City Council - Regular Meeting

I see it. Alright. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the December meeting of Jonesboro City Council 2025, and it'll be the last meeting of the year as far as city council is concerned as a gathering as a whole. We obviously wish our community well. And as we get tonight's meeting started, we'll go ahead and have, I'll lead us in the, pledge allegiance and Doctor. Charles Coleman will lead us in prayer.

Father, we do thank you that you allowed us to be the stewards in this community. We praise you, father, and we ask that in your leadership that not only the council, but the community that we're a joint unit in trying to uphold what we need to be and who we need to be in this community. And we give you the praise. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Council, if you would, please go ahead and mark your presence. And we do have all members present. Now we will move on to item number four. These are items of special presentations. The last several years we have been blessed and I didn't see any different for that to happen this year.

Miss Chrissy Holmes has brought her Jonesboro Corral with us to provide us some joyous entertainment for the remainder of the year and for city council to, remember that our youth in our community make a positive impact on many organizations. I do know for sure that they joined the ASU Chorale Choir this year in the presentation, and they did a bang up job, and they sang at many chapters and communities throughout this time of year. And Again, some of these will be graduating and moving on to different choices in life. So again, Ms. Holmes, we appreciate it.

The floor is yours. Folks, that's pretty amazing. Wonderful acapella sound and those are our youth in our community. So I know we're all proud of them. And that's what it's all about, joyous occasion.

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

I would like to make a motion to remove resolution 171, 172, 173, 179, 180, 181, and 190, please. Second.

Mayor, can I add to that?

Just a minute. 171, 172, seventy three, seventy nine, eighty,

eighty one, ninety.

Councilman Haffner. Also I'd like

to add to that 196, 198 and 197.

969798. Yes, sir.

Are they not on there? Did they already get removed?

Yeah, they're on the

I'm sorry.

Yes, they're already off.

And I'll move to adopt with those additions.

Oh yeah,

see it now. Second.

Overlooked it. We do have a motion on the floor to adopt with those rescissions. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so we'll move on to, I believe the first one is one seventy four.

I believe all of these are code enforcement that are needing

to I be tabled for some

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

He is.

Scott if you would please come forward.

So resolution 171, seven two and seven three are all related. Those three properties were sold prior to the lien being placed on the property.

I make a motion to postpone indefinitely. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Resolution one hundred seventy nine and one hundred and eighty are the same properties right next to each other and we're actually condemnation on that that actually house of that property and found out the owner is deceased. So during the during our attorney. So we're gonna have to we'd ask that those be tabled as well. Resolution 181 and resolution 190 have been paid.

So we need to table.

All four need to be, start 179.

Motion on the Motion

to table indefinitely. Those four items, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Directors are removed from the Board consent agenda. The first resolution of is twenty five one seven eight.

The resolution let me get this closer. Into a contract with Southern States Fire LLC to purchase two Rosenbauer Fire apparatuses. Whereas the city of Jonesboro Fire Department Administration has performed comparative pricing and secured the commitment for reasonable delivery time to facilitate the replacement of a 2,005 model 100 foot aerial ladder truck and a twenty eleven model pumper truck within the department. And whereas the purchase price of the aerial truck will be $1,558,852 and new units, the replacement units will be sold with the assistance of the listing agent if necessary. Is committed to a two year funding program that includes an annual contribution of $600,000 toward the purchase of this fire truck.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jonesboro that section one, the city of Jonesboro entered into a purchasing contract with Southern States Fire LLC for two fire apparatus vehicles as described about and in the attached contracts. Section two, mayor held Copenhagen and city clerk April Leggett are authorized to execute the necessary documents to effectuate these contributions.

Move to adopt. Second.

Do have a motion on the floor, okay? It's working now to adopt. Any discussion by council? I don't know what it's doing.

I do have a question.

Alright, councilman? Real quick,

this part that says upon delivery of new units with the assistance of listing agents if necessary and the resulting sale proceeds being returned to the depreciation fund, I was just wondering and I'm sure this is a lack of ignorance, but kind of how much has that been, what we have done in the past as it relates to some of our old parts being sold or trucks or replacements,

just Chief, are you available? Okay, and keep in mind council, we're going to a new vendor this year. So it's gonna be a little bit different process. But again, chief, if you would elaborate on that a

little bit. I'll do my best. So with our previous vendor, they were allowing us to trade in old trucks, and they would pay us a nominal fee for that. We have determined that we can probably get more money out of the deal by selling them out right ourselves. And this particular vendor does not do a trade in program.

They're willing to help us if we need it to find a a a listing agent to get those out there and find interested parties to do that sale. And typically, they're estimating right now, like the, excuse me, the aerial, the '20 the 2004 model, they're estimating we can probably see about a $100,000 out of that truck alone. The pumper being a little newer, probably $80,000 $100 depending on the market at the time.

Would that be another municipality or something?

Smaller departments will seek market out there for those trucks.

I've already had several other mayors call in interest to the vehicle. But the delivery of this vehicle will be the first vehicle.

Yeah, within twenty four months of signing the contract is the longest it's supposed to take. There is a penalty clause built into the contract should it extend past that time. They anticipate a shorter timeframe, but it's uncertain right at the moment.

Any other questions by counsel? I don't see any. Thank you, chief. Anyone in the audience? I don't see any as well. So counsel, if you would, please go ahead and cast your vote. And that does carry 12 to zero. So next council, we'll move on to the next resolution. This is resolution one nine four.

Resolution oh, it's working now. Okay. Resolution I'll

back up a little. Resolution by the city council of

the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to enter into an agreement with Pickering to provide professional services for Prospect Multi Road multiuse trail. Whereas the city of Jonesboro desires to enter into an agreement to provide professional services for the Prospect Road multiuse Trail project. Whereas the selection committee has determined that Pickering is the most qualified firm for the project. Whereas Pickering has agreed to provide professional services for the Prospect Road multiuse trail project as described in the attached agreement, and whereas the funding for the execution of the agreement shall come from the capital improvement revenue bonds, budget, and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the agreement. Now therefore be it resolved by city council of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas section one, city the of Jonesboro shall enter into an agreement with Pickering to provide professional services for the Prospect Road multiuse trail project.

Section two, the funding for the execution of the agreement shall come from the capital improvement revenue bonds, budget, and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the agreement. Section three, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesboro to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the agreement.

Move to adopt.

Second. We have motion on the floor to adopt. Any discussion by council? I don't see any anyone in council chambers. Chambers. I don't see any as well. If you would, please go ahead and cast your ballot. And that resolution does carry. All right. So council will move on to resolution twenty five one nine five.

