement for the purposes of evidencing the agreement of the parties with regard to the use of the facilities by jets and the respective obligations of the parties regarding the use and maintenance of the facilities.

Now, therefore be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas, that section one, the city of Jonesville, Arkansas shall enter in shall enter into a facility usage agreement with Jonesboro Jets incorporated for the use of the public pool complex located at 1421 West Nettleton Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Section two, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized to execute such agreement.

Well, I don't agree with all aspects of this uh count of this uh contract.

I will um make a motion to afford full council so we can put it on the table for discussion.

Second.

I motion saying forward to full to full counsel.

Any questions or comments by the committee?

Mr.

Chairman, if I may um just I guess I'm I'd like to hear um the administration's stance on this.

Um I don't know who wants to take that, but the reason I'm asking I'll I'll let y'all speak to that, speak to this if if somebody is willing to sure.

Um, you know, this conversation originally began as a uh you know, I guess a proposal from the administration to both the uh the the jet swim team and the uh the the shark wave aquatics team um and when it was probably I guess apparent that an agreement was not gonna be reached that and uh you know there were several statements made that that we felt like needed some sunshine, so that at that point that's whenever it was sent to the public services commission for an open and public discussion about the needs and kind of how the the swimming programs operate.

Not a not a swim guy, so you know, deferred to the uh representative of each of each group to come in and kind of talk about their needs and their plans and and you know what did or didn't work for them for the agreement.

I believe that you know I know that some of some of you all are on the public services committee, and uh you know that that meeting went on for quite some time and we took some of the recommendations, or I guess tried to file follow them almost verbatim um to draft this contract that you see before you and so that's where we are.

Um you know, I'm sure that there's obviously you're never gonna make everybody happy.

Um we just want to, you know, we want a fair proposal when it's clear and figured this would be yet another public opportunity to discuss discuss this and you know, kind of how we want to to manage a pool.

Obviously, the city only has one pool right now.

So we're just trying to get through through this year, and uh and it's a fair and a safe an agreement that that represents uh you know the the Jonesboro residents that are both participate in this pool and also we have to remember that you know we teach swim lessons at this pool also, so it can be a it can be a crowded event out there at times.

So that's kind of the that's kind of our history behind it.

Like I said, when when it was sent to public services, the hope was that there would be kind of an open conversation and that that there would be some guidance that were provided, and we uh you know, while while you know, we I guess only heard technically about the internal operations from from one group.

We did still try to take the information that we had at hand to draft up something that followed the guidance of the committee.

I have a question.

Hold on, hold on, Mr.

Dr.

Coleman.

I'm gonna make sure Mr.

McLean didn't have a follow-up question after uh um so help me understand also because I'm looking at the contract, they talked about the membership being determined by their AAU membership.

I guess that's the body that governs them.

Um so we've heard from parents from uh SWAT, almost called them sharks, uh SWAT.

Um, what if the numbers what if their numbers start to grow and there's you know some some conflict there?

Can't can I address that?

Go ahead.

So um in the public services meeting, you know, in my in my nine and a half years on city almost nine and a half years on city council in yours.

Um this is never come in front of council before.

This is always something that was worked out between the you know the the clubs, the entities, and we basically approved the contract.

Um apparently there were some you know, as as Mr.

Richardson said, there was some they couldn't reach a conclusion.

So when it came in front of public services, um one of the ideas that was mentioned was look at membership, because you know I don't know of a a different way to do it to allocate the same when you got two entities working at swimming at the same pool at the same time.

I don't know of a way to do it besides the number of membership, the number of members.

So you know, the AAU was mentioned as one entity that you know the teams sign up through and they keep up with their numbers.

And it was some we had to have our thought was we had to have some way to verify it.

But in response to your question, what we said was we'll look at it at three or four different times, three different times during over the course of the summer, and if those numbers change, then the the way the lanes allocated would change.

So, like right now, if one team is you know has if you had their numbers together and one team is 70 percent, they get seven lanes and the other team gets three lanes.

If that switches where the one team go drops down to 60, then they get six lanes, the other team gets four lanes.

Um so that's that was how we were we tried to that was the recommendation at the public services meeting of how to address the number of lanes.

Is there I guess my follow-up to that is is there a problem with keeping the agreement as it is, and the reason I'm asking that, who's gonna keep up with that the going back and forth of uh uh is that gonna be something that the administration has to, are they gonna have to self-report?

How how are we going to determine that?

And it to me seems like it's gonna create some extra work on our part, but to me I think the contract gives the date that those numbers will be provided in order to assess it.

Three different dates.

And they have to provide usually they have to provide them by three different dates to the city.

Well, that they have to give the AAU permission to provide it to us, is the way I understand it.

And again, if so, if one group, I mean, I I see it causing a big problem.

If one group says, all right, we reported this many people, and then the next time, well, we report this many people, now we're going back to the AAU verified.

