City Council - Regular Meeting

Oh yeah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

Good evening everyone. Happy new year. It's our first meeting of 2026. Uh we begin each council meeting with a word of prayer and uh the pledge of allegiance. Uh tonight I would like to uh reme remember the families of Captain Dicky Forner who retired from the Conway Fire Department who passed away last week and Pam Sweeney who retired from the Conway Police Department. Her her son Timothy passed away recently. So uh Mr. Hawks, could I ask you to open with a prayer, please?

Father, I thank you today. I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I thank you for this wonderful city that you blessed us with. Pray that you be uh with us this evening. keep your hand on this meeting and guide it. Father, we pray for those friends of ours that uh have lost loved ones. And Father, we pray that you be with those families and you be with this community and comfort those um who are hurting, Father, as only you can. Father, I pray again that you be with this meeting tonight. We pray all this in your son's name. Amen. Amen. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now call this meeting to order. Missurd. Mr. Hawkins here. Mr. Grimes here. Mr. Spers here. Miss Mill here. Mr. Le Better here. Mr. Hawks here. Mr. Jones here. Missby here. All right. You should have received the minutes from the December 9th, 2025 city council minutes meeting. Any corrections, comments, or changes? Make a motion for approval as submitted. Second. Have a motion and second that the December 9th minutes be approved. Any further conversation comments? I'm sorry. All in favor say I.

Any oppose? Pass. Uh we were supposed to we thought uh we were going to recognize the 2025 state volleyball champions Conway High School girls tonight. That's actually going to be on January 27th. So with that, we'll move right into community community development. And Mr. Hawkins, sir, I will turn this over to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First item on this agenda is consideration to approve waving the three readings for the ordinances on tonight's agenda. There will be five ordinances to be read. I'd like to have a motion. Second. Have a motion and a second to approve the waving of the three readings for tonight's council meeting. Five items on the January 13th agenda. Any other discussion?

Missurd. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Passes eight to zero. Mr. Hawkins. Next item, Mr. Mayor, is a resolution to approve the organizational rules and procedures for the city of Conway in fiscal year 2026. And for this we have a resolution and it's R26001. It's probably the last time I won't ask you for the resolution.

And this is the annual rules and procedures for those of you at home that we were required to approve each year. The only change was adding how the council would handle items that will be held in committee. And that suggestion came directly from Mr. Finenbinder. Would you like to explain so the folks at home kind of know what we're doing here? Mr. just to tighten up the procedure and lay it out very clearly what happens when something's laid on the table. For example,

the only I guess idea that came to mind when I was reading this over is do we need to and I guess I'll I'll look at our city [clears throat] attorney um to make sure because it it sort of says it in here and I did have a chance to talk with the chief of staff a little bit today about it. um making sure that the agenda goes to the city attorney's office before we get it so that it's been checked against new state laws or new ch you know because we have a number of things on here that are new changes that we have to implement. Um and as I was talking I said look I don't I don't mean to slow anything down. I'm not trying to add work to anybody but is is that something that would be useful and helpful? So, like I said, it's kind of sort of implied and I think there's a number of internal policies where pieces of it happen that way or do we need to codify it in this document? So, Charles, I'll kind of What do you think?

But would give me more to do. So, I I'm probably not the best one to ask. [laughter] Well, but I mean I think one of the key responsibilities of the city attorney's office is, you know, to protect the city obviously. Absolutely. In every case. Um, and so, you know, like I said, I don't want to add to it. I think, um, the chief of staff said that she could probably, I guess previously, it had always been emailed out to all department heads, including the city attorney, on Tuesdays,

before we would have gotten it on Friday. And so, she said that would be a simple way. And again, I don't know that we need to put it in here, but maybe we just try that. I just wanted to bring that up for consideration because I think that would be a a useful check if there's anything complicated or I would agree with that. It it probably will save us but maybe from tableling some Yeah. Like Charles had a chance to at least and and have it you know again I I don't want to slow down the processes but well to your point we had more than one thing last year where it was like okay if his staff had had ample time we may have avoided some issues. So yeah, I'm with you.

Yeah, that we we can handle it on our end and we'll work with Charles to get it worked out. Great. Thank you, council. Back to you.

Just once again, I'll note on page two in the middle, business shall be conducted by Robert's rules of order. However, is to be understood that parliamentary procedure is not the goal. The goal is the respectful conduct of business and equitable order. And so we use it loosely. If we miss a here or therefore or some other claw, it's um we're just trying to keep it orderly and peaceful. Robert's rules of order would dictate that the chair recognizes Alderman Grimes. I'm a Chief Lead Better and I back when we weren't fire department, everything was a 10 code and then when fire service went to clear text dialect, it made life so much easier. So if if y'all are okay with the way we do business here,

we've done it that way forever and just better. [laughter] That's that's the goal, not form of procedure. I agree with you 100%. Remember, I can understand years ago, Tab and Sandy like to uh debate the procedure part of it more than the [laughter] uh more than the item sometimes. Let's not talk about late. [laughter] Yeah. So, council's back to you. Uh the only addition will be what uh what the city attorney added here for items that will be tabled and then my office will work with Mr. Pinkin Minder's office to uh see that he gets the agendas. I mean yeah the items clearly before the meeting.