Resolution by the Jonesboro City Council to accept an in kind land donation of two acres plus or minus of land valued at $876,000 and authorizing the mayor to enter into an agreement with Blazer Land Holdings LLC, whereas Blazer Land Holdings LLC wishes to donate approximately two acres of land to the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas, and the city of Jonesboro wishes to accept said donation of property. A copy of the warranty deed appraisal summary, land donation agreement, and survey map are attached here too. And whereas the property located at or near 6106 Southwest Drive is positioned along a major highway in one of the highest intensity growth areas of the city and would preserve the land for future public safety needs in the area. And whereas it is in these it is the intent of the city to pursue funding to utilize the property for a public safety benefit in the future as detailed in the warranty deed. And as the aforementioned property shall not be used for any purpose other than police, fire fire, police, or public safety.

And whereas the donating party has identified and intended qualifying uses if developed to include, but not strictly limited to, a fire station, short term severe weather, disaster emergency shelter, police substation, or similar public safety benefit facility. And whereas no portion of the agreement warranty deed or offering documents exempt adjacent property from general development codes or a guarantee of development by the city, only that any development of the property other than demolition or maintenance be of public safety benefit. Whereas if the property is not in funded process of creating a public safety benefit within seven years, the property would return to Blazer Holdings LLC or its assigned representative unless additional legislation between the city of Jonesboro and Blazer Holdings LLC alters the original contract represented in this resolution. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas that section one, the city of Jonesboro accepts the in kind land donation of approximately two acres from Blazer Land Holdings LLC. Section two, the city of Jonesboro will abide by the warranty deed guaranteed wishes of the donating party that any development of the property be of a public safety benefit as detailed in above resolution and attached warranty deed.

Section three, the mayor of Copenhagen and city clerk April Leggett are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesboro to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this agreement. The mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized with executing of any and all documents reasonably necessary to acknowledge the donation by Blazer Land Holdings LLC with taxing authorities including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service.

Move to adopt. Second.

Okay, we do have a motion on the floor to adopt. Counsel, I think, is there an amendment, Carol, we will make to that, Brian?

Yeah, let me go ahead.

Okay.

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

Is what you got. Sure your microphone

is up. Give you all, to give the city property. I'll let you all read. But anyway, there's that I know of 2,500 lots being developed right now. The infrastructure is going in right now in So you got the Orchard down by 02:26. You got Mark Morris closer back over here. You got us in the middle. Mr. Garran and I just decided that it'd be in our best interest to have fire. You're going to have fire and police down there. There's no you all know that. So we'd rather have it where we like it than y'all having to pay money to put it somewhere we might not like it. So we're able to give it to you. You can use the buildings like they are. They're in excellent condition.

You can tear them down, but just you got to do it within seven years. That should be plenty of time. I don't know. Hope I can come back in seven years and say congratulations on what y'all built. But just a long story short, so it's a good piece of property. We left it open for y'all a couple of days, a couple of months ago. I don't know how many y'all toured it. It's in excellent condition. So we're going to give it to you if you want it. Then, Brian.

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

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

Burnett, and Mr. Gear have offered to conduct a phase two environmental on the property as well and to disclose anything or remedy anything that might be involved that would take remedy beyond whatever kind of just general construction that might happen on the property might take care of. So I would like to offer the amendment for somebody to consider a second on afterwards. Whereas the donor has offered to conduct a phase two environmental review. If any significant issues are identified, the donor will remedy or disclose prior to transfer to the city of Jonesboro.

Move to amend my motion to reflect that amendment.

Second. All right, we do have a motion on the floor to amend that. I question. I I that's amendment and that's resolution at this point. Okay. Do we have a motion? Move to adopt. Second.

Do we

have a motion to adopt? Any discussion by council? Any discussion by anybody in the council chambers? I don't see any. If you would, please go ahead and cast your vote.

The especially in South Jonesboro. So thank you very much. Okay, counsel. We're ready to move on to resolution twenty five one nine six.

Resolution providing for the adoption of a budget for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas for the twelve months beginning 01/01/2026 and ending 12/31/2026, appropriating money for each item of expenditure therein provided for and for other purposes. Where the city council has made a comprehensive study and review of the proposed budget submitted by the mayor, and whereas it is the finding and conclusion of the city council that the schedules and exhibits of anticipated revenues and expenditures for the calendar year appear to be as accurate as possible for budgetary purposes. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of Jonesboro, Arkansas section one. This resolution shall be known as the budget resolution for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas for the twelve months period beginning 01/01/2026 and ending 12/31/2026. The attached budget incorporated herein is if set out word for word and figure for figure reflects estimated revenues and expenditures as set forth on the succeeding pages.

Section two, the respective funds for each item of expenditure proposed in the budget for 2026 are hereby approved and adopted for the operation of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas by the city council on this date and constitute an appropriation of funds which are lawfully applicable to the items contained within the budget. This budget may be altered or revised by action of this governing body, and funds may be subsequently appropriated to another purpose except as prohibited by law. Arkansas code annotated fourteen fifty eight two zero three a. Section three, the mayor or his duly authorized representative may approve for payment out of funds appropriated by this budget or otherwise approved by the city council for those purposes or may disapprove any bills, debts, or liabilities asserted as claims against the city provided, however, that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the mayor and city clerk when authorized by resolution in writing and approved by majority voted city council president participating. Section four, if any provision of this resolution or the applicable application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the resolution, which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

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

Move to adopt.

Second. I do have a motion on the floor to adopt. Director Petit, if you would, please go ahead and approach the center stage. Counsel, as we begin this, before you cast your vote on this, I do appreciate several weeks ago or a week and a half ago, we had an open forum and discussion and many of you showed up, asked a lot of relevant good questions and I hope we were able to answer and move forward and I think it's imperative that we have that open discussion and then we followed up with the finance meeting and the finance team was there as well and I appreciate that committee and I do know that those of you that might not have been able to attend did call the directors to ask questions and that's what it's all about. So again, the floor is open and tonight we're up for the vote of the budget.

Do we have any by counsel on the budget? I have one.

I did watch when I wasn't able to be here and I appreciate all the hard work and I did watch those meetings that I missed and everyone did a phenomenal job. Just one question on personnel deferment during the first quarter. Once those decisions are made, then will that come back through here, that type

of thing? I didn't hear

that asked. I was wondering if that was

That's right. That's all I had. Thank you. Any other questions by counsel? Don't see any. Anyone in counsel chambers? I don't see any as well. So counsel, if you would, please go ahead and cast your ballot. Counsel, thank you very much for your vote and your confidence in the work that the city team does in moving forward. Again, that's really important.

Steve, thank you again for all your staff and the directors for participating and giving their input. It was challenging. It was challenging. So again, I appreciate everybody and all the directors in the room for your efforts. Thank you again, counsel, as well. Alright. We'll move into resolution twenty five one nine seven.