I get that, but I mean, I'm just saying I feel like we're gonna have we're gonna cause a conflict the entire time.

I mean, obviously there's some there's kind of contention but let me ask this question.

Okay, and I don't want to get too far ahead here because I know there's other questions, but in our position, and we you know, I know safety's been talked about um and things like that, but in our in in our position, what other like if one team has twice as many members as the other, and we're talking about this using the same pool at the same time, and safety's been brought up, number of kids per lane, and things like that, what other equ equitable way to do it besides.

My I thought about just give them different days.

That's been a that doesn't work for for my understanding that doesn't work for swim teams because they swim every day.

I I get it, but we're gonna have to I mean at some point we're gonna have to somebody's gonna have to give.

So either we either have different days and we swim on different days, or we go stick with the original agreement.

That's it as Dave's recommendation.

But again, I I just think that why did it change go ahead?

You can't.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

So I'll let Dr.

Charles Coleman speak.

I guess the problem I had is why it wasn't equal use is from the beginning.

Then why were you waiting on these numbers from an outside entity?

If if the city was going to be involved in it, then why are we waiting on those type of things?

Why was the why were we waiting on them or because as I said before, this has never been this has never reached our level to make the determination of how the contract was going to be structured.

So the the only you know, when I when I mentioned this at the public services meeting, the only way to do it in my mind equ equitably was per, you know, the their percentage of roster sizers or percentage of total swimmers.

So that so then that at the meeting, that's when the dates came up as far as this date, this date, and this date, because of the AAU numbers and the time of you know of swimming during the summer because numbers can go up and down depending on when meets are and things like that, is my understanding.

Well, I I guess I still uh have the same problem, and I understand the AU numbers, don't get me wrong.

I understand that, but I guess I didn't understand how they got involved with what we do equal for what we do for each group.

I think that's the part that bothers me.

And that's the part that I talked to uh I think the other thing is that uh I think Ms.

Duck and Ms.

Duncan got thrown under the bus trying to put in well that's on Wag said.

It's got thrown under the bus by trying to equalize those issues, but I think the equalization should be what they've done in the first place, just have equalization of the pool until it's all done.

Because those numbers are gonna fluctuate anyway, aren't they?

You would think so.

And I can't speak to the past, but I know if I can't speak to it, I shouldn't say anything.

Well, I just like to kind of reiterate is that's what you're saying, though.

I'll give it a question.

Yeah, that's the reason why the public services commission meeting was held was just the I don't want I don't know if the word reset is the right word, but to just allow completely open forum to discuss the needs that what you know I'm not a swim professional.

Um and we depend on uh on kind of I guess the guidance from from the people that are in that business.

I mean, we've got you know, it's it's uh we've got two good swim programs with good honest people, and we've had good meetings with both of them.

And uh I wish we had 50 pool lanes to distribute out.

Um you know, but again, our of course our number one priority in the city is making sure that we have a community pool that you know kids can enjoy and swim and and learn to swim, but also after those hours are over with, trying to figure out the best way to divide up you know the competition part of it.

It's not unlike soccer fields or or baseball fields that it's uh there's there's there's really no easy solution, you know, that that's not that's not gonna be tough on somebody.

You know, if you go back with the original agreement, one side is obviously gonna be more crowded as a number stand today.

Now those numbers could change.

Um, but again, that's kind of where this discussion kicks back to with the public services commission was trying to figure out the best possible equitable and fair way to make sure that not just from the competition standpoint for the kids' involvement and enjoyment standpoint that we try to make the best decision for them to be able to enjoy the pool.

I know I understand it, but I think sometimes when administration gets involved, a whole lot of other stuff gets involved.

And I think that's the part that's why I kept making a statement, why there just couldn't have been an equisition done because sooner or later when they build the other uh complex, then a lot of these problems we don't have, but right now instead of because it's all about the children in the first place.

And I think that's where to me is got has gotten out of control.

That it's not about the children right now, it's about the politics, and I don't like that at all.

Yeah, I mean our our our goal was to try to get as many children in the same amount of lanes as possible, you know, to to try to figure out what a division like that looked like.

Um, you know, I I think that the AAU numbers indicated some somewhere along the lines of six, four, or seven three allocation off this first round based off of the AU and the USA numbers.

Um but again, like I say, it's if there's a if there's a better way to do that, certainly all ears, but um, you know, this was the contract that was that was discussed with the Jets, obviously.

Why did the numbers change or why did we switch from the way we've always done it since we've had two teams at a 50-50 split between the pool?

I mean, in the past, one team has had more numbers than the other, and this worked.

Why what brought about the change to go from a equal five lanes apiece to seven three?

And and seven three is totally inequitable.

I don't believe that's fair in any condition.

Six four maybe at the worst case scenario.