Yeah. Really if if I can just get it for a couple days before that gives me it should give me plenty of time in between court to go over the ordinances and catch anything. You said that I think it used to be on Tuesday that they would send everything to him and then late Tuesday and then they typically send it to us late Friday so that we get Okay, that'd be great. Yeah. Council, I'll take a motion. I'll make a motion for the adoption of the resolution. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve this resolution uh or approving the organiz organizational rules and procedures for the city of Conway. Any further discussion? It's heard. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed. This

is eight to zero. Mr. Hawkins. Next item, Mr. Mayor, is consideration to approve a nomination for the Oak Grove Cemetery Board. Uh we have been forwarded the name of Courtney Grady uh for a partial term that will expire on December 31st of 2026. And I move that we uh grant this uh u approval. I'll second that. Have a motion and a second to approve the nomination of Courtney Grady for a one-year term. Any further discussion? Miss Herd. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Passes eight to zero. Mr. Hawkins.

Next item, Mr. Mayor, is resolution to approve the 2026 transportation contracts for the city of Conway. And we have three contracts to award this evening. And I don't know whether we have anybody wants to talk about them or not. They are the $30,000 independent living services uh contract, the $80,000 Boys and Girls contract uh Boys and Girls Club of Faulner County contract, and the $92,000 Faulner County Council on the Aging contract. And those are the three contracts that are herein listed. And uh I move that we u accept this resolution.

Second. Council, before we move on, just so the folks at home know, this is there's no increase for fiscal year 2026 and this funding is from the transportation alternative transportation funding. So, we would like to thank these agencies actually for for helping us pick up on transportation around Conway. Have a motion and a second to approve this resolution for our transportation services. Any further discussion? I just want it to be noted that I am definitely in favor of these three things. Um, I do think that providing transportation for our residents and our citizens is important, but I will be abstaining. And the only reason for doing that is because I serve on one of these boards. Thank you, Mr. Izman.

Mhm. No, I don't write this short. It's heard. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Passes seven to zero with one abstension. and uh council, we will be giving you an update shortly on the uh Conway Metro. We're going to have to make some tough decisions. We've we've had our We've got two buses running. We have two brand new buses waiting to run. Our problem is with the contracts that they have to work with in Little Rock funneling down to Conway. So there we may as a city, we may need to look at another agency uh so that we can get that up and running. our wait times. It's a great service, but right now our wait times are averaging 40 minutes and that's too long. So, uh, one thing that might help us is establish hard routes. But that again, we'll be bringing that to y'all in the near future. Figure out what you want to do with it.

Mr. Hawkins,

excited, Mr. Mayor, is a resolution in support of reviving the federal surplus property program administered by the state of Arkansas. And we have a resolution to be read for this item. It's resolution R263. For the folks at home may not be aware, the federal surplus I'm going to read this. The federal surplus property program has come to an end. The Arkansas Municipal League in conjunction with many cities in Arkansas have asked for cities to support reviving this program. Conway has certainly used this program and it has beneficial. It has benefited us tremendously in the past. So, uh, we're asking that we support this resolution for the federal surplus property program administered by the state.

I'll make a motion for adoption of that resolution. Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt this resolution. Any further discussion? That that program has been used for many years. Yes, it has. Thank you, Mr. Le Better. Miss all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? has say we made a few trips down there, didn't we? Mr. Hawkins.

Next item, Mr. Mayor, is an ordinance to approve a private club permit location for Quality Foods LLC, DBA, the Purple Cow Restaurant, located at 1055 Steel Street. And uh this was reviewed by the planning commission. And Miss Tucker, can you tell us about that? Yes, please. This is for say planning. This is This is for private club. I'm sorry. We've been We have We've been gone too long. Long too long. We do have a representative of Purple Cow here, Mr. Hawkins. [laughter]

Ann was going to come tell us about a purple vanilla milkshake and how much she likes it. I know, right? You should have brought some. Um, so obviously all of our locations we serve liquor, beer, wine. We do adult shakes, mimosas, bloody marys, nothing outrageous. It totals usually around 1% of our total sales in alcohol. So, it's not a lot, but we do run into this location people traveling from the northwest part of the state or other areas and they come through and they don't get the same experience. So, we were hoping to continue on and have a a menu the same as we do at our other locations. Good. Thank you. Any questions?

Any questions about what we do? How long is it going to take for y'all? How long will it take for what? Ask for y'all to start serving. We It will depend on the state, but obviously if they approve it, then we're ready to go. It's It's no big adoption of a new menu. They just take on Conway would take on the menu from the other locations. So, it would happen pretty quickly. The key word that was adult shakes. Yeah. A little bit [laughter] of a long time ago. I understand, Mr. Jones. Council, back to you. I'll make a motion for the adoption of this ordinance 02601.