Resolution of the city council of

the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to amend the city salary and administration plan by including updated pay ranges pay ranges, job titles, and grades. Whereas resolution twenty four one eighty four amended the city salary and administration plan, and whereas a need has been identified to amend the city of Jonesboro's current salary administration plan to include pay ranges job ranges, job titles and grades consistent with the 2026 budget. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas that section one, the attached listing of approved job titles of the salary and administration plan is hereby adopted.

Move to adopt. Second.

We do have a I All that's good right, counsel. I do appreciate your vote and that does carry. So next we'll move on to the final resolution. This is resolution twenty five one nine eight.

A resolution by the city council by

the Jonesborough City Council to accept an offer and enter into a contract to purchase property and end dual litigation efforts between the city of Jonesborough and Laurel Park LLC. Whereas Laurel Park LLC representatives have made an offer to settle ongoing litigation and convey sales of all properties owned by the corporation and any subsidiary entities to the city of Jonesboro for a total of $750,000, whereas a recent appraisal of the property immediately beneath the condemned and demolished Building Lot 4, commonly known as Citizens Bank Tower property, appraised at $307,000 or $71 per square foot at 4,320 square feet. Whereas the offer includes multiple holdings by Laurel Park LLC at the general location of 100 West Washington outside of the litigating parcel, including Lots 7 And 8 located near the original tower property. And whereas the total approximate sum of square feet for the three parcels of land holdings by Laurel Park LLC property is 10,100 square feet plus or minus, and whereas an agreed and executed purchase contract of all Laurel Park LLC holdings will result in the termination of any current and future litigation claims by Laurel Park LLC and terminate any lien perfection efforts by the city of Jonesboro, and whereas neither Laurel Park LLC or the city of Jonesboro will restitution for any legal procedural or financial injury for past, current, or future expenses associated between the two entities or their associates.

Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the city of Jonesboro that section one, the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas hereby authorizes the purchase of property located the purchase of property detailed above located at 100 West Washington, Jonesboro, Arkansas at the purchase price of $750,000. Section two, the city of Jonesboro and Laurel Park LLC agreed to end ongoing litigation. Section three, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized by the city council for the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to execute all documents necessary to effectuate the purchase of this property.

Move to adopt.

Do we have a second counsel? Second. Okay, we do have a second. So I'll go ahead and open the floor. I know counsel that we're gonna have some questions and discussion, but I think it's imperative that I bring this forward to counsel. This is a long going process that this community has dealt with for twenty plus years and we're to a point of an opportunity or deciding on what your vote is this evening and what direction we might move in. To be honest with you, this is more than one property that's divided up and I think Jerry is here to represent. Do we have somebody on the phone as well? Okay. Okay.

It's three I question. Other side of that's we present it right and we get it right. In ongoing conversations with Mr. Smith over, gosh, the past ever since the litigation really started, we went ahead and appraised the value of the land. It was $71, I believe, as it says here per square foot, which would total those three properties about $850,000 Mister Smith has made an offer to city council for $7.50.

And, Jerry, if you wanna go in more detail, you're more than welcome to or I

Mister Smith, I I I believe has got a cost of about $9.20 from years ago. I do know that he one time, he had some lease land lease, and I don't think he's collected any monies on that as well. So he's just kind of he's put his money in and is looking to get his money, part of his money out.

Well, and I think we're all aware that the city had to condemn the building and we had to invest some of our ARPA funding to maintain the availability for our downtown residents to have a business. And so it was imperative that we move forward with that. I think that as the best way I can explain it, it's kind of like dominoes. If one of the dominoes starts falling, then the rest of them will fall into place. If we pick the dominoes up off the table, then there's nothing on the table.

And so this is a vote tonight on this resolution. And I know we're going to have some questions. Counsel will help explain anything we can. Brian has got a little bit more input as well if we need to. Counsel, if you have any questions, I'll open the floor.

I'll start. Councilman. So you said, and I want to make sure I understand, what is the administration's, what are your thoughts, number one, as how the land could be used? But then also, were at least I was under the impression we were going try and get our money back that we spent, our $3,000,000 So first, we'd like to hear, number one, what's the administration's desire as far as if we were to acquire the property, what will we use it for, number one. Number two, I I guess why we wouldn't pursue the lien. Okay.

And then I'll refer that then to legal on pursuing the lien. Brian, would you like to come forward and kind of speak a little bit more to what Councilman McLean has asked. Our desire really is to do whatever council. It's our job to bring it before council. Again, I mentioned the domino effect. I think there's an opportunity there for green space for the city of Jonesboro. That's obviously in conversation. But I can't speak to that yet. That's just not on the table at this point. If you would, Brian, if you can elaborate a bit more.

Sure. I mean, I guess, as mentioned in finance, really kind of the four options here are or three options really, pursue, continue pursuing our litigation and just kind of let the chips fall where they may on that. There's definitely an expense associated with that legally, even if we're victorious, even more so if not. At the end of the day, what you get is a lien put on one parcel of property that's underneath the tower, where the tower property was. I know there's some confusion.

Nobody fully understands the lane process, right? A lane doesn't mean you get the property. It means that if the property sells, you get a chance to recoup some of that funding. Obviously, we're thinking that property is worth somewhere around 300 to $400,000 So even with the perfected lane, when your collection efforts are pretty I would say collecting back $3,000,000 there's no short term path to get that back in a chunk. Think it's probably a pretty fair statement.

So you could continue that lien process. The city could purchase the property and either, A, turn around and immediately put it up for sale. And that would potentially remove some of the legal barriers from this property and allow it to be developed. That is one thing to note, that if we do continue the litigation, I'm not a developer, but I highly doubt that you're see gonna much development there over the next couple years while the courts are involved with, you know, with any kind of litigation efforts. But so either the part the city could purchase the property, and then we could retain it and either develop it as an asset for the city such as green space or a corner park, a town square, know, bench out green space area food truck or whatever, you know, whatever we would want to do.

And I do think there's community funding out there to help support that. Or again, we could purchase a property and turn around and sell it and let it be developed. Now in order to develop out a green space, would suspect the next action you would see would be a proposal to potentially acquire more land right there. And that would just have to be something that it's is premature to talk about at this moment pending this decision. But there are other options out there that could be of a community benefit to purchasing this property if we want to do so.

Otherwise, we would just go ahead and take our continue our litigation efforts. And I'll defer to Ms. Duncan on what that looks like in the legal world. But again, this was a proposal that was brought to us by Laurel Park, by Mr. Smith. Is obviously a pretty public issue. And we've talked about it for years. So we thought it'd only right to just bring it to the entire council unless you just have an open conversation about what our options are. Hopefully the public is listening and kind of picking up that it's not a very simple issue. It's really complicated.

And just hopefully this is an effort to educate everybody watching to what we're trying to do.