But again, on here, another problem I had is half you're talking about a team with 30 percent of the pool paying half of the heat and a team with 70 percent of the pool paying only 50 percent.

That's not right at all.

It ought to be prorated out by lane just like the the fee is prorated out by lane.

That on its face is wrong, but I'd rather I'm like Dr.

Coleman.

I'd rather see each team get five, and if they want to work out something between themselves, fine.

Well six, four or whatever, but turn it over to them five lanes apiece and let them get together and work it out.

And I don't know the the whole history about exactly why this was necessary.

I'm sure that I think Jim is here who probably has obviously more of the day-to-day information about how we got to this point.

I just know that there was obviously some issues, otherwise you know, this conversation wouldn't have started, and that's and that's how the administration got.

Another question with those AAU numbers, is that people that are showing up at the pool dressed out that are gonna swim that day, or are they just AAU members that you get to count on your number?

And so if you're gonna have somebody there doing that counting on how you're gonna verify the kids that are dressed up to swim instead of just being an AAU number that you count numbers.

That's part of the issue I thought of.

I I guess I wonder how that numbers dictate what we do here if it's our pool and why they couldn't have been split, you know, with the fifth to fifth.

That's just the question.

My only comment there is I think there had to be some sort of third party number, you know, verification.

Instead of just self-reporting the numbers, it had to be a number that comes from you know the kids signing up, paying a fee to be a member of the AAU.

You know, I appreciate that, Joe, but I think that that causes issues.

I will say if we'd if we'd have done it like we've done it before, then it wouldn't have been a problem at all.

I will say in one of the meetings it was suggested that staff be there every day to count the number of kids and assign the lanes accordingly, and that was impractical.

Well, you could have each of the coaches verify the other team's numbers.

No.

We might have a fight that way.

Well, if we're gonna be like this, I would think it'd be better to let them again, like I say, and I really believe it's fair.

Give them each five lanes apiece and let them get together as organizations and work out if they're willing to give up a lane for the other one or whatever and back and forth.

It's been fair up to now.

I don't see why it wouldn't be fair for this last year until the ridge is open.

Well, I'm not gonna speak on behalf of jets or sharks.

I'm sure they both have representatives here to kind of talk about that if they're if they would be willing to do that.

Like I say, our efforts were to craft a contract based off the conversations that were held at public services uh on May 6th, and that's a representative of this.

You know, it's not a it's not a a preference either way, it's it's the guidance that we're provided by public services to create at least some sort of of starting and talking point for for this agreement to make sure that people can enjoy and safely operate and effectively operate in that pool.

And as far as the heat, John, I will say that I think we discussed that at the public services, and they it's only for a short amount of time in September, and they said just leave it 50-50.

There won't be heat all summer in the pool, it would just be for a little bit of time in September because I think shark or SWAT, I'm sorry, I said it wrong.

SWAT doesn't intend to their contract ends September 30.

Is that what y'all wanted?

I think that was the date that y'all told me you wanted yours to end was September 30.

So it the heat wasn't gonna be a big issue, and I did have that discussion and said this was the guidance we were given.

I mean, if it really came down to it, the city could figure that out when the time came.

But I don't think anybody would object to splitting that the same way you split the lanes, if that matters.

It just wasn't done at the time because that wasn't the guidance given at the committee.

And we are here because the teams could not agree.

And what I understand I'm hearing today is we just need to get them into a room and sit them down until they can agree.

Uh, you can split it five five, but you're still saying that they have to decide what happens.

That gives us no ability to charge out the way things need to be charged out, uh, unless you know there's something in a written agreement to that nature.

So again, it only came to this body and to the other bodies because in the past we've been able to sit down with both teams and come to some sort of agreement that then move forward for approval through our formal processes.

So, what I hear today is until we can get jets and SWAT in a room, and they agree to something that can move forward.

Uh, again, this takes you out of it, it takes us out of it, and it put the onus on the coaches and the parents of the two groups to decide on what works to get both parties into the limited lanes uh that we have for one more year.

So, Tony, are we in a room right now?

Not everybody, but we're in a room that again, every time it comes before uh a body, there are different ideas uh that begin to flow, and that and those are great ideas that are flowing.

So I'm not I'm not complaining, but we have in the past been able to get the groups to agree, and the groups are just gonna have to sit down and be adults and agree, and that's something that I think that puts everybody in a position, including you all, uh, to when we have it does no good to continue the dialogue when there's disagreement.

Because every time we bring something back, one group is gonna say something and another group is gonna say something, and we have that same bickering back and forth, and none of us know where we really stand on an issue.

So it's just incumbent upon us to ensure that uh we get them in a room, uh, we sit down, and we get agreement on their part before anything moves forward.

Unfortunately, uh, you know, I I know Jim and his team have been trying to get kids in the pool.

Uh it is that time of year where we want to see kids in the pool.

Uh and so that's been the onus of uh how we've worked trying to get kids back into the pool.