Second. Have a motion and a second to approve uh the ordinance for a private permit location for the Purple Cow at 1055 Steel Avenue. Any further discussion? One question. Given that we just approved entertainment district for the village, will they automatically be included in that or will they have to is there a any kind of procedure they have to follow to be able to participate participate in that? I'd have to look at the way the district was set up in this to see how that would how that would interplay. They're right across the street from it. I was thinking that they pictured that the last time. Yeah, when we talking about the other. Yeah, I could be wrong. We will get a definite answer for that. Good opportunity.

Be a good question to ask me on a Tuesday. [laughter] I'll start asking you questions on Tuesday. Missurd. Mr. Le Better. Yes. Mr. Spurgers. Hi. Mr. Hawkins. Yes. Miss Issby. Yes. Miss Mill. Hi. Mr. Grimes. Hi. Mr. Hawks. Yes. Mr. Jones. Yes. That passes eight to zero. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Item, Mr. Mayor is an ordinance to accept and adopt chapter 8.82 of the municipal code regarding the use and operation of monitored ecooters and scooter share programs within the city of Conway. And Miss Tucker, I jumped the gun on you.

That's okay. I I don't know that I can tell you a whole lot about these scooters either, but

let me let me read this. I've got something to read because I'll have to read. This is just for the council and the public tonight just to start the discussion on it. Um me I'm gonna have to read this too. This uh Okay. This is just an introduction of this ordinance. We would like to have the rules and regulations in place prior to this business opening up. The city attorney has reviewed the planning and development transportation and my department with Felicia has worked on this. Tonight we're just introducing the East Scooter Municipal Code and would like to have it back before the council on June 24th for the vote. This will give the public a chance to email and questions to city council agenda at conway arkansas.gov. And uh if the council decides to approve this, it would be effective March 1st, 2026. And then Hannah will have some things to add. I do know that already I've had had some calls from folks and I don't know how many of y'all went to us uh one year to Indianapolis uh and you would see these escooters laying on the sidewalks, laying on their trails and that is what we do not want to start here. So I think an may have a little bit of insight on that.

Well, we don't want that to get that started, but the state has passed a law that we cannot keep them out of our city. However, we can regulate them. So, uh, what Felicia and I did was kind of take, uh, bits and pieces of other ordinances from around the state and put together what what we thought was rather comprehensive. The one thing that is not included in this. We were still kind of discussing it um, is an age requirement. We talked about 16, we talked about 18. We never landed on where I imagine that the company that's coming in is going to have some sort of um, age restriction. We don't at this point know what that is, but if we want to do that as a city, we can we can put that in the ordinance as well.

Uh just a question, do you think that we need to contact the police and see what they think about these? I think that it might be a good idea. I can tell you that if they get a complaint about one laying somewhere, they can't be in crosswalks. Y'all, I'm sure y'all read through this. There's there's a lot of places that they're prohibited to be. Um, if they get a complaint, they have to they have to respond within two hours um to fix that. Other than that, I I don't really know what else to do. I They're going to get abandoned. It's It's just inevitable. It's going to happen. um if we can keep them out of crosswalks, off of sidewalks,

roundabouts and roundabouts and all of those things. But honestly, when you get to where you're going, that scooter is the last thing they're thinking about. Well, and I will say the question that I came up with simply because my grandchildren all got electric scooters for Christmas is this is through a company, but do we need to look at that for other people in the city that have privatelyowned scooters and how that affects them when it's not through this company.

Right. And and I I don't know what the traffic laws are regarding scooters. That's something I'd have to ask Mr. But, um, at the very least, I would think that they would have to that we would need to adopt what we've got in here. That's way over on the right side of the road, you know, where they can and and things like that, but it's probably not a bad idea to include that in our traffic law. Yes, I think we need to whether it's a ride share or any scooter. Mhm. I got to tell you, I was going home the other night and I go down Markham to to go home and there was a guy I had to look twice. He was on a scooter and had a guy on his shoulders [laughter] driving down Markham Street.

You know better than me. Oh, [laughter] it it concerned me, I have to say. Right. Yeah. Will these things be licensed for road use? Um I I would say not. Don't think that they have to be according to state law. Now, they'll they'll have GPS's on each one of them. I mean, they'll they'll have a way to track them and know where they're they are

and they'll each they'll have to be permitted. I believe it's $150 for the for the company to have a permit and $20 for each scooter uh is what we have proposed. And will the company be responsible for getting these picked up wherever they're left and put back into uh Yes, they will go around they'll go around every night and and pick them up and and set them back into charge. Thank you. Right now, Mr. Frankenbider and I were talking about this. You can ride them on sidewalks except in downtown. So, that's something we

Well, there's there's some word wording in there about them being on trails and and some things like that. They're not. They're kind of prohibited where bike and pedestrian trails are. Now, are they going to go down Tucker Creek Trail? You betcha. But again, that's a traffic violation, I'm sure. Will there be a ticket or something for that? Fine. Cuz if we don't set some kind of rules, that's just saying you can't do it won't work. I'm just saying. I don't know what Yeah, we got some questions we're gonna have to answer. That's another good one. Yeah.

Uh really all we want to do tonight is uh just hold this in committee and then we'll if y'all will get your questions to us or Mr. Finen or we'll get them PD. But this the folks that are watching on TV and out in the crowd here, you can email any questions to council agenda at conway arkansas.gov or you can call our office. But uh there there are a lot of questions we have to to answer but as as an said by law they can do this in Conway. So I would just add that while there are some questions and we right let's don't overthink this and overregulate it. I mean it works. You go to Fateville you see them everywhere. It works. I mean let's let's you know let's just don't

kill it before it starts. That is one thing that is in here. They can't be on any of the college campuses or any private property without express permission. So that would I don't I don't have any idea what this company's doing, but I would think they'd want to coordinate with the colleges, but that's on them. But you let's don't over don't over No, I don't think we'll overregulate it. But we just the main thing is just for them not to lay around. Other than that, I don't see see a big issue with any of it. And if they're going to pick them up within two hours, if they get a call, otherwise they're going to pick them up at night if they get a call about one laying around on Front Street. I guess they have trackers on them. Yes, they do. They have GPS trackers.

Okay. So, to a thought and a question, I mean, the thought to Mr. Grimes point about not over regulating this is and to piggy back on your thought earlier, like this is another option for equitable access to transportation, right? If it gets people from point to point be quicker, that's great. We just want to make sure that we're not allowing anything to, you know, create junk that we can't avoid. And I'm real fuzzy on the timeline you mentioned, Mr. Mayor. You said something about March and something about January. We we're going to try to get it back uh to the council January. Yeah. In January. We can we can bump that back, but there I think their goal is is for our ordinance to be effective March 1st. So, we do have some time in between, but we will get uh get your questions before the police chief and the city attorney.

He did say he did say June about Thank you. January, we have we have to overlook him sometimes. Yeah, I think he meant I got you back. See? Yeah. [laughter] You really want to go there? Touche. Touche. He He talked bad to me in the department head meeting yesterday. I did. Okay, [laughter] that's fair. So, you're not looking for any action on this tonight? Right. Okay. Um and at what point will we open this up for public comment? Uh the public can start sending their questions in now to uh council agenda at conway arkansas.gov or call my office directly or or call Miss Tucker's office. Okay. A question on that. Will there be

We can have another conversation about this. We don't ha I mean it doesn't have to be voted on at the next meeting. If if we get an influx and we find out that there's there needs to be a larger conversation, we can bring it back the next one for more discussion. Uh just because we've already gotten calls and comment about this, I think the question still stands for me of like is there a point that we're going to hear, not that I'm o overly interested in scooters, but is there a point that we'll hear public comment or have a opportunity for public comment here or will will your staff do something that we that planning used to do with us on planning commission and compile all of it and send it to us where we can read it all beforehand

because we don't see what goes to but um but I would expect that she would probably do something like that and again have another discussion if it if it turns out that we get a lot of input and stuff. I would imagine that she would, but whenever it's put on the agenda, is it a public hearing item? Can the public We can actually have this in a committee meeting with with public input because I not only there will be a large number of young folks that are very supportive of this, right? Yeah. And and I mean, I'm fine with it being during a council meeting. There be a separate committee. I just we don't see the feedback that goes to the council agenda email address. And if there is a large amount of feedback with us, I'd just like to know what it is.

Yeah. No, we we'll be sure and get there by and just depending on how much interest it does generate, then we can go from there. Yeah. Thank you, Miss Tucker. You're welcome. I've learned a little more about e scooters this week. I've learned a lot, too. I'm sorry about what I'm sorry about what I said in the department head meeting. That's all right. I'm over it. Not really. Not really. Will we attach um ordinance number two to this or not? Wait until it's I was going to say thank you very much. Just wanted to check on that. Okay.

All right. I will take a motion to hold this item in committee and we can talk about it again on January 24th. So move. Have a motion, a second to hold this in committee until January 24th. Any further discussion? [laughter] Miss Herd. All in favor say I. Any opposed? This is eight to zero. Mr. Hawkins, final item here, Mr. Mayor, is an ordinance to reszone property located at 3910 and 3920 Tyler Street. Currently, it's zoned A1. The requested zoning is R2. And Miss Tucker, would you uh bring us up to speed on this?

Yes, sir. the intent of the applicant to reszone this parcel of land from A1 to R2 for residential development. Um there will be some development constraints due to the narrowness of the property, the new termination of Penny Street and the construction of a bridge at the existing Penny Street termination into the property from the north. Um he's not going to get it quite as many duplexes as he originally. We did have a lot of community input on this. um the HOA of St. John's, the the president of the HOA met with the neighbors and met with Mr. Orur and he was very accommodating and got um got all of their their concerns um worked out. I guess worked out is what I'll say. But anyway, um he's he's been very accommodating and He's not here tonight. So, you can either table it. I know that you like for the applicant to be here to hear it, but I'll leave that up to council. It did pass unanimously at the last planning commission meeting, too.

Approved. Approved. Yes. Seven to zero is what it says. Be good. Mhm. So that would you like to table it to the next one? I'm I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't know. Yes. Is there anyone here though who would like to speak about that who came for that and wants to speak they're closing it off and building a little bridge over it uh from Penny into the development, but it's they're closing that straight off. Right. Yeah, we

I'll make a motion that we table it. Second. Have a motion and second that we table this item uh until the next city council meeting in January. Any further discussion? Missurd. Favor say I opposed. This is 8 to zero. Thank you, Mer. Thank you, Miss Tucker. You will reach out to the applicant to Um, and normally we nudge them and remind them to be here, but thank you. Council, let's go back to the purple cow. Uh, Felicia texted me this that yes, they will automatically be included in the entertainment district and they will be working with our office to obtain cups and wristbands. Cool. All right. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.

Sir. All right, councel. Next, we have the authorization of the approval of various positions within the city for fiscal year 2026 budget. Y'all already approved the budget. This is to work with our auditors and our finance department to make sure that we keep everything above board. It is six new firefighter positions, one groundskeeper and one administrative assistant, one in parks and wreck. Public works is one animal welfare kennel technician and one groundkeeper. And the community center is one full-time lifeguard. This is really just a bookkeeping item here, but need to bring it for the council. Motion for the adoption of the ordinance. Second.

Have a motion and a second to approve this ordinance. How are these positions for fiscal year 2026? Any further discussion? Missurd 26. Mr. Hawks. Yes. Mr. Grimes. Hi. Yes. Yes. Hi, Mr. Spurs. Hi, Mr. Jones. Yes, Mr. Le Better. Yes. Pass is 8 to zero. Council, next up we have consideration to uh approve a settlement agreement for Tom Watson Construction Limited Liability Corporation V versus Jones. We have the Arkansas Municipal League here tonight and I'm going to let Mr. Finenbinder uh address this.

Okay. So, this was a the style of the case is Tom Watson construction versus the city of Conway. Um just a brief overview. This is a dispute over a retaining wall that was built in a development in Conway. It sub subsequently um to it being built suffered some damage. The dispute is what caused that damage. That's what led to the lawsuit. Um it was subsequently remanded or or removed not remanded removed to federal court and that's where it's pending right now. the municipal league um is representing the city in federal court and there were some additional allegations made which caused the removal um and that's where it it kind of stands right now and I believe that the the plaintiff in this case Tom Watson Construction made a settlement offer that would uniquely involve the city actually obtaining the property on which the wall is constructed.

Was the retaining wall built to code Uh I that's that's one of the issues in the lawsuit is whether it complied with city ordinance on walls and I that's yet to be correct. That's one of the issues in the lawsuit. In fact, one of the primary issues in the in the main part of the lawsuit is whether or not the wall was constructed in accordance with city ordinance. So, but our city ordinance says that an un approved unengineered wall can only be built by feet. And this was how tall? I think it was over eight. 16 feet.

16. I know that part of it fell. And sorry, I'm Mary Cathy. I'm litigation council from the municipal league. I stepped into this case a little late. Um, one of our attorneys left, but um, I picked up on it and the federal claims. I think the issue where I would recommend settlement is that the claims that the pliff has brought don't just include the property damage. They're alleging due process violations. They're also alleging um let me see due process um inverse condemnation basically that we took their land without paying for the property. And that's based on he can't do anything with the property because of this dispute. And so I do not think that the city did anything wrong. I mean, we've had discussions. It's document heavy, but my recommendation to the council is to accept it because we will get the property in exchange. It cuts off any potential damages. I am concerned about potential jury verdict because if the plaintiff wins on even one claim under the statute that he brought this case he would be able to get attorney's fees and that will cost us not and that's even excluding basic litigation cost. There will need to be experts and the plaintiff it does look like they will retain an expert. So in turn the city will have to retain an expert to rebut anything that their expert says. And so just the potential risk to the city, I do think this is a decent proposal. It was appraised in June and August of 2025 for $70,000. The pliff is asking for $71,000. This includes any attorney's fees. That's between him and his attorney. So the 71 that the city would pay in exchange, we get the deed and the assigned settlement release.

Yeah. And so [clears throat] to explain further the inverse condemnation when a when a city government state government acquires property it does so through the condemnation process essentially condemns the property which is sort of an unfortunate word because condemn has a meaning that um normal people understand and lawyers have to muddy things up. In any event, inverse condemnation is when some activity or action by the government either regulatory or otherwise renders the private property unusable. [clears throat] And so it in a sense it's condemnation by by fact rather than action if that makes sense. In this case the allegation is and I won't comment on what I think of the allegation because litigation is still pending. The [clears throat] allegation by the property owner is that the inverse condemnation happened due to a water leak at the city fire station located on the hill above directly above the property. And so the allegation uh that by the property owner is that this water leak from city-owned property is what caused the damage and made the property unusable for its its purpose which is real estate which is single family house

caused the wall to fall. So, and that's all in dispute. All that was not built according to code. Okay. That's that's part of the city's answer to the initial lawsuit um part. [clears throat] So,

now the only issue is they trial is set for May of 2026. The pliff has um a requested to extend the expert disclosure line and that um expires the first week of February. So, they will have to provide us a report. I will have to then, you know, get with Charles and find the city a report to rebut that and expert witnesses. I mean, it's an engineer, so I don't know how much that costs, but the risk assessment, I do think we get the property, we can the city can handle the wall, and then we also cut off any potential damages or future claims he may have. So, it is in that and the plaintiff has put us on a time limit just because that expert deadline. They do want this by the end of the month if possible. I can request additional time, but if y'all will let me know, it's just we're under that we're under the court's order now with trial being in May.

Okay. So, they want an an answer or the dollars of the settlement from us by the end of the month. They want the check and in exchange we get the deed. But we would have an option if we don't come to consensus on what we want to do. We would have an option to table this at this meeting, vote on it with the emergency clause at our next meeting and fund it before the end of January if that was something we wanted to do. Maybe we don't need to, but we would have that option. Yes, Mr. Bonder.

So, I think you'd be cutting it close. And and here's what I would say about um about this particular case is and I've been doing this for a while. Um it's very rare for it's it's not rare for city or state government to have to pay money in order to settle a lawsuit and walk away with nothing other than um a smaller bank account. This is one of those rare cases where the city the government would actually be acquiring the property for fair market value, which is what we do all the time. and the city could then do what whatever it wanted to do with the property, including sell it. Um, so it's in a way it's really a win-win. Um, when it comes to jury verdicts, I couldn't agree more. You really just can't tell. Um, there was a case recently in another city, I won't mention it, but they'll know if they're watching, where um, they were sued over an incident involving their police department. The jury cleared the police officers completely of any wrongdoing and gave the plaint of $35 million. Yes, that's exactly the look that I had. I read that.

Right. So, it's um it can get that way really quick. Hold on. So, the city was cleared of any wrongdoing and had to pay $35 million. Yes. The officer was cleared the shooting was justified, but then they still popped the jury popped the city basically the pockets um for that amount of money. It was recently overturned. So yeah, the city does not have to pay that. But I mean, it's lumbered. So that's the risk. And the city is still going to be out the legal fees for fighting all of that. Now, under Let me just believe provided coverage. Okay. Are we talking about a lot or are we talking about an acre? It's a lot. Lot 137 in the Robin Mer. Am I saying that correctly?

Robin subdivision. So this is a development between everyone's familiar where where Soul Food Cafe is. Yeah. In between that and South Salem, there's a that that big ridge that runs east to west right up against correct. And it is that

it is that ridge that that's one of the issues in the lawsuit. And what Miss Caffy's talking about is this is the type of lawsuit where hydraologists are going to be necessary. So the city's going to have to pay to retain a hydraologist to determine the movement of the land and what actually is the approximate cause of the failure of the wall. Um and and that's sort of independent of the whether or not it was constructed per the ordinance. Although I believe that that's important as Cathy does too, but it's something that is very difficult for her to predict what what a jury is going to do with it. And along the way, it's going to the city would have to incur a lot of expense just to present a case.

Okay. I have a couple more questions. you this I if this were to go to trial, this isn't a case in which the municipal league would handle all the legal fees. We

right just the defense only, but according to the program's terms, land use cases, we do not provide um financial coverage for it. It's just defense only and that's with any land use case. Um I'm not sure the why, but that is um I do understand that about our program. So once the constitutional claims in claims came in, that's when um the city attorney's office submitted it to our office and then we handle potentially basic uh expenses on the case. So no overhead with, you know, we don't bill per hour. It's based on y'all's membership with the municipal league that I'm hearing. But any retaining of any expert witness, all the above, we'd be we'd be out for.

Correct. And so that is where my recommendation had this you know been a different case and the league had you know 9010 coverage then this may be a different discussion but because of the land use case and because trial is right up against us I do think this just kind of cuts off any potential damages and um Mr. thinking binder. We've talked I just I'm not too confident in jury verdicts. Right. Have a copy of the Yes, we do. Um I can email that. There were two different appraisals. We had one done. The pliff had one done. So that that's good. So are they both?

They're within range, of course. Theirs were theirs was 70. Ours was closer to 60. So not too bad off, but difficulty in the claims that they brought. I just I mean even if they pop the city on one claim and we win the other two, you know, they the land use claims, the inverse condemnation, I'm just worried the potential with the due process claim it's related to something with a permit. And I won't go into detail, but I am concerned that even one claim it's automatic attorney fees with you. I just want to know what we're buying. Yes. And so there was a wall retaining wall that has fallen down. Mhm.

We going to have to go back in there and repair the retaining wall. Is there is that affecting other properties? Are there things going on right now that you know we're going to have liability?

Yeah, the uh to answer your question, the failed retaining wall is still in place. It has not been addressed. That we would have to we would have to address that. on what that would be. Uh, I don't have a Jacob, do you have any idea? I mean, I'm assuming we would we just remove it or would

Well, we would have to the because the hillside has already been cut into, we would have to rebuild it in in some form. And we have a couple of different options. We could go back with a similar segmental block type retaining wall or we could go in with like gravity blocks and and and and uh restore it that way. But in order for that's that would be the simplest way to restore the lot at this point. Uh you can't really go back in and establish the the slope uh since it's already been excavated and it's it's clearly unstable. Been rebuilt. Is a lot sellable?

Absolutely. So the city could turn around and sell that we would sell it. So does the appraisal include the sorry jumping in but um does the appraisal consider for the reparation the wall to be repaired or does it uh so I mean we're going to be in the the lot plus a wall and then we're going to turn around and sell composite for a loss probably. I'm just saying because we got to repair the law wall and we're looking at $20,000 plus. That's a fair price. So um [laughter] you know so I mean you're in 90,000 will you put your mic down

and then we're going to sell it you know potentially at a loss because I don't know anybody's going to pay 90 grand for the loss for the lot. So, uh, which I mean is fine, especially if we're mitigating cost in other areas as well without an asset. I'm being told to use my mic. So, anyhow, I apologize people online. Restate that briefly.

Oh gosh. So, no, I I just want to make sure that, you know, when we take in account repairing the wall, which I'm ballparking, so don't quote me on this at home. 20 plus,000 to repair this wall plus $70,000. We're going to be in close to a hundred grand. We're not going to get that for the lot. That's just my crystal ball, I guess. And so, um, we just need to know if the expenses that we're mitigating are worth more than probably the $60,000. And I'll defer to council on that. So,

just the attorney, so say if we lose on one claim, the attorney's fees, this case was filed in 2024. So, they have been billing since 2024. Now, we're in federal court and they can I I don't even know what their going rate, but they are a large firm in downtown Little Rock. There's two attorneys on it. There's a senior attorney and then there's a younger attorney on it as well. So, they're both billing per hour since 2024. They will get attorneys fees and cost if they get an expert. Well, the statute may exclude experts. I'll have to double check that. But their attorney's fees in addition to any amount of damages that they get from a jury in addition to the attorney's fees. I think that's where the risk comes in. All right. I have two additional questions so far.

Mr. Finamin, can you give us your opinion on this? Like, is it is it appropriate for you to tell us what you're advising us to do as the city attorney?

Well, I can say this without going into specifics of the case that it is a very good resolution in that the city acquires the property. Um, as I said, it in in my experience, cities, you know, governments get sued all the time. state, city, county governments get it suited all the time and they're forced to settle all the time for one reason or another. Um, and but they rarely get anything out of it other than out of the case. Um, in this particular case, Miss Caffy has has crafted a resolution unlike anything I've seen in that not only does the city close out the case and stop any further expenses that would be necessary, but we also get the property. I've just never seen any further legal expenses.

I've never seen that done before. And this is in no way an admission of liability. The settlement agreement will express that. Yeah. And that was my next question was if we are to do this this can you one of you both of you confirm for me that this releases the city and Mr. Jones who was named individually from any liability here. And this cannot go any further. That's that's the end of it and it's put to bed. Yes. Even if he tried to file it again, there's a defense that we could immediately raise. Yeah. And so I'm hearing from you an advice to settle and from you as strong an answer as an attorney ever gives of an advice that like maybe this is a good thing. It felt like a personality.

Not at all. Not at all. And it is difficult and I and I miss Cathy and I don't I don't think many lawyers like to speak in lawyer talk. Um but when a case is still pending there's a lot that we really can't go into. Um because if the case goes to trial then Yeah. But no, I I' I've just I've never seen a resolution I've seen a lot of resolutions that that shut down lawsuits against city governments, county. I've just never seen one where this the the city actually got the property as well and could sell it, which that's pretty pretty good for miscapping.

So, if I understand correctly, we're left with really two options. If there's a different option, y'all tell me. Option one is accept this and spend around $100,000 minimum of the taxpayers's money to make this go away or let it go to trial and gamble potentially more. I think the only correction I would make is I I think the consensus would be that once we rebuilt the retaining wall, we would try to sell it. So we could recoup some some of some of the $100,000, right? You know, but it but the option two is still the same, right? That it's a gamble of potentially

a lot more a lot. We're in Arkansas. I'm from the deep south, too. What do you mean their property? So just imagine getting 12 jurors who we could know a lot more. We could don't know. Yeah.

Just a it's a gamble and just the type of claims that they brought risk assessment. Now I did um talk to some of the senior attorneys in my office. We the city of North Little Rock has done this before several years ago um to mitigate that risk. something similar, not necessarily exactly the same, but it was, you know, to cut off going before a jury and just taking that gamble of any I mean any award of damages plus the cost of attorney's fees plus the basic litigation expense that comes with that. So, other questions

I've got one number one, thank you for your work on this and getting this put together for us. Number two, is this a hard number or is this a negotiation number that they've given us? We negotiated. So, I got them down. So, this was as low as they would go. My question. Thank you. And do I will say do are we do I need to ask for additional time? Do y'all want to do a special meeting or can we submit this to a vote? I don't need any. I was going to say I'd like to hear what David's thinking if if you have more thoughts that we haven't talked about.

Well, I mean I'm just what I've said before. I' I've never got a good feeling when we settled any lawsuit. The last one several years ago on the throw courthouse was very unsatisfying, but that's another story for another day. And if if the city did nothing wrong, we shouldn't pay a dime on any of this stuff. I don't know nothing about the merits of this case. If the city truly did screw up, we probably ought to pay fully compensate the agreved party and and that's what the courts are for. I know it costs money, but I I I just don't like settling these things. I think they just invites more of it.

I agree with you, David. You know, if if somebody builds a wall and it won't hold the water back, it's not up to the citiz to pay for it. Does that does that change for you based on the fact that we do acquire something that we can turn around and sell? Oh, really? I mean, we're not going to sell it for what we put in. That wall is going to cost a whole lot more. I drove by today. It's it's a big wall and a lot of hell. At any rate, again, it's more about principle for me and I understand risk mitigation. I get all that. But, you know, again, if we truly are in the wrong, then we probably owe the owe more than $71,000. But that's what the courts are for.

I think for me um it is the risk factor and just from a previous situation that we had and what the attorney cost alone were that we had to pay. Um and like she said this is from 24. I mean, that could be astronomical. Even if worst case scenario, we won, those fees would still have to be paid. And I think in looking at it, this would be less than what we would have to potentially pay in attorney fees. So either way, whether we won or not. So, I mean, in my mind, looking at and like I said, based on what we had to pay out in previous attorney fees, as we all know, I guess I could say this would be the lesser of the evils.

I I get that. And I know nothing about the merit of this case. I just Yeah, I just not in the mood to settle these things anymore. I I understand totally. And did I understand and tell me if I'm asking you a question that you can't answer and you won't hurt my feelings. Did I understand you said that when you look at all of this there's something that gives you concern that jury might if you can't answer that you can't that's okay give you the the lawyer answer it depends I mean [laughter] I can't say for certain and I can't say but there's enough that you're not advising us to fight it

just to the from the risk assessment standpoint that would be my position is to settle it it's just I They have a due process claim which means we interfered with some procedure that he was entitled to and it's related to a permit. There's a first amendment retaliation claim and then there's the inverse condemnation claim. So sure we could win say on two of them but still lose one. Under the statute, the federal statute that he brought, we still I mean whether he got $1,000 for his property damage, attorney's fees kick in and big law firm downtown building. So,

thank you and thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Thank you very much for your work. Thank you. With that said, I will go ahead and put it on the table and of course the clock is ticking so we could come back and be labor the whole point at another meeting. I'll just move forward and uh uh move forward for the adoption of the ordinance 0263. We're we're on the consideration right now. The order Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. Moving ahead. Okay. You make a motion to I make a motion to approve this consideration. Yes. Yes, I do.

So, the first motion would be approving the settlement. The second would be appropriating the money. Is that accurate? Correct. Yes.

That dies for a lack of a second. I'm sorry. We'll second. Oh, did you? I'm sorry, Mr. Hawkins. Did I miss Did I did not Okay, he was thinking there there was a lot of silence there. I usually Okay. All right. So, we have a motion and a second to approve the settlement offer for Watson versus Jones. Any further discussion? is hurt. All in favor say I. I. No. Let me see a raise of hands of the eyes, please. And the nose.

Okay, that passes four to two. Last item on the agenda tonight, council, is an ordinance appropriating funds for the settlement agreement in the Tom Watson Construction Limited Lability Corporation versus Jones. Hold on. Mr. Mayor, there's seven of us here. Yes, Theodore left. Right. I'm sorry. Let me have the yeses again. Ready? One, two, three, four, five. All right. Five to two. Who' I miss? Shelley did not look your way. Oh,

okay. All right. Five to two. That's seven votes. Well, I thought I counted. I guess I have to take my shoes off next time. [laughter] The last item on the agenda is ordinance appropriating funds for the settlement agreement. Tom Watson construction versus Jones. And of course, the funding will come from the transportation department for the settlement officer offer. And what is the total amount, Mr. Thinken Miner? 71,000. 71,000. And I'll make a motion for the adoption of that ordinance, which should be 02603. Second. We have a motion and a second

to approve this settlement of $71,000. Any further discussion? Just one, we said this earlier, but I just want to make sure I'm clear on it. Accepting this settlement means both the city and Mr. Jones and anyone else named in this are released from all liability and cannot be further pursued for like this is put to bed and done for us and that is assured in this. Correct. And the city does get the property. Yes. Thank you. Mrs. See Missurd. Hi. Mr. Hawks. Yes. Mr. Grimes. No. Mr. Lead Better. No. Mr. Spurgers. Hi. Mr. Hawkins.

Yes. Yes. That passes 5 to two. Okay. Thank you, council. That is all we have for tonight. Uh at our next meeting, we'll have a committee meeting for UCA and the department heads will start giving their reports uh after the UCA uh committee meeting at the next council meeting. Then I will have a state of the city address either at at the next council meeting or the one first one in February. UCA committee meeting for what? Uh discuss Bruce Street and and their their growth over their expansion. Yeah. All right. Anything else? Make a motion to adjurnn. We are journed. Thank you everyone.