Harold, do you mind responding into the litigation? Possible costs, I know they're unknown. It's hard to predict.

Can't predict possible costs. I think I said that in finance, and I've answered that among the council members that have contacted me with questions. I mean, don't know how you you predict what the the legal cost would be. It was stated from the beginning and and we used outside legal counsel for the initial part of this where there was an attempt to join us into the litigation between Laurel Park and Burstboro and I guess I blocked it. I don't remember what the name of his company was.

But anyway, 1 Main Street. That's right. And the the litigation between the two of them, they attempted to bring us into that at some point to stop us from bringing down the building. We hired outside legal counsel for that. They appeared at two or potentially three hearings.

I can't really remember on that issue and filed some motions and kept us from we eventually were nonsuited out of that. But I still think we incurred some some legal fees on that in the neighborhood of, you know, $1,415,000 dollars, if I'm not mistaken, for just that short amount of representation. As far as the ongoing litigation, because of the complex property ownership and because of the fact that, you know, my office is we have what we have in our staff. It was agreed from the beginning that we would seek outside legal counsel. I mean, I don't know that that there's ever been a piece of property more complicated over the twenty years than the Citizens Bank property with the land lease and the different owners underneath of the property and all of that.

Much like you hire outside bond counsel for their expertise on bonds, you know, the thought process was to hire outside legal counsel that has more expertise in complicated property matters to seek any avenues that we would have to recoup any money from this. So ultimately, that's where your legal expense would come in. What that would be and how long that would go on, I can't tell you. Can compare a little bit to the Ice House property, which we condemned how many years ago?

2021.

We condemned it in '21. We started foreclosure proceedings a couple of years ago. We were successful in circuit court in the court ordering the sale of the property based upon our foreclosure. They immediately appealed, and it's still sitting with the appellate court. They've written a brief.

We've written a brief. They've written a brief, and we're waiting on the appellate court to set that for some type of either oral argument or to make a decision on whether they uphold our foreclosure on appeal. So we still haven't collected any money on Ice House after years of litigation that we handled in house, but that was not as complicated of a property ownership matter. I mean, was one family that owned all that property. So, I mean, looking at that, you would have to anticipate the litigation would last a while. So I can't predict those expenses. I do think there's some confusion about what the litigation is. The litigation's already started. I mean, y'all were served with that. We approved our lien.

They immediately appealed that to circuit court. You all were served with that that appeal. Once we put our lien on the property, they amended that and added some language language in an amended complaint. I accepted service on that amended complaint to eliminate some of the cost for them of reserving you in exchange for them extending our date to file an answer to February 1, which would give us time to get through the end of the year, make decisions about this, and determine how we wanna proceed before having to hire outside legal counsel. So our answer is due on their appeal February 1.

So we have until then to make decisions on that litigation. But that litigation has started. So it's not a matter of if they're going to litigate that lien. It they they are going to litigate that lien. It's already started.

And I think councilman just to add and at the beginning of your question was the $3,200,000 I mean the only way and I think we all recognize that, we had to do what we had to do but to recoup that is to get production and productivity out of that land as soon as possible.

You're not gonna get the 3,000,000. I mean, said from the beginning, I think spend the money as if you're not gonna get any of it back. You know, spend what you're willing to spend to make downtown dollars safe. And if we get anything back on it, it's a bonus. But a foreclosure doesn't it's not like when the bank forecloses on your house and then they own your house.

The foreclosure in this circumstance just forces a sale of the land. We don't own the land at the end of the foreclosure. It just forces it to be sold. Now we can obviously bid on it at that sale just like anybody else, but there's no guarantee that we own the land at the end of that or how much we get is subject to whatever it sells for at that, which right now, as you know, it's appraised around 300,000. So it's no it's nowhere near the 3,000,000.

I I appreciate the the clarity on the legal side. I think the other issue I have, one, Brian just pointed out, wouldn't even own all the property right there. So there's two other parcels, an additional parcel in the back that we would probably have to acquire because you're not gonna be able to, I mean you won't buy it and do And anything

to be clear for the public, the foreclosure is strictly on where Citizens Bank's fat. It has nothing to do with the parcels of land to the side.

So, and and the reason I'm bringing that up, if we acquire those, I mean, we've already said the comp of $71 a square foot. So, now, our price goes up. We gotta spend maybe if if we spend $71 I mean, if I owned it and you just bought at $71 I'm going to sell it to you for $71 So at that price, we're looking at an additional million dollars coming out of pocket, which if you think about it, all this has got to come out of reserve. So we would be all in almost $5,000,000. I mean, to me, I just don't see where it would make sense for us to do that.

We could do a lot with this type of money. My 2¢, I think it's a bad deal. I don't think we owe him anything just because he got a bad deal. I understand we want to own that property, but at the same time, we got to be responsible and not just spend money on dirt that we won't be able to sell, foreclose on it, open sales for whatever we get and move on. But I just don't see us spending that type of money.

It's astronomical. I understand we had appraisal, but if you look at a couple of lots in the appraisal, they were lots that he owned. It's not like we compared I mean, anyway, I'm out on it.

Councilman Haffner?

Yes, I don't know who to ask this question to, but I know a little bit about accounting, know a little bit about taxes. One of the issues I have is this came to our attention a little over a week ago. It was on finance last week, but we're being put under the pressure cooker of a decision has to be made by the end

of the

year. Can someone explain why the decision has to be by the end the year? It was explained in finance that he can only take the loss this year or something, but I just need to know about, I mean, the capital losses, you can have a long term capital loss, short term capital loss. Can someone explain the timing issue?

I can just tell you what I know. I and I I'm not an accountant. But my understanding is he has a financial gain that is not related to this purchase. And it's a onetime opportunity for him to take the loss and minimize his losses.

So he's just trying to

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

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

And that's he he says that he can give the discount. Feels like he can go ahead and give the discount and you get the beneficiary of that.

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

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

Right.

And after January 1, it's his opinion that he's not gonna sell it short. He's gonna stay in it for the long haul. So this is a one time opportunity that's come up, that's been presented. He is not in any way trying to be heavy handed. He just this you know, we had the discussion and he said, hey. I can do this if they can do this. And it was very much trying to get to an end result that's beneficial to everybody.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

I agree with some of the things that David mentioned. In fact, he brought up some of the questions I had. Number one, we had to take the bank billing down. I understand that. It needed to come down. Probably should have come down years ago. But I think we're basically rewarding them. We've already spent a pretty sizable chunk of taxpayer money, even though it was ARPA funds, it could little detail

bit

more

money into it, and it'd be even more of an expense. I just don't see rewarding them for that. I'd rather fight it in court and keep the lien on it if it ever sells. I'd rather do that. I think that's more responsible. It's not going to be $775,000 worth of or $750,000 worth of legal expense. I'd rather take our chances and try to recoup something. We shouldn't be paying anything for that in my opinion, but that's just me.