But until we can get agreement between the groups, then we're gonna continue to go through this process.

Uh I I can't SWAT is here today.

There's a different outcome that I'm hearing today, based upon SWAT being in the room.

Jets was here the last time, and there was a proposal that moved forward that we thought we were working from.

And so until we can get both groups, even if it's in a public setting, we need both groups in the room so that you get both points of view, and then we can make an informed decision and move on.

Well, I I'm I'm still gonna stick to my guns or what I what I thought, but I think the other process that I I kept hearing, people that have been trained and trained in this, you know, that has nothing to do with right now as far as I'm concerned.

You know, uh again, you know, and I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna stop after this part of the conversation.

It just bothered me that up until this year things were happening pretty decent.

I put it that way.

I'm not saying everybody agree, but then when the city got involved, it it just got really stupid.

Well, the city only got involved up called him because uh it was brought to the table for the city to get involved because one of the groups had some some additional needs.

Well, that's true, but a lot a lot of meetings that were they were trying to get set up with some of the city.

I know this for a fact behind emails that I've gotten the text mixer, they they couldn't get involved with some of the city leads.

In the last week, in the last two weeks.

Last week.

In the last week or the last two weeks, again, until we can get both groups at the table, I it does us no good to meet with one group, because again, you're getting one view, and then when you take that back to the other group, then they're in disagreement with what's transpiring.

So we've had this back and forth that's going on.

I'm just saying, you know, we're gonna continue to go back and forth until we get the two groups to come to a decision in regards to what they want to see occur uh at the field or at the pool.

And until that occurs, until that occurs, we're gonna be sitting here spinning our wheels as we have done.

Well, i if that's the case to me, then this uh need to be postponed until that happens.

Then I'll I'll make that motion movie postponed temporary until they can get together and come up with an agreement that is fairly equitable and 70-30 is not equitable.

Again, you can say fairly equitable, but until we get both groups to agree, you're right, then we're not if they decide that it's not it, if they decide on something that's not to your liking, if we can get both groups to agree, then I think you're gonna have them come up to the podium and uh speak in favor of whatever move forward.

I I think in that motion, John, I mean, personally, I don't want them to come back to this organization to the city council.

You know, we have to have a contract that comes back.

Well, I know, but it just burns me up.

Yeah, we have to have a contract that comes back between the two organizations.

So I would say this would need to postpone definitely.

Definitely indefinitely agreement and positive agreement.

Okay, okay, not temporary.

Yes, you can definitely unindefinitely you can have discussion.

Uh you got I don't remember here wanna speak.

This but this is on the motion.

Remember our check and I would have discussion.

I indefinitely has got a priority.

I think there's no you second that yeah.

I believe we're gonna discuss it.

Second it louder.

I have a question.

If uh we went ahead and uh approved or amended this to be 50-50, then could that be subject to later being amended if the two groups are do we have to go ahead and have it approve a contract as a written so I don't have that contract written.

I'll write it, but I don't have it written today.

Okay, that was the question.

I was saying can't agree on one given figure.

That's what they'll have.

Let's not have discussion yet until we can figure out if we can have discussion.

I think it definitely can.

But it's gotta be regarding the motion.

Go for it.

So my my question regarding the motion to um postpone indefinitely is right now we have the jets swimming.

And I don't think SWAT is swimming in the understanding from administration is that's because they had a signed contract, and in the past, once people had a signed contract, we'd allowed that.

But if there's I I'll let administration speak to that.

Administration allowed that because of the signed contract.

I assume I want to assume I won't want y'all to tell me what happens if there's not a signed contract.

I would assume they don't swim.

I'll let administration speak to that.

Honestly, uh that is the basis of them being in the pool is that uh we thought they had come we had come to some agreement and there was a signed contract, and so we will need to revisit uh that process uh at but we will we'll we'll we'll dialogue with both teams uh and then we'll revisit that process for the because my understanding is and y'all can correct me if this isn't true, that I believe SWAT has another place to swim right now at the trim gym, maybe I believe both teams may have access to another place.

Now, whether it is large enough to facilitate them, might I'm speaking from the six-hour plus of meetings that I've been in over this, but my understanding is that SWAT uses Trim Gym and that Jet uses St.

Bernard's as far as an alternate swimming location.

No, I don't know if those facilities are big enough to facilitate what they need on a daily basis, but that's my understanding.

Well, they still be continu able to swim at the city pool or where you'll have to.

Yeah, that's something we'll revisit uh as a team, uh, and then we'll communicate that out to uh the various uh the various individuals.

I mean, there's no legal requirement that anybody have a contract, but we just that's the way we had done it in the past, was my understanding is once uh you'd signed off, then you used it.

But again, the ultimate we I don't think anybody wants to be in a position that we're punishing kids.

Right.

No, we don't because there's disagreement elsewhere.