Let me ask Jerry, if you don't mind, if you'd come forward and just kind of ask. Now, obviously, you do have some ownership in some other property that's obviously next to it. What have you seen as far as development opportunities that still could remain with that property? Or are there difficulties with development opportunities?

We actually had we've had some people look at it. We've had two inquiries that just said when the litigation goes away, we'll be glad to come back and visit, but they didn't want to be involved during that time. And then past that, we really haven't gone to the market. We don't have anything to take to the market. Those were inquiries that we had personal relationships with.

Again, counsel, these are conversations we need to have and that's why

I have a question, please. It an option that we could decline to purchase the lot and drop the litigation?

It is. I think it would need to be done in two different like, what's before you today is purchasing the property, yes or no, essentially, to simplify. And then this council has already voted to place a lien on the property, so we would need to bring back if it's the desire of the council, you would bring back a a resolution trying to resolve that lien in some way. I mean, I think it's still open to determine whether you could resolve the lien without litigation in some way. And that negotiation, I guess, would begin depending on what you vote on today. But I mean, there's always options.

Could I have one more clarification? Sure. And I I really want you to I I know none of you probably know Andy Smith, but he he's the owner of of the property. And and he is in no way I mean, super nice guy. And and I agree, you know, his his investments are not your your worries. But at the same time, he he has made the investment, and and his offer is, hey, I'm willing to give a little bit to get this. He he he doesn't want to spend his money fighting this in litigation for the next three to five years. He knows that's gonna be expensive. He knows he doesn't have the opportunity to develop it while it's under litigation. And his his response is, hey.

Let me take my loss, and I'll figure out something else to do. So I want you to understand the spirit in which this was offered is not, hey. You take it or leave it this this year. It is, hey. I've got an opportunity that has come my way. And since I've got an opportunity, I'm gonna pass the opportunity along. And that's the spirit in which he has made this offer. So please just want you to know that.

And just one more question if I may. Alright. Clarification. The the parcel of property that we have the lien on is what appraised for the 3 zero seven?

Correct.

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

Less whatever legal expenses Okay. You

Thank you.

Just a couple of comments or observations, not for you, Jerry, the, I mean, we're in fix and go on five years of litigation with the ice house. So I can't imagine it taking any less than that on this property. So we're probably looking at anywhere from five to seven, maybe longer years that property being off the market or out of use. The I couldn't hear what you told Joe the answer. So the most we could expect to recoup in litigation would be the value of the property if we perfected a lien on it. Is that

If we perfect the lien, it would be whatever it sells for at the foreclosure sale. And I think the the the fair thing to say is less whatever you've spent on litigation. Right?

So I mean, the reality of ever collecting our $3,000,000 is gone. Right. So the most we're looking at being able to if we succeed in dragging out litigations, it's gonna be $400,000 If we spend $750,000 we'd at least have some say in how that property was developed down there. And that say would be something that would be financially advantageous to us. I'm not interested in making a pocket park or anything like that.

I don't think that's the right location. If we were gonna buy it, it simply be to steer the development of that property into something that's advantageous to the city to recoup our money. I think when the discussions were going on with tearing down the building, we talked about we have several taxes that could apply to that property where we could recoup our money over the long term through revenue of taxes. Jerry, is that still in an economic development zone or is zone. Opportunity zone.

So I mean, obviously, there's some advantages to a developer to come in and do what we want. Is it ten years that you have to keep it in order to

I have to go back and look at it.

I'm gonna I'm gonna go on a limb, but I think when I read it last time, a developer comes in there and develops that property and owns it for ten years can sell it without paying capital gains tax. So there's quite a bit of incentive to come in and build on that property and build something nice. But I'm not in support of making a pocket park or an open space. I think that's premier entrance to the downtown. I think we need a hotel.

I think we need something big there. And I think the only way that's gonna happen is if the city helps with that development. I'm also interested in seven or eight more years of ongoing litigation where our net return would be $400,000 minus litigation. I think we're losing money on tax revenue to drag it out over that length of time and litigate it.

Can I make a statement or ask a question? And you brought up something that really I thought about it. I agree with you on many of those points. My concern is making that decision today. To me, when I listened to the finance meeting last week and then I heard a bit of change today, Jerry, that it sounded like to me it was buy it now or lose the opportunity last week. So has that changed or are we able to come back at another time to consider this?

The offer on the table is specific because he has a timeline that he has to meet. And after January after December 31, he no longer has the opportunity for for the tax relief that he has. So from his statement is after January 1, he can't continue to make this offer. This this offer will will be void after whatever tonight unless we there's a deal made. And again, it's not heavy handed. It's just this is the opportunity for him and he's trying to pass on an opportunity to you to settle it.

And I would just add counsel, ongoing conversations with Mr. Smith since this began, think he has looked in every aspect on how he could make it work for the city and us to be able to just make an offer on the table. He has come down considerably. Think Jerry mentioned the 900,000. Again, we are looking at three parcels of land, not just one. And with that, I think he has done everything he can to do that. But again, I think it is a good discussion for counsel. Do we have any other questions?

Will make one more. Go ahead. Thank

you, Mayor. I guess my question, I am sure you will have this discussion in my mind. I am just thinking why don't we only buy the corner and have him write down the corner so he can get the tax benefit. Has there been a thought process around that, Mayor?

That was the initial thought process. At that point, we were talking about negotiations. His price point was close to what we came back $307,000 He had in it a little over $500,000 And so the negotiation piece then came into the other two lots on the parcel. So again, from that standpoint, then the value of adding the other two parcels really that came into play because the value lowered each piece of parcel. If you divide it out, we're paying $250,000 for each piece of parcel.

So it was on the ongoing. But as far as the negotiation, we never got to where we needed to get from our standpoint because I remember we had conversations that we might be able to purchase it for $300,000 whatever the case may be. And his cost was about $550 in it, if I remember right, councilman. We were off on that. Yeah. And he was looking for tax incentives, how we could make that work and a gift to the city. We looked through all those avenues. So again, I think this is broken up. And Brian, remind me on this. Basically what he's looking at is $1 for the Citizens Bank property and then the other two properties were, is that correct?

Yeah, the actual real estate contract that's attached to the resolution, the lot where the tower was is actually listed as $1 And the balance of that is between the other two lots to the west. So it's the same to us. The offer is $750,000 But how he divides that up per parcel, that's reflective of essentially gifting tower parcel to the city. And I would assume that's where the tax benefit comes in.

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

I would also mention that historically one of the problems in redevelopment of that property has been multiple owners of multiple lots. It took ten years to combine and get down and get title to multiple I think there's a total of seven lots or six lots that come around. So if we just acquired the one lot and then he had two lots, and mister Halsey has one lot, and somebody else has a lot, we're back in the multiple owners and that's probably not gonna work work in a large development. I mean a large development there is probably going to need all the property from corner to corner.