So uh again, that is something that we will take a consider take into consideration uh as we you know initially not allowing anybody to swim was kind of I I'll say with hopefully uh some leverage to get everybody to the table uh to come to some type of conclusion.

Uh uh again, we we want to get this resolved, we want to give this resolved with the teams, uh, and in an effort to do that, uh we will revisit who, how, and what that looks like uh without uh some type of agreement in place.

Uh once we have that, we'll again we'll communicate it to the teams and we'll communicate it out to those of you uh on the council so that you are aware of what's transpiring there.

Right.

Does anybody else on the committee have any question or comment regarding the motion that is currently on the floor to postpone indefinitely?

And it really just it all came around what I wanted to say was really the contract, was what the the question was was on the table, and so I do agree with the um Dr.

Charles Coleman when he was talking about the 50-50.

Why is it even here?

And um, and my concern was with the contract, are we liable if they were using it and it hasn't gone through the process and all of that?

So that was the other question.

But uh, but I do hope that uh well, I guess it is a question, and I think Tony mentioned it.

Is there some kind of way they can just use the pool until we come up with an agreement?

And then go from there.

But that's all I public comment on this on the motion that's on the floor.

All right.

Is there anybody in the public that please that would like to comment?

Please state your name and address for the record and also keep it, keep your comments to the motion that's on the floor, which is to postpone indefinitely.

Thank you.

Uh Bryce Cook, 2915 North Culver House.

Um I'm here as the chairman of the board of the SWAT organization.

And I I will keep it to the motion because here's the reality.

They were swimming in the pool before they signed the contract.

They were swimming in the pool in April.

The heaters go down.

They're out of the pool because the heaters are down.

No one's in the pool.

And then they're back in the pool.

The administration allowed that.

And if you postpone it indefinitely, they're still going to be in the pool.

And we're going to be having to ask our summer swim families to swim indoors in a small facility at the trim gym and pay a membership to them on top of it.

Not out in the sunshine, where I swam when I was a kid.

And I have more comments generally on this policy.

Um and it I can keep it to the motion, but if if the motion doesn't pass, I'd like to be heard on the policy if it advances.

But we're my specific ask is do not postpone this indefinitely.

We're about June.

The contract's gonna change it has to be indefinitely because we'd be coming back with a different contract.

It's not that it means we're putting it off forever.

It just means that when it comes back, this it kills this approval of this contract.

Does that make sense?

It does, and and frankly, I say have zero confidence in the administration to reach a contract.

We made numerous concessions in this process.

We have done everything in our power to ignore the fairness of it, to understand that this was conceived in darkness with no accountable person that's willing to stand up and say, you know, I woke up one day and said we need to reallocate swim lanes.

That's not what happened.

Well, we learned today that that there was a meeting of three people that did it.

The parks director, the city attorney, and councilman Chris Gibson.

It's incorrect.

It's incorrect.

This is the information we got.

I know Carol.

She does not care about the policies.

That is not her job, right?

She said, I draft contracts, I don't make policy.

I believe that.

Mr.

Searns disclaimed ownership.

I don't know where this came from when we're presented with it on March 5th.

You need to talk to Carol, she wrote it.

Then we find out the meeting, Councilman Chris Gibson brought these concerns forward.

He's the chair of the public services committee.

We learned and self-identifies as councilman, committee chair, and Jet's parent.

In writing, I sent an information out to you today.

I hope everybody had a chance to review it.

Y'all have a code of ethics.

But we have the code of ethics that if you have a cell an interest, a fam family interest, anything in any discussion proposal that goes on, you can't participate at any level.

Instead, we're hearing, well, his involvement wasn't that big.

He was involved.

We have those rules, so we don't have to question you guys about your motives and intentions and level of involvement.

But here we are.

The administration seems to want to lay at our feet.

Here's how we learned about that debate.

We'd had a counterproposal to a contract.

Friday, he says, we'll get you an answer on Monday.

The opposing team makes a Facebook post saying there is a special meeting called for Tuesday to debate swim lanes.

All of our parents show up, which was confusing because Ms.

Leggetty confirmed earlier in the day, the next public service committee meeting was in June or July.

Well, I got I gotta limit you somewhere.

So please gotta wrap it up.

Yeah, as far as the motion goes.

Was my teacher, one of my favorite ones.

Great guy.

Great guy.

I believe sincerely in it.

The time to have Kumbaya was in February.

The time to make it clear and transparent was in February.

There was time to fix it from March until today.

So it was doubling down, doubling down.

So frankly, I don't think us, the public or anyone can have any confidence that the administration is going to solve this problem.

They've already had every opportunity to do it.

Now when it's in public, all of a sudden, no, we can get this fixed.

Sorry, I don't believe.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a comment about special called meetings.

Um the rules are that they have whoever calls the special called meeting has to give it notice of three hours.

By law, we only have to give a notice of two hours.

I came in on the they called it on a Friday night.

I came in on Saturday and got that notice out.

I mean, if I could respond very briefly to that, I don't think that's I have a question.

Uh can our question what do you ask?

Just this needs to be all based upon the motion to postpone indefinitely.

We don't need to get outside that that motion or we're gonna be opening up forever or so.

Is there anybody else in the audience like to make them for a moment?

Yeah, please give it to the motion.

Sarah Beth Cook, 2915 North Culver House, and I'll tell you I'm not qualified to know whether I'm about to speak to the motion, and so you can just tell me that that's not related.

But what I'm hearing on this motion is is that we need to table this so that we can go back and get both sides at the table to talk about the contract.

I met with Mr.

Richardson and Mr.

Stearns today.

I had a good meeting with them, and what I would offer to you is historically that's exactly how the swim contract was presented to both teams.

That the parks director would sit down, he'd have an equal allocation of lanes and the heating costs, he would sit down with both, either the board or the or the coach in the same room.

He'd pass it to them and he'd say, if you want in the pool, sign it.

And so from the beginning, my question as a parent of a swimmer to swimmers on SWAT is why did that not happen?

I know I'm probably getting away from the motion, but my concern is if there is a motion to table this, when are my kids gonna get in the pool?

Because since this started, I've called every single person on the council, or I've emailed them or I've texted them, and I certainly appreciate all of your time.

I understand what your function is, it's to either approve or not approve this this contract.

You guys are not dictating policy, but from a mom's standpoint, I'll tell you who it feels like is dictating this policy, the jets.

Okay, because when we find out they're in the pool, we go by and my 12-year goes, whoa, they're breaking the rules, and it does appear that way.

It appears that that's the case if we have a contract that no one can really agree on that they've signed, but you guys haven't approved, and what's more the contract that's been presented to us, we absolutely can't sign because we don't even know how that's gonna allocate the lanes, even if our conteam continues to grow.

If people say, hey, I'm ready to turn my account back on, it's June, we're done with soccer, we're ready to get back in the pool.

Um, even if we continue to grow and they add more, we could still end up with two lanes.

So I would I would offer to you that that three is not is not a viable solution, and surely two and one are not.

Absolutely not.

So I'm sorry if I diverge.

I think you just expressed why you would not like to see this table.

I don't want this tabled.

Yeah, I would like I would what I have asked.

I have brief remarks that I was ready to read, but what I was going to ask at the end is just to say, please just go back to the arrangement that we've had in 22, 23, 24, and 25.

Because, you know, I think I think Will would get up here and tell you right now, there have been times that the Jets have come to him and said, you know what, we had a few more people show up to practice.

Can we have one of those lanes?

And he would say, definitely you can.

So I'm telling you that I don't think it is a good idea to weaponize the city on behalf of, you know, I'm not saying anybody, everybody on that team.

I'm saying there are a few people who feel very strongly that our team maybe shouldn't have lanes.

And I don't think that using public resources is a way to limit our ability to be in the pool, my kids' ability to prepare for these swimming because we have two clubs who are doing awesome, who go throughout the state.

They travel to Tennessee and Mississippi, and everywhere they go, they can say we represent the city of Jonesboro.

And both of those teams and all of those children should have the opportunity to do that.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

What's stopping them from getting in the pool?

They don't have a contract, they agree to.

I'm just gonna say that administratively one more time that the only issue before this committee right now is to approve a Jets contract or not approve a jets contract.

Now it's too it's too and and the motion that is there is to postpone indefinitely.

And while I know that sounds scary and procedurally scary, postponing indefinitely kills that contract, like arguing for us not to postpone indefinitely is arguing to keep the jets contract alive and allow this committee to vote on it procedurally.

So I don't think that's really what y'all are trying to do.

Um that's all I'm gonna say procedurally.

I'm gonna call for a vote on the motion.

So I'm still asking what's that's administration's decision on who uses the pool.

Yeah.

I'm still asking what's stopping it from getting the pool.

They still be able to get the pool.

After this, we'll have a vote.

And Bryce was an amazing student.

Uh I I would add.

Uh at this particular point, uh, Dr.

Coleman.

Uh, again, we we didn't allow anyone in the pool until we thought we were moving forward with agreement between the two teams uh as far as a contract.

Hold it.

Let me ask it this way.

If we stop this contract, they'll still they will be able to get in the pool now.

I I again I that is a decision that I think we'll have to have some discussions about as an administration.

Uh and right now there's only one team and one team was allowed to return to the pool.

Uh what has it been a week, Jim?

Has it been a week or just about a week ago?

Yeah, we've had one team that was allowed just returned to the to the pool.

Now, and again, if the two teams will sit down, I've heard different days.

We went through that.

They didn't want to do different no that that polls challenges.