One more thing, just like you said, any large development will need all the properties. I guess we would be the ones acquiring the property, which again, I think the price, if we buy at this price, is going to be high. But the other piece, I mean, don't see how we get around that and I don't see how I don't think someone is going to come to us. I know Jerry, you own the property, but if we pay 70 again, one we're probably going pay 71 again and at the same time you've still got a parking issue down there. So you're still going to have again it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me us to spend this kind of money.

Difference of only having two owners negotiate the city and maybe Mr. Halsey or the city and somebody else is a lot less complicated than having five owners. And some of development plans have included a parking garage here to address parking. And at one time there was a proposal to build a second tower right behind Citizens Bank that floated around. Mean there's a lot I don't

see us selling that property for whatever we pay, I don't see us selling it for that. We're gonna take a loss. Oh, there's Again, doesn't make sense for us to spend the money then lose money. I don't think there's Even more money, I should say.

Yeah, I don't think there's a possibility of us making money on the property sale for sure. I think that's out the window. I think the way the city would come out would be to steer the development into something that generated revenue for us or generated revenue for the downtown, not not in selling the property. I I would highly doubt we pay 750,000 and turn around and make a a profit on the property. I would think it'd be we'd pay 750,000. Somebody would come along and make a proposal that we were in agreement with. We would either give them the property, lease them the property, or something else. But I'm with you on that Mr. McHugh.

Yes. Another comment, and I know this kind of goes against what we originally believed, but long term would we be better off if we did not purchase this property for $7.50 but instead remove the lien because if the most we're going get back is $3.00 7, remove the lien, hopefully that would end the litigation, the legal fees stop, the property is clear to sell, Mr. Halsey said that they've had interest but no one is going to be interested while the litigation is going on, would we not be better off to remove that?

Well, and to your point, I've had several discussions with large developers that are obviously interested in where the location of the property is, but as long as the lien is on it, they're not interested.

I'm much rather do that than go into the real estate business for $700,000 and believe we're gonna sell it at a loss.

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

I missed your

Okay, counsel. Now, I certainly don't mind to continue negotiations as well. Carol, where are we if the on the time frame of February?

I

mean, had this question asked to me prior and I do think that there would be time for staff or you or whoever to negotiate a settlement of the lien and what that would look like and whether we could get any money out of the lien in a settlement versus litigating. I think you would need to bring something back to finance on the thirtieth. Is that the day it would be? The thirtieth?

The thirtieth.

And then it could go to counsel at the first meeting in January. That would give you enough time to make that decision. Either way, I think whatever counsel wants us to bring back on the thirtieth, we would we would need to bring something back on the thirtieth to either, you know, a negotiated settlement of the lien or counsel deciding to remove the lien. Whatever decision is made there would come back to finance on the thirtieth and be approved at counsel early January, which would give us time to have it settled before our deadline to file an answer. And if that, for whatever reason, did not pass counsel and counsel decided to move forward, you would still have time to hire counsel and have an answer filed by February 1.

I'd much rather go that route than spend $7.50 and go into the real estate business.

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

The only difference I see there is that we have to file an answer February 1. So we would incur legal expenses with that option.

Yeah. I mean, we'd have.

And as and they would.

I move we postpone temporary till January 30 and let you look at this a little further and then we can come

up with a better idea. I'll second that.

Right. So you're postponing something from council agenda back to finance? Because finance is the only meeting we have on the thirtieth. Right. So you're sending

And then finance would send it back to

So you're I wanna make sure I

understand the

motion. I think what your motion would be is to return this to committee, to the finance committee. Is that what you're saying?

Postpone temporary until January 30 finance.

Okay. Ultimately, I think that kills this.

December 30.

December 30. Think what Carol's saying is instead of a postpone till January 30, we just make a motion to return it to the finance committee. Is that what you're saying with

That's what I'm saying. I I think that kills it essentially because there would not be time to then close by the end of the year, so the offer would be off the table. It's the same difference as voting it down in my opinion. We can it doesn't affect the lien. Right. It just, I think, kills this sale opportunity. You can correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry, but if you bring this back to finance on the thirtieth, it would then have to come back to council in January, at which point the offer's off the table.

I think there's an expiration in the contract Yeah, this there afternoon or tomorrow. So it would expire.

There's no point in sending this sale contract back to finance is what I'm saying?

You I vote no and it's rejected and we move on. On.

I think

that would be a new resolution to whatever that looks like. Settle the lien, pursue the well we already are pursuing the lien. You don't need a motion for that. To settle the lien or dismiss the lien or whatever. That could come back to finance on the thirtieth.

Although there's there's a motion on the table. I don't know if there was a second. So then I think you need to, there's a motion and a second, it either needs to be withdrawn or voted on. I'm waiting on Chris to jump in with his Robert's rules of order.

There's a motion

and a second on the floor I think it needs to be.

There's motion and a second to adopt the original resolution. What is the, is John's motion still?

To postpone to the thirtieth or to send it back to committee.

That'll supersede it. Right. So you need to call a vote on that.

Is there a discussion or not?

Wasn't a second on that, was there?

I'll second it.

Okay, now there's a second so You would have to

correct. I think we are. No longer valid. Matter which way to take I'm trying

clarify, if we approve John's motion, that basically ends it. Is that correct? This form This won't offer, okay. Any more discussion by counsel? Anyone in counsel chambers? Anyone in counsel chambers? I don't see any. Counsel John's amendment. Okay. If you would, please go ahead.

Return it to committee.

If you would please go ahead and cast your ballot.

Usually vote. Think you'll have to do a voice vote on that.

Voice votes. In favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so that amendment does carry.

Alright. So, council now, we'll move on to items on new business and these are ordinances on the first reading and the first ordinance is twenty five zero four one.

Move we suspend the rules and offer by title only.

Second. We do have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

An ordinance amending the membership of the storm water management board.

Do we have any discussion by council? Anyone in council chambers? Anyone in council chambers? I don't see any, so that ordinance will move on to its second reading. Now we'll move on to ordinance twenty five zero four five.

We will suspend the rules and offer by title only. Second.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed?

An ordinance to amend chapter one seventeen known as the zoning ordinance providing for changes in zoning boundaries from r one to p d r l u o for property located at Cordobella.

Any discussion by council? Anyone in counsel chambers?

I just have one question on this one. I didn't see the staff report.

It was added this afternoon. We just received it today.

Okay, I just don't see it online.

So if you have any questions in councilman, just give us a contact, okay? I'll answer your questions. Yes ma'am, you would please state your name and address.