Then we heard, you know, we've gone through just about all of the scenarios that are being discussed.

And so again, I'm putting the onus upon I administration is not going to negotiate this contract.

All right.

I'm I want you all to understand Mr.

Thomas.

Will you please direct your comments to administration?

I I just heard that come in a minute ago that there's no confidence in administration uh to negotiate the contract.

Administration is not negotiating the contract.

I mean administration will move forward what the swim teams agree to.

Okay.

That's true, Ms.

Thomas, but I'm still asking.

When can they get in the pool?

Can they get in the pool?

That is not a decision.

I am in a position to make does Jim have that make the decision?

That is that has been at a that's been a team effort with input for um uh a number of individuals.

And so we will work with both coaches.

We will work with um as an administration we'll work with both coaches to ensure uh that kids are not penalized because of the lack of agreement at this point uh between the two teams.

Yeah, please do that.

And I and again, I can I'll communicate that to you as quickly as that decision uh is made.

Uh I don't uh we want to see kids win.

We want to see both programs grow.

We want to see both programs prosper, but we also want to see agreement in regards to a contract uh from both entities.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we need to do a voice vote or uh okay?

So please record a yay is to table.

A nay is to not table, correct?

Just so we're clear.

So please cast your ballot on whether or not to table resolution 26059 indefinitely.

This resolution is tabled.

All right.

I have a question.

If uh two teams they are able to uh come to a decision, would it be possible for us to have a special call meeting to I have no issue with that?

So that we could hurry it up.

Yep.

I I think I would be willing to attend such a meeting.

All right.

Yes.

I I would definitely can Jim come to the poll and okay, but we're no longer on that item.

Um I don't think it's about that item.

But we can't make any we can't make any of that decision right now because we have nothing to vote on.

So you say Jim can't talk to us about well, I can't.

I mean, I'm just saying we're not on that item anymore.

I I have no issue personally.

I just I'm just talking procedurally.

Why don't why don't we do the next item of business and bring it up in other business, other business or public?

Well, we can bring back up another business.

All right.

All right.

Sorry to be so as I said, we've never dealt with this before, so it's I mean, at least I haven't.

Um we're going to pending items now.

Um this is resolution 26044.

I'm just gonna read this by title only because it's already been read once by Mr.

Emerson.

Um 26044, a resolution of the city of Jones for Arkansas authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with the North Jonesville Community Development Corporation to lease space at 911 Magnolia Road.

Move forward full council.

Second.

Motion saved forward full counsel.

Any questions or comments from the committee?

Anything from staff?

Anything from the public in attendance on resolution 2604.

Right.

Seeing none, please record your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 2604 to full counsel.

That will go to full council.

Now we move to other business.

Um Mr.

Stearns, would you please come to the podium?

My question, same question.

When will they be getting the pool?

When will they get in the pool?

Yeah.

Uh uh I'm gonna assume we all come to an agreement.

Okay, I guess my question is what agreement?

Because we just table uh an issue about well without an agreement.

There's no contract with without an agreement.

I would assume we're not gonna be swimming.

Was that again?

Without an agreement, I assume we're not gonna be swimming until we can come to an agreement.

So that means both teams would not be that is correct.

Can I ask the question in this way?

Um hopefully we can quickly come to something that they're both teams are able to continue swimming.

I I see where you're coming from, but as we said, hopefully both teams can work something out.

I know 7-3 may not work, maybe 6-4 will.

Um but maybe you know they agree upon 5-5 and they have some sort of you know, dialogue to where you know, as as was mentioned earlier, if one team doesn't has more swimmers and other team doesn't need a lane, they can share a lane or do something like that.

But I mean I th I think the bottom line is we want the kids to be able to swim.

Agree.

We want the teams to be able to work out an agreement, and we need cooperation between the teams because uh excuse me for cutting you off, and I you're doing a good job at the uh my point was for him to get make, I want to hear him say that so it could be on record because if the other people are going in the pool, it's gonna cause him a problem.

Personally, I think, you know, and and for one team to go into the pool and another pool, other team not going into the pool.

I think that would be totally unfair.

Oh, can I yeah, go ahead.

So that's not so much even putting him on the spot, it just needs to be said and put on record.

I agree with you, Dr.

Coleman, and so I want to ask it in this way.

Since there has been a contract in the past that both have complied to is it possible?

I don't know if it's your question or Carol question or whoever.

Is it possible using the the agreements or the contracts that were made in the past?

Can we do that until I don't know when they're gonna come together or not?

But until then, I'm asking, is it possible that those two entities can use a facility until that time comes when they come together based on the former contracts?

Certainly.

So in that sense, those contracts expired some time ago.

Now that's not to say I also have said before, and I'll say again, I don't know that legally you're not required to have a contract to swim in our pool.

We can let people, I mean, we have daycares in schools that bring kids to our pool, and I'm not aware of any contract with any of them on which days they come.

We just work it out with them.

We want kids to swim, right?

And we allow them to bring their daycares or their after school programs or whatever they have in the summer on certain days to come swim in our pools.

So you're not required to have a contract to swim in our pools.

So legally, couldn't we do, and it's just a suggestion.

Uh I'm just using arbitrary number, 21 days.

They can use it, but then they have to come together within these 21 days based on the former agreements.

It's a verbal agreement, they can use it for this number of time, and they have to come together with this or before coming to us with a new I don't want to put words in Tony's mouth, but I think that's what he was trying to say.

Yeah.

Is that we want people to swim and we'll sit down and try to do that?

I think 21 days is entirely too long.

I mean, I hopefully they can come up with it to an agreement that by net in a week.

I just want the kids to swim.

That's me too.

Why do you sit so far back?

Right.

I mean, there's there's an extra chair at that table.

Try not to come up here with other people.

Yes.

You want your steps.

I'll say we want kids to swim, and what we do for one, we will do for the other.

So that's that's a no, that's a non-issue.

Uh we want kids in the pool.

It may not be what they want, but we will have opportunities uh to get kids in pools for both until there's an agreement uh that's worked out.

Uh I I also think that's uh no, I call it effort in the room, and maybe I'm I'm not hearing something through my hearing aid.

This this uh this heater type thing.

So you tell me that the disapportion, one is paying one price and one paying another price.

Nobody's paying any price right now.

Is that again?

Nobody's paying any price right now because that wasn't that won't happen until fall.

Okay, it's a thought.

But even when that happens with whatever contract happens, then why aren't they still paying spitting the I I think if you go back to the thought process that was related to that is you don't heat four lanes in a pool.

You don't heat six lanes in a pool, you heat a pool.

So regardless of how many lanes were debated among each group, you have to heat the pool.

All right, and so if if we could break out costs, you know, if you could break out costs that way, it would be fine.

But that was just a thought process behind that is that you had to heat all of the pool, regardless of who was using it, how many lanes were being used, the entire pool had to be heated.

Uh therefore the cost I didn't know I'm that's why I decided to be.

Yes, sir.

That's why I yes, sir.

Yeah, that regardless, that's why the costs were split equally, because you heat it all at one time, uh, or you can't break it down uh by by laying it.

So even if even if SWAT was not in the pool that day, I have to heat the entire pool.

I know the city's pretty rich right now.

Why we have to do that?

What's in your question?

Why they why why they haven't closed that that that pool?

Yeah, but I appreciate you guys, I appreciate all of you today and your thought processes.

I just want you to know kids are gonna swim.

We're gonna work with kids and with with groups to ensure that kids swim.

Uh, and again, we're putting the onus upon the two teams in order to come up with a solution that they can both live with and then move that forward to administration.

You're absolutely correct.

When we get in the middle of it, because we don't know how swimming works, we don't know what it takes uh in order to run a practice.

We don't know, but there are professionals who know that who have to use that expertise to come up with the best solution that they can live with, and we'll gladly move that forward to you all as a body.

I I just want to leave Steve Patti uh uh statement that uh we need to line out to enclose that pool.

Maybe not that particular pool, maybe that location.

Okay.

All right.

Uh do you have something else?

No, okay.

All right.

Is there any other business from the committee today?

Only thing um I had was question when we will see or when the um for the bank deposit for the deposits.

We are working on a schedule for bids to be returned on June 24th.

Thank you.

All right.

I had a question about the impact fee.

Uh the firm that is working on the study for that.

I think Brian, you had said that you and Daryl had contacted them, and there's you're waiting for to hear from them.

Sure.

Um Daryl's been in pretty consistent contact with them trying to kind of push this along.

Um it's a process that was supposed to have taken, I don't know, eight months, then that stretch out obviously past that nine months.

Um, and the last communication with them last week was they requested I think the square footage of one of our public works facilities.

Don't know why.

Um, but that's that's what they requested.

But they've we've asked them to get us a date where they can bring the committee back together that was recently reappointed, present what those look like, and see if it's something we even want to continue pursuing.

I mean, it's not gonna be the windfall that everybody would hope for, but I don't think anybody was under the anticipation that it would be.

But um so Darrell is out today, but I will have him email the the group again and see exactly where they're on the process because I am ready to get that presented so we can either move on or decide to just table it.

Yeah, I've gotten some calls, questions about it.

Yeah, I said I would thankfully we have a very active committee that is very engaged with that.

Um it's not a fun thing to talk about, but uh yeah, as soon as soon as we can get that information back, we'll we'll bring it forward.

All right, thanks a lot.

Thanks.

All right, anything else from the committee?

All right, we'll move into public comments.

This gives the public a chance to comment on something that has not already been discussed today.

Anybody have a public comment?

If not, next items adjournment.

So second.

All favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

We send adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.