Yes. Patty Black, 4108 Forest Hill Road. And on this one right here is that listening to the MAPC meeting that was held last week is that, there was a lot of back and forth talk about how this was being not approved, but the quote, it was going to be senior living. And I think that people, you know, we can't say that it was senior living because that's all gonna be up to the POA when it gets established. But I saw it today on channel thirteen news that they had a big segment saying that we're gonna have senior living now.

And so this is just a rezoning, and I think it's unfair to the public. But where I'm con concerned, and I wrote Darryl, is that when you do a rezoning is that you're supposed to send out certified registered mail to the neighboring neighbors to let them know that there is a rezoning and that it is always on attachment to that rezoning. There's no certified letters on this. So Daryl said that the letters were sent out, but that was about three weeks ago. So I think it's really unfair because were they sent out?

Because they should have been back by now. So I don't know if they need to resubmit them again because they should have been back. But that is just the process that needs to happen so those neighbors know exactly what's gonna go in that property. So I hope that they can follow through with that and get it done properly. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else from the audience? I don't see any and so that will now move on to its second reading. We'll move on to items on item number seven. Ordinance Ordinance is on the second reading and we'll start with ordinance twenty five zero three seven.

In ordinance to amend chapter one seventeen article eight section one seventeen dash three twenty four g to remove the requirement to have a valid registration or license on a boat trailer recreational vehicle parked outdoors on residential lots in the city of Jonesboro.

Any discussion by council? Anyone in council chambers? I don't see any of that. I'll move on to the third reading. Now we'll move on to ordinance twenty five zero four zero.

An ordinance to amend ordinance one ordinance seventeen zero two six relating to towing services in the city of Jonesboro.

Any discussion by council? Any questions? Okay. Anyone in the chambers? I don't see any as well, so that'll move on to its third reading. Next, we'll move on to ordinance twenty five zero four two.

An ordinance to amend chapter one seventeen known as the zoning ordinance providing for changes in zoning boundaries from I one to C two for property located at 213 North Main as requested by Shamim Wilkins.

Any discussion by council? I don't see any anyone in council chambers. I don't see any as well. That item will now move on to its third reading. Now we'll move on to ordinance twenty five zero four three.

Ordinance to amend chapter one seventeen article three known as the zoning ordinance of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas providing for changes in zoning boundaries from r one single family medium density district to c three general commercial for property located at the 2000 Block Of West Matthews, Washington, Jonesboro, Arkansas as requested by Ron Kraft.

Any discussion by council? Any questions? I don't see any. Anyone in council chambers? I don't see any as well. So that item will move on to its next reading. Now we'll move on to final ordinance twenty five zero four four.

Ordinance to amend chapter one seventeen article three, none is the zoning ordinance of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas providing for changes in zoning boundaries from r one single family medium density district to c three general commercial for property located at the 2000 Block Of West Matthews, Jonesboro, Arkansas as requested by Andy Craft.

Any discussion by counsel? I don't see any. Anyone in counsel chambers? Alright. I don't see any as so that'll move on to its third reading. Alright, counsel. Now we'll move on to mayor's report, and and I'm gonna go through this. First of all, I wanna, reach out to our officer that's in the hospital that was involved in an accidental shooting yesterday. Trust me, he was fighting for his life. I can't say enough for the personnel at St.

Bernard's Hospital that worked on him for hours yesterday and then again today. And he is resting. He's going to have a long recovery, but he is alive. And so it's nothing more than God's hands getting involved in order to save that individual's life. So we're proud of that.

I do appreciate, again, all the work that our police department does and the members of the police department. They have come together as a family. I was very fortunate to meet with his mother and dad last evening late and they're four hours away. So it was peaceful for them to know that he had such a loving community around him. I also, on the same note, want to recognize one of our officers, officer David Stout.

He received the state's top officer for this county in Craighead County, Sergeant Stout. And I'll have him later at one of our meetings to recognize him formally in front of you. But if you see Officer Stout, please pat him on the back. And he's one of those individuals that he doesn't like personal recommendations. He likes a group.

But again, we always appreciate that. I think it's duly noted that he'd be recognized this evening. So two weeks ago in my comments, I referred to the twelve days of Christmas that Brian wrote. He enjoys that. However, an in house researcher says we're not actually in the twelve days of Christmas because the first day of Christmas is actually December 25 with the partridge and the pear tree and so on.

But you might be happier with the following in the advent calendar. So today is the sixteenth day of the calendar, which happens to fall on national chocolate covered anything day. So anyway, I know there are a lot of individuals that would like to have that this evening. So with that thought, bear with me the next few minutes. You may recall September we authorized a third party review of our building permit process.

That review has been underway. It's called matrix, the organization that we approved as a city and City Council for a couple of weeks now. They are doing surveys and they are being shared information with contractors, architects and developers. I'm telling you, this is a process that we have been looking for for a long period of time to make sure that our processes with our community works efficiently and effectively, and the process can only, though, work correctly if we get our community involved in the process. So I'll be sending out letters this week to almost 1,000 individuals that have permits in the community for them to make sure that they get on the QR code.

I'm asking the public as well. We want the public engagement in this process, things that you like, things that your concerns are when it comes to the building and the processes of the city. This is the time that we're going to be making a huge impact, and I'm looking forward to how that turns out. In the meantime, I hope you're as proud of Jonesboro as I am for all the brilliant holiday celebrations going on. Many joyous, family oriented, and charitable events have already taken place, and many are ongoing.

For example, we had a great turnout for the mayor's Christmas open house on the eighth, which is something that started last year, I hope our citizens enjoy the opportunity to come to the municipal building and see how we work and celebrate the holidays with those that we serve. We still have something else that is very popular to look forward to, and that's the holiday trolley for Christmas at the park. That starts Saturday evening beginning at 05:30. It runs through 08:30, and you can check JET's Facebook page for the exact time. So here's how it works.

Come to the Municipal Building. You buy your tickets at the collection department during the regular business hours. The trolley pickup location is the bus stop on Madison Street next to Winter Wonderland. Only 20 tickets per time slot and they run about every fifteen minutes. The cost is $5 and the tickets for kids are free.

Buy your ticket very soon in the collections department of the Minnesota Building and share a ride at Christmas Park on one of our trolleys. This trolley, mistakenly, actually will not stop. They will go through the park and then turn around and come right back. Again, I think this is wonderful that we offer to our city employees and then to the public on different evenings. In the season of giving, let's also remember the creatures great and small, including those who can't ask for help.

In honor of operation Santa Paul month, we're asking our community to help support the animals cared by the Jonesboro Animal Service Department. Every donation helps warmth and nourishment and comfort to pets awaiting their homes forever. Preferred item, Purina dog chow. Just take it to the shelter and some furry ones will be very grateful. We're also hoping to help showing Christmas cheer at our dispatch center with a holiday celebration for our Jonesboro e nine one one team who work around the clock even throughout the holiday season.

Help us fill the December appreciation calendar with daily tokens of gratitude to brighten their days and show how much our community cares. All the details for ways you can help can be found on our social media pages, and you can just call us. By the way, we know they love thank you notes and coloring sheets done by the kiddos. I'm very proud to tell you about a couple of great things that our city workers have accomplished since we last met. One was the food bank collection competition between departments.

The winner was chief there we are Jonesboro Police Department. I don't have the exact amount collected for the food bank, but I know it was over 2,000 pounds of food. And this was competition from City Hall, police and fire departments. So it's a giant thanks to everyone who helped participate. As the weather starts turning colder, I'm happy to say that the new bus shelters I hope you noticed throughout the city, new ones are going up.

We just had one here put up today north, and we're still lacking some of the technology to be implemented. But the shelter itself is going up. So that's been over a two year process. So I'm real thrilled to see that happening. So they've been put together, another one next, as I mentioned, to the municipal building.

The ASU Newport Connection Shelter is also done. They're getting there, folks. Please understand the funds granted as long as four years ago and were now becoming available for us to start the project. The folks at JET as well as in the marketing communications are anxious to share the behind the scenes work that has been taking place to get all the improvements coming to the public transportation. In closing, I want to share with you news of honor we received as a city.

I hope you'll be proud as I am. We have been notified that we've been named a volunteer community of the year, earning top honors in the category of most youth engagement for its commitment to youth leadership through the mayor's youth council. The volunteer award means and is cosponsored by the governor's advisory commission on national service of volunteer ism, engage Arkansas and the Arkansas municipal league, recognizing cities and towns that strengthen civic life through volunteer driven initiatives. Jonesboro was selected for its innovative and high impact MYAC program, which has expanded from 40 to 99 student members and contributed nearly 1,200 volunteer hours during twenty four and twenty five years. NYAC members work alongside city departments, community partners, and support initiatives focused on health and safety outreach, beautification efforts, equity focused events and large scale community engagement.

Jonesboro's young people are proving every day that leadership has no age requirement. NYAC is created so any student who wants to be involved has the opportunity to do so. I wanted to make sure that when I became elected to find a meaningful way to introduce young people to local government. I hope you feel as gratified as I am to so many students that are participating in these opportunities and getting the resources and support they deserve. In addition, your city government has won other awards.

They will be announced periodically throughout the next four weeks, which will be announced every I believe we're going to try on Mondays. Is that correct? These are awarded by the Arkansas Municipal League to demonstrate great determination within our departments and find unique solutions to challenging all cities faced today in the changing world. We're showing our state and our residents that our community can be an example of achievement, innovation, and service to the citizens. Thank you for allowing me those comments. Next, we'll move on to city council reports.

Mister Street.

Wish everyone a merry Christmas. Happy. That's all I have, mayor.

Okay. Thank you, councilman.

Mister Miller.

Miller?

I'll be brief and I know April sent us an update since we got rid of the Public Services Committee. I think I'm a little bit more clear about kind of who's reporting to who but whoever's kind of taken over the Parks piece of things, I hope they'll look at Matt Motylewski and Jerry Morgan's message about the sports commissioner and I can't remember if we decided finance had kind of taken over Parks or what we had decided. I need to go back and reread your email, April.

Thank you.

Mr. Haffner.

Thanks.

Doctor. Anthony Coleman.

Merry Christmas everyone, be safe. Thank you.

Mr. McClain.

Same, Merry Christmas.

Mr. Gibson.

Yeah, I just, I wanna elaborate on just a couple of comments just briefly. One of Councilman Bryant's that he just brought up the email that he's referencing came to all of this council and it was in regard to a community sports commission that would be community based to help head up the sports leagues going on in the city right now in light of what's going on with the investigation. I'm going to advocate for that as well and I would like for us to have some kind of resolution on the table or at least consideration on the January 6 meeting. Secondly, I just want to elaborate on what the mayor said in regard to the install of the Jets bus shelter. Lee, shout out to you and your team.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Miss Williams? No, thank you. Mr. Moore?

Carol, the questions I sent you about Act five zero five, do we have any answers on

We do and I'll I saw that again today. I did get an email from the municipal league and I'll try to get that drafted up. I just got a little sidetracked.

Very good.

But I'll get that to you.

I know you're gonna tell me that.

Thank you very much. You're welcome. That's all, mayor. Thank you.

Doctor Charles Coleman.

Yeah, thank you.

Mister Emerson.

First of all, merry Christmas to everybody and happy birthday, Jesus. Second of all, we had a public safety council committee meeting earlier this evening, and it was approved to walk on resolution twenty five one hundred sixty seven to this body if it's approved. Just a side note that this was more of a clerical error happened in the previous meeting, and since this piece of property does still serve as an imminent threat to the safety of the citizens of Jonesboro, we felt that it was better to go ahead and bring it to this committee. Once approved, I believe that they're getting ready to start demolition on this property tomorrow, I think,

is what I heard, or at

least by the end of the week.

I will second that motion for the walk on.

Right, counsel. We have any discussion? Seening anyone in council chambers? Just walking on. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Resolution by the city council of

the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas to condemn property located at 233 South Fisher Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401, parcel number 01Dash144181Dash44700. Owner Michael Kevin Kelly. Legal description follows, whereas the above property has been inspected and has been determined and suited for human habitation, whereas all the stipulations have been met in the condemnation process to proceed with the condemnation of this property. Now therefore be it resolved by city council of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas that the city should proceed with the condemnation of the property located at 233 South Fisher Street, Jonesboro, Arkansas 72401.

Move to adopt. Second.

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

Just for those that weren't here for the committee, this was approved at the last council meeting and everything was correct in the notices that were sent and done according to our procedure for a condemnation. The only issue was there was a topographical error in the parcel number on the resolution. So that's why we're representing it tonight so that it can be approved and they can move forward with demolishing the unsafe structure.

Questions in the chamber? I don't see any. If you would, please go ahead and cast your ballot.

I have to have a voice vote.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright. That does carry.

Miss Porter?

I had the pleasure of attending the municipal center's Christmas open house and it was a lovely event and I really enjoyed connecting with members of the community and our city employees and I would like to thank those who were involved in the planning. It was a wonderful event.

All right. That's the end of our council comments. Next we'll move on to public comments and anyone from the public can come forward and you have five minutes to do so. Make your statements.

Before we adjourn, can I say go Red Wolves as my public comment?

It's Thursday night.

I

know. Thursday 08:00.

I can't believe nobody said go Red Wolves in this Alright. Whole

I don't see anyone. We'll move on to item 11. That's adjournment.

So moved. Second.

All

in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed?