Finance & Administration Council Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon, everybody. It's 4 o'clock. I'm going to call today's Finance and Administration Council Committee meeting to order. Please go ahead and record your attendance. I accept approval of minutes from the Tuesday, May 12, 2026 meeting.

Move to approve unless there's a noted change. Second.

Motion is second to approve. Any questions or comments on the minutes as presented? If not, please vote on whether or not to approve the minutes. All right, we'll go into new business. First step is Resolution 26056. It's a resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to accept a permanent easement, I'm sorry, a permanent right-of-way easement from Arkansas State University for the purpose of the constructing and maintaining pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, whereas the City of Jonesboro hereby desires to accept the following described right-of-way for the purpose of constructing and maintaining pedestrian and infrastructure improvements. Legal description follows. Therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro that Section 1, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to accept the right-of-way described above.

Move forward to full council. Second.

I motion to second forward to full council. Any questions from the committee? Anything from staff? Anything from the public in attendance? If not, please record your vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26056 to full council. All right, Resolution 26058, a resolution to authorize the execution and delivery of an escrow deposit agreement in connection with the defeasance of bonds issued to support Coast and Castro LLC and its affiliates to authorize the conveyance of real property related to the bonds and for other purposes, whereas the city previously issued its $11 million taxable economic development revenue bonds series 2022A and its 4 million taxable economic development revenue bonds series 2022B, and collectively with the series 2022A bonds, the defeased bonds pursuant to the terms of a trust indenture date as of April 19th, 2022 between the city and First Security Bank. And whereas the contemporaneous with the issuance of the defeased bonds. Michelle, did you write this? Of the defeased bonds, the city issued is not to exceed $9 million taxable economic development revenue bonds series 2022C, and together with the fees bonds, the 2022 bonds, and whereas proceeds of the 2022 bonds were loaned to Coast and Castor LLC and its affiliates to finance acquisition and construction of manufacturing facilities, infrastructure, and improvements, and the acquisition and installation of facilities and equipment for the development, manufacture, warehousing, and distribution of castors and wheels located at 2121 Barnhill Road, Jonesboro, Arkansas, Whereas contemporaneous with the issuance of the 2022 bonds, the company granted one or I granted a mortgage to First Security Bank as collateral agent to secure the company's obligations under guarantees from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority and the Arkansas Economic Development Commission supporting the 2022 A bonds and the company's obligations with respect to the 2022 bonds, and two, implemented a sale-leaseback transaction with the city in order for the project to be eligible for ad valorem property tax abatement, and whereas the project was constructed and is operational, and whereas the company is exercising its option to repurchase the real estate and buildings comprising the project for a price that is sufficient to defuse the series 2022 bonds and the series 2022b bonds, And whereas the city, the trustee and the escrow agent will enter into an escrow deposit agreement to make adequate provision for the retirement at maturity and upon redemption prior to maturity on April 1st, 2027 of the defeased bonds. And whereas this resolution is adopted to authorize the execution of one or more deeds to transfer title to the reference real estate upon the exercise of the option in compliance with the provisions of Arkansas code annotated 14-54-302 relating to the transfer of its real property owned by the municipality. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that Section 1 there be and is hereby authorized the execution and deliverance of the escrow deposit agreement by and between the City, Trustee, and First Security Bank as escrow agent, and the Mayor and City of Kirk are hereby authorized to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the escrow deposit agreement for and on behalf of the City, The escrow deposit agreements hereby approve substantially in the form submitted to this meeting. Section two, the mayor and city clerk are authorized to execute, acknowledge, and deliver all papers, affidavits, statements, documents, certificates, deeds, releases, and other instruments that may be required to evidence the transfer of title to the real estate and building to release or consent to the release of liens and encumbrances securing or related to the fees bonds and to satisfy the requirements of the title company assisting with the closing of the repurchase of such property. All such instruments shall be subject to the review and approval of the city attorney prior to execution and delivery. Section three, severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word, or mispronunciation of this resolution is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the resolution which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional were not originally part of the resolution. Section four, repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.

Moving forward to full council. Second.

Motion seconded to forward to full council. Any questions from the committee? Yeah, just layman's terms. Well, it wasn't written in layman's terms.

Not at all. Oh, come on. This is one of the most simple things I've seen. So what has happened is that what y'all did previously, you incentivized Colson to come build a state-of-the-art facility. They are currently operating. They have about 70 employees. I believe recently they have implemented a second shift. So things are going exactly as you hoped they would. For business reasons that are unrelated to their ongoing operation, they want to exercise the purchase option that was granted to them. So they're going to unwind the pilot with respect to the real estate. They're going to transfer it to a new entity and then lease it back. But they were going to continue operation. Nothing is going to change with operation of the facility. This is solely so that they believe for business reasons that this is a good option for them. After this is all said and done, you're likely to see me back here requesting on behalf of the landlord that we re-implement the pilot for the remaining period. So you granted them a 20-year pilot. They've used five of it. This does not change anything on behalf of the city. So there wasn't any liability on behalf of the city in the first instance, and this does not change that. It still remains none.

That's basically the council meeting we had last week. That was the very start of a new pilot program. And this one, they're five years into it, and they're just like, hey, we just wanna make some changes. But.

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

Any other questions from the committee? Anything from staff or the public in attendance? If not, please record your vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26058. Next up is Resolution 26059. A resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to enter into a facility usage agreement with Jonesboro Jets Incorporated for the year of 2026, whereas Jonesboro Jets is an Arkansas not-for-profit organization organized to promote youth and adult sports activities through the operation of its swim programs, and whereas the City of Jonesboro is the owner of that certain public park amenities known as the Jonesboro City Pool Complex, and hereafter referred to as the facilities, and whereas the proposed use of terms were drafted in accordance to guidance by the Public Services Committee in a public meeting on May 6th, 2026, and whereas JETS and the City desire to enter into an agreement for the purposes of evidencing the agreement of the parties with regard to the use of the facilities by jets and the respective obligations of the parties regarding the use and maintenance of the facilities. Now therefore be resolved by the City Council for the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas that section one, the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas shall enter into a facility usage agreement with Jonesboro Jets Incorporated for the use of the public pool complex located at 1421 West Nettleton, Jonesboro, Arkansas. Section 2, the mayor and city clerk are hereby authorized to execute such agreement.

Well, I don't agree with all aspects of this contract. I will make a motion to forward to full council so we can put it on the table for discussion. Second.

I motion to second, forward to full council. Any questions or comments by the committee?

Mr. Urban, if I may, just quickly. I guess I'd like to hear the administration's stance on this. I don't know who wants to take that, but the reason I'm asking, I'll let y'all speak to that, speak to this, if somebody is willing to.

Sure, you know, this conversation originally began as a, you know, I guess a proposal from the administration to both the jet swim team and the shark wave aquatics team. And when it was probably, I guess, apparent that an agreement was not gonna be reached, And there were several statements made that we felt like needed some sunshine. So at that point, that's whenever it was sent to the Public Services Commission for open and public discussion about the needs and kind of how the swimming programs operate. Not a swim guy, so deferred to the representative of each group to come in and kind of talk about their needs and their plans. what did or didn't work for them for the agreement. I know that some of you all are on the Public Services Committee, and that meeting went on for quite some time, and we took some of the recommendations, tried to follow them almost verbatim to draft this contract that you see before you. And so that's where we are. I'm sure that there's obviously, you're never gonna make everybody happy. We just want a fair proposal, one that's clear, and figured this would be yet another public opportunity to discuss this. kind of how we wanted to manage a pool. Obviously the city only has one pool right now. So we're just trying to get through this year and it's fair and it's safe and agreement that represents the Jonesboro residents that both participate in this pool and also we have to remember that we teach swim lessons at this pool also. So it can be a crowded event out there at times. So that's kind of our history behind it. Like I said, when it was sent to public services, the hope was that there would be kind of an open conversation and that there would be some guidance that were provided. And while we, I guess, only heard technically about the internal operations from one group, we did still try to take the information that we had at hand to draft up something that followed the guidance of the committee.

I have a question.

Hold on, Dr. Coleman. I want to make sure Mr. McClain didn't have a follow-up question.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So help me understand also, because I'm looking at the contract. It talks about the membership being determined by their AAU membership. I guess that's the body that governs them. So we've heard from parents from... I almost call them sharks, SWAT. What if the numbers, what if their numbers start to grow and there's some conflict there?

Can I address that? Go ahead. So in the public services meeting, in my almost nine and a half years on city council and yours, This has never come in front of council before. This is always something that was worked out between the clubs, the entities, and we basically approved the contract. But apparently there was some, as Mr. Richardson said, there was some, they couldn't reach a conclusion. So when it came in front of public services, one of the ideas that was mentioned was look at membership because I don't know of a different way to do it to allocate the same. When you got two entities working at swimming at the same pool at the same time, I don't know of a way to do it besides the number of membership, the number of members. So the AAU was mentioned as one entity that the teams sign up through. and they keep up with their numbers. And it was some, we had to have, our thought was we had to have some way to verify it. But in response to your question, what we said was, we'll look at it at three or four different times, three different times during, over the course of the summer. And if those numbers change, then the way the lanes allocated would change. So like right now, if one team is, you know, has, if you had their numbers together, one team is 70%, they get seven lanes and the other team gets three lanes. If that switch is where the one team drops down to 60, then they get six lanes, the other team gets four lanes. So that was how we tried to, that was the recommendation at the public services meeting of how to address the number of lanes.

Is there, I guess my follow up to that is, is there a problem with keeping their agreement as it is, and the reason I'm asking that, who's gonna keep up with that, the going back and forth of, is that gonna be something that the administration has to, are they gonna have to self-report? How are we gonna determine that? And that, to me, seems like it's gonna create some extra work on our part, but to me, I think.

The contract gives the date that those numbers will be provided in order to assess it, three different dates.

and they have to provide, usually they have to provide about three different dates to the city.

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

And again, so if one group, I mean, I see it causing a big problem. If one group says, all right, we reported this many people, and then the next time, well, we reported this many people, now we're going back and having AAU verify numbers. I get that, but I mean, I'm just saying, I feel like we're going to have, we're going to cause a conflict the entire time. I mean, obviously there's some, there's kind of contention.

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

besides ownership. I thought about just giving them different days. That's been a work.

That doesn't work for, from my understanding, that doesn't work for swim teams, because they swim every day.

I get it, but we're going to have to, at some point we're going to have to, somebody's going to have to give. So either we either have different days, and we swim on different days or we go stick with the original agreement. That's, that's Dave's recommendation. But again, I just think that, why did it change? Go ahead. You can, we can, I know.

Okay. I'm sorry.

So I'll let Dr. Charles Coleman speak.

I guess the problem I had is why it wasn't equal usage from the beginning. Then why were you waiting on these numbers from an outside entity? If, if the city was going to be involved in it, then, why we're waiting on those type of things.

Why was the, why were we waiting on them? Because as I said before, this has never been, this has never reached our level to make the determination of how the contract was going to be structured. So the only, you know, when I, when I mentioned this at the public services meeting, the only way to do it in my mind equitably was, per percentage of roster sizes or percentage of total swimmers. So then at the meeting, that's when the dates came up as far as this date, this date, and this date because of the AAU numbers and the time of swimming during the summer. Because numbers can go up and down depending on when meets are and things like that is my understanding.

Well, I guess I still have the same problem. And I understand the AU numbers, don't get me wrong. I understand that. But I guess I didn't understand how they got involved with what we do equal for what we do for each group. I think that's the part that bothers me.

And that's the part that I talk to.

I think the other thing is that I think Ms. Duncan got thrown under the bus trying to put in, well, That's the only way I can say it. Got thrown under the bus by trying to equalize those issues, but I think equalizing the position should be what they've done in the first place, just have equalization approved until it's all done. Because those numbers are going to fluctuate anyway, aren't they?

You would think so. And I can't speak to the past, but I know If I can't speak to you, I shouldn't say anything.

Well, I'd just like to kind of reiterate. I get what you're saying. I get it. That's the reason why the Public Services Commission meeting was held, was just to, I don't know if the word reset is the right word, but to just allow a completely open forum to discuss the needs that, I'm not a swim professional, and we depend on on kind of, I guess, the guidance from the people that are in that business. You know, we've got two good swim programs with good, honest people, and we've had good meetings with both of them. And I wish we had 50 pool lanes to distribute out. But again, of course, our number one priority in the city is making sure that we have a community pool that kids can enjoy and swim and learn to swim. But also, after those hours are over with, trying to figure out the best way to divide up the competition part of it. It's not unlike soccer fields or baseball fields. There's really no easy solution that's not gonna be tough on somebody. If you go back with the original agreement, one side is obviously gonna be more crowded as the numbers stand today. Now those numbers could change. But again, that's kind of where this discussion kicks back to with the Public Services Commission was trying to figure out the best possible equitable and fair way to make sure that not just from the competition standpoint, from the kids involvement and enjoyment standpoint that we try to make the best decision for them to be able to enjoy the poll.

And I understand it, but I think sometimes when administration gets involved, a whole lot of other stuff gets involved. And I think that's the part, that's why I kept making the statement, why there just couldn't have been an equalization done because soon later when they build the other complex than a lot of these problems we don't have. But right now, it's because it's all about the children in the first place. And I think that's where, to me, it has gotten out of control, that it's not about the children right now, it's about the politics. And I don't like that at all.

Yeah, I mean, our goal was to try to get as many children in the same amount of lanes as possible, to try to figure out what a division like that looked like. I think that the AAU numbers indicated somewhere along the lines of six, four, seven, three allocation off this first round based off of the AAU and the USA numbers. Okay, AAU, but again, like I say, If there's a better way to do that, certainly all ears, but this was the contract that was discussed with the Jets, obviously.

Why did the numbers change, or why did we switch from the way we've always done it since we've had two teams at a 50-50 split between the pool? I mean, in the past, one team has had more numbers than the other, and it's worked. What brought about the change to go from an equal five lanes apiece to 7-3? And 7-3 is totally inequitable. I don't believe that's fair in any condition. 6-4 may be at the worst case scenario. But again on here, another problem I had is half. You're talking about a team with 30% of the pool paying half of the heat and a team with 70% of the pool paying only 50%. That's not right at all. It ought to be prorated out by lane just like the The fee is prorated out by lane. That on its face is wrong. But I'd rather, I'm like Dr. Coleman, I'd rather see each team get five and if they want to work out something between themselves, fine. Six, four, whatever, but turn it over to them, five lanes apiece and let them get together and work it out.

And I don't know the whole history about exactly why this was necessary. I'm sure that, I think Jim is here, who probably has obviously more of the day-to-day information about how we got to this point. I just know that there was obviously some issues, otherwise this conversation wouldn't have started and that's, how the administration got involved.

Another question with those AAU numbers, is that people that are showing up at the pool dressed out that are going to swim that day, or are they just AAU members that you get to count on your number? And so if you're going to have somebody there doing that, counting on how you're going to verify the kids that are dressed up to swim instead of just being an AAU number that you count, or numbers.

That's part of the issue I brought up. I guess I wonder how. That number is dictating what we do here, if it's our pool, and why they couldn't have been split with the 50-50. That's just the question. MIKE PATTERSON.

My only comment there is I think there had to be some sort of third party verification. Instead of just self-reporting the numbers, it had to be a number that comes from the kids signing up, paying a fee to be a member of the AAU.

I appreciate that, Joe, but I think that causes issues. If we'd have done it like we've done it before, then it wouldn't have been a problem at all.

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

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

No.

Well, if it's going to be like this, I would think it'd be better to let them, again, like I say, and I really believe it's fair to give them each five lanes apiece and let them get together as organizations and work out if they're willing to give up a lane for the other one or whatever and back and forth. It's been fair up to now. I don't see why it wouldn't be fair for this last year until the ridge is open.

Well, I'm not gonna speak on behalf of Jets or Sharks. I'm sure they both have representatives here to kind of talk about that, if they would be willing to do that. Like I say, our efforts were to craft a contract based off the conversations that were held at public services on May 6th, and that's a representative of this. You know, it's not a preference either way. It's the guidance that we are provided by public services to create at least some sort of starting and talking point for this agreement to make sure that people can enjoy and safely operate and effectively operate in that pool.

As far as the heat, John, I will say that I think we discussed that at the public services and it's only for a short amount of time in September and they said just leave it 50-50. There won't be heat all summer in the pool. It would just be for a little bit of time in September because I think SHARC or SWAT, I'm sorry, I said it wrong. SWAT doesn't intend to, their contract ends September 30? Is that what y'all wanted? I think that was the date that y'all told me you wanted yours to end was September 30. So the heat wasn't gonna be a big issue and I did have that discussion and said this was the guidance we were given. I mean if it really came down to it, the city could, figure that out when the time came. But I don't think anybody would object to splitting that the same way you split the lanes, if that matters. It just wasn't done at the time because that wasn't the guidance given at the committee.

And we are here because the teams could not agree. And what I understand I'm hearing today is we just need to get them into a room and sit them down until they can agree. You can split it 5-5, but you're still saying that they have to decide what happens That gives us no ability to charge out the way things need to be charged out unless there's something in a written agreement to that nature. So again, it only came to this body and to the other bodies because in the past, we've been able to sit down with both teams and come to some sort of agreement that then moved forward for approval through our formal processes. So what I hear today is until we can get JET and SWAT in a room, And they agree to something that can move forward. Again, this takes you out of it. It takes us out of it. And it put the onus on the coaches and the parents of the two groups to decide on what works to get both parties into the limited lanes that we have for one more year.

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

Not everybody. Yes, but we're in a room that, again, every time it comes before a body, there are different ideas that begin to flow. And those are great ideas that are flowing. I'm not complaining. But we... We have in the past been able to get the groups to agree. And the groups are just going to have to sit down and be adults and agree. And that's something that I think that puts everybody in a position, including you all, to when we have, it does no good to continue the dialogue when there's disagreement. Because every time we bring something back, one group is gonna say something, and another group is gonna say something, and we have that same bickering back and forth, and none of us know where we really stand on an issue. So it's just incumbent upon us to ensure that we get them in a room, we sit down, and we get agreement on their part before anything moves forward. Unfortunately, I know Jim and his team have been trying to get kids in the pool. It is that time of year where we want to see kids in the pool, and so that's been the onus of how we work, trying to get kids back into the pool. But until we can get agreement between the groups, then we're going to continue to go through this process. SWAT is here today. There is a different outcome that I'm hearing today based upon SWAT being in the room. JETS was here the last time, and there was a proposal that moved forward that we thought we were working from. And so until we can get both groups, even if it's in a public setting, we need both groups in the room so that you get both points of view, and then we can make an informed decision and move on.

Well, I'm still going to stick to my guns or what I thought, but I think the other process that I kept hearing, people that have been trained and trained in this, you know, that has nothing to do with right now as far as I'm concerned. You know, again, you know, and I'm going to stop after this part of the conversation. It just bothered me that up until this year, things were happening Pretty decent, I'll put it that way. I'm not saying everybody agrees. But then when the city got involved, it just got really stupid.

Well, the city only got involved, Dr. Holden, because... it was brought to the table for the city to get involved because one of the groups had some, some additional needs.

Well, that's true. But a lot, a lot of meetings that were, they were trying to get set up with some of the city. I noticed for a fact behind the emails that I've gotten, the text mixer, they couldn't get involved with some of the city leaders.

In the last week, in the last two weeks, last week, in the last week or the last two weeks, last week again, until we can get both groups at the table, It does us no good to meet with one group because again, you're getting one view and then when you take that back to the other group, then they're in disagreement with what's transpiring. So we've had this back and forth that's going on. I'm just saying, you know, we're going to continue to go back and forth until we get the two groups to come to a decision in regards to what they want to see occur at the field or at the pool. And until that occurs, until that occurs, we're going to be sitting here spinning our wheels as we have done.

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

I'll make that motion. I move we postpone temporary until they can get together and come up with an agreement that is fairly equitable, and 70-30 is not equitable.

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

I think in that motion, John, if you know what I mean, personally, I don't want them to come back to this organization, to the city council, you know? Well, we have to have a contract that comes back. Well, I know, but it just burns me up.

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

I would say this would need to postpone indefinitely. Indefinitely.

Into a new agreement. Into a new agreement.

Okay. Not temporary. Yes, you can.

Unindefinitely, you can have discussion.

You got it. I don't remember. I may want to speak.

But this is on the motion. I don't remember. Mr. Moore's not here, and I don't remember. I think Carol Shepard and I were going to have a discussion.

I think definitely he's got a priority. I think there should. And you second that?

Yeah. I believe you had a discussion. I need to second it louder.

I have a question. If we went ahead and approved or amended this to be 50-50, then could that be subject to later being amended if the two groups, or do we have to go ahead and have it?

We have to approve a contract as written. So I don't have that contract written. I'll write it, but I don't have it written today. Okay, that was the question.

I was going to say, if they can't agree on one given 15, that's what they'll have.

Yeah, let's not have discussion yet until we can figure out if we can have discussion.

You have discussion on that?

I think you definitely can.

But it's got to be regarding the motion.

Where are we?

Go for it. My question regarding the motion to postpone indefinitely is right now we have the jet swimming and I don't think SWAT is swimming in the pool.

My understanding from administration is that's because they had a signed contract and in the past, once people had a signed contract, we'd allowed that. But if there's, I'll let administration speak to that. Administration allowed that because of the signed contract. I assume, but I want to assume, I want one of y'all to tell me what happens if there's not a signed contract. I would assume they don't swim, but I'll let administration speak to that.

Honestly, that is the basis of them being in the pool is that we had come to some agreement and there was a signed contract. And so we will need to revisit that process. But we'll dialogue with both teams and then we'll revisit that process for sure.

My understanding is, and y'all can correct me if this isn't true, that I believe SWAT has another place to swim right now at the Trim Gym maybe.

I believe both teams may have access to another place. Now whether it is large enough to facilitate them, I'm speaking from the six hour plus of meetings that I've been in over this, but my understanding is that SWAT uses Trim Gym and that JET uses St. Bernard's as far as an alternate swimming location. No, I don't know if those facilities are big enough to facilitate what they need on a daily basis, but that's my understanding.

Will they still be able to swim at the city pool?

Again, that is something we'll revisit as a team, and then we'll communicate that out to the various... the various individuals.

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

I don't think anybody wants to be in a position that we're punishing kids. Right, no, we don't. Because... There's disagreement elsewhere. So, again, that is something that we will take into consideration as we, you know, initially not allowing anybody to swim was kind of, I'll say, was hopefully some leverage to get everybody to the table to come to some type of conclusion. Again, we want to get this resolved. We want to get this resolved with the teams. And in an effort to do that, we will revisit who, how, and what that looks like. without some type of agreement in place. Once we have that, again, we'll communicate it to the team and we'll communicate it out to those of you on the council so that you are aware of what's transpiring there.

Does anybody else on the committee have any question or comment regarding the motion that is currently on the floor to postpone indefinitely? My only statement, and it really just

it all came around to what I wanted to say was really the contract was what the question was, was on the table. And so I do agree with the, Dr. Charles Coleman, when he was talking about the 50-50, why is it even here? And my concern was with the contract, are we liable if they were using it and it hasn't gone through the process and all of that? So that was the other question. But I do hope that, well, I guess it is a question. And I think But Tony mentioned it. Is there some kind of way they can just use the pool until we come up with an agreement and then go from there? But that's all I.

A public comment on this, on the motion that's on the floor. All right. Is there anybody in the public that would like to comment? Please state your name and address for the record, and also keep your comments to the motion that's on the floor, which is to postpone indefinitely.

Thank you. Bryce Cook, 2915 North Culver House. I'm here as the chairman of the board of the SWAT organization, and I will keep it to the motion, because here's the reality. The team that has been advantaged by this process is swimming in the pool. They were swimming in the pool before they signed the contract. They were swimming in the pool in April. The heaters go down. They're out of the pool because the heaters are down. No one's in the pool. And then they're back in the pool. The administration allowed that. And if you postpone it indefinitely, they're still going to be in the pool. And we're going to be having to ask our summer swim families to swim indoors in a small facility at the trim gym and pay a membership to them on top of it. Not out in the sunshine, where I swam when I was a kid. And I have more comments generally on this policy. I can keep it to the motion, but if the motion doesn't pass, I'd like to be heard on the policy if it advances. But my specific ask is do not postpone this indefinitely. We're about June. We've canceled a large swim meet that the A&P Commission allocated us money to bring people here because of the uncertainty related to this contract.

The contract's gonna change, it has to be indefinitely, because we'd be coming back with a different contract. It's not that it means we're putting it off forever. It just means that when it comes back, it kills this approval of this contract. Does that make sense?

Not the issue. It does, and frankly, I say I have zero confidence in the administration to reach a contract. We made numerous concessions in this process. We have done everything in our power to ignore the fairness of it, to understand that this was conceived in darkness with no accountable person that's willing to stand up and say, you know, I woke up one day and said, we need to reallocate swim lanes. That's not what happened. Well, we learned today that there was a meeting of three people that did it. The parks director, the city attorney, and Councilman Chris Gibson. That's incorrect. This is the information we got. I know Carol. She does not care about the policies. That is not her job, right? She said, I draft contracts. I don't make policy. I believe that. Mr. Surge disclaimed ownership. I don't know where this came from when we were presented with it on March 5th. You need to talk to Carol. She wrote it. Then we find out meeting councilman chris gibson brought these concerns forward he's the chair of the public services committee we learned and self-identifies as councilman committee chair and jet's parent in writing i sent an information out to you today i hope everybody had a chance to review it Y'all have a code of ethics. It's not a code of morals. I don't question his character as a human being. But we have the code of ethics that if you have an interest, a family interest, anything in any discussion proposal that goes on, you can't participate at any level. Instead we're hearing, well his involvement wasn't that big. He was involved. We have those rules so we don't have to question you guys about your motives and intentions and level of involvement. But here we are. The administration seems to want to lay at our feet. We didn't participate in the debate. Here's how we learned about that debate. We'd had to count a proposal to a contract. I'm following up with the parks director. for a couple days, Friday.

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

The opposing team makes a Facebook post saying, there is a special meeting called for Tuesday to debate swim lanes. All of our parents show up, which was confusing because Ms. Leggett had confirmed earlier in the day the next public service committee meeting was in June or July.

Hey, Mr., you're getting a little bit away from the motion that's on the floor. So I gotta limit you somewhat.

So please kind of wrap it up. Yeah, as far as the motion goes, Mr. Thomas was my teacher, one of my favorite ones. He's a great guy, great guy. I believe sincerely in it. The time to have Kumbaya was in February. The time to make it clear and transparent was in February. There was time to fix it from March until today, so it was doubling down, doubling down. So frankly, I don't think us, the public, or anyone can have any confidence that the administration's gonna solve this problem. They've already had every opportunity to do it. Now when it's in public, all of a sudden, No, we can get this fixed. Sorry, I don't believe you. Thank you.

I'd like to make a comment about special called meetings. The rules are that they have whoever calls the special called meeting has to give a notice of three hours. By law, we only have to give a notice of two hours. I came in on this. They called it on a Friday night. I came in on Saturday and got that notice out.

I mean, if I could respond very briefly to that.

I don't think I can.

I have a question. Can I question something? What do you ask?

This needs to be all based upon the motion to postpone indefinitely. We don't need to get outside that motion, or we're going to be opening it up forever. Is there anybody else in the audience who'd like to make a motion? Please give it to the motion.

Sarah Beth cook, 2915 North Culver house. And I'll tell you, I'm not qualified to know whether I'm about to speak to the motion. And so you can just tell me that that's not related, but what I'm hearing on this motion is, is that we need to table this so that we can go back and get both sides. at the table to talk about the contract. I met with Mr. Richardson and Mr. Stearns today. I had a good meeting with them. And what I would offer to you is historically, that's exactly how the swim contract was presented to both teams. that the parks director would sit down, he'd have an equal allocation of lanes and the heating costs, he would sit down with both, either the board or the coach in the same room, he'd pass it to them and he'd say, if you want in the pool, sign it. And so from the beginning, my question as a parent of a swimmer, two swimmers on SWAT is why did that not happen? I know I'm probably getting away from the motion, but my concern is if there is a motion to table this, when are my kids gonna get in the pool? because since this started, I've called every single person on the council or I've emailed them or I've texted them and I certainly appreciate all of your time. I understand what your function is. It's to either approve or not approve this contract. You guys are not dictating policy, but from a mom's standpoint, I'll tell you who it feels like is dictating this policy, the Jets. And that's not a place that I wanna be trying to explain to my children, okay? Because when we find out they're in the pool, we go by and my 12 year old goes, whoa, they're breaking the rules. And it does appear that way. It appears that that's the case if we have a contract that no one can really agree on, that they've signed, but you guys haven't approved. And what's more, the contract that's been presented to us, we absolutely can't sign because we don't even know how that's gonna allocate the lanes, even if our team continues to grow. If people say, hey, I'm ready to turn my account back on. It's June, we're done with soccer, we're ready to get back in the pool. even if we continue to grow and they add more, we could still end up with two lanes. So I would offer to you that three is not a viable solution and surely two and one are not. Absolutely not. So I'm sorry if I diverged from that.

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

I don't want this tabled. Yeah, what I have asked, I had brief remarks that I was ready to read. But what I was going to ask at the end is just to say, please just go back to the arrangement that we've had in 22, 23, 24, and 25. Because I think Will would get up here and tell you right now, there have been times that the Jets have come to him and said, you know, we had a few more people show up to practice. Can we have one of those lanes? And he would say, definitely you can. So I'm telling you that I don't think it is a good idea to weaponize the city on behalf of, you know, I'm not saying anybody, everybody on that team. I'm saying there are a few people who feel very strongly that our team maybe shouldn't have lanes. And I don't think that using public resources is a way to limit our ability to be in the pool, my kids' ability to prepare for these swim meets. Because we have two clubs who are doing awesome, who go throughout the state. They travel to Tennessee and Mississippi. And everywhere they go, they can say, we represent the city of Jonesboro. And both of those teams and all of those children should have the opportunity to do that. So thank you. Thank you for your comments.

Let's start from getting in the pool.

Let's talk about this. They don't have a contract they agree to.

I'm just gonna say that administratively one more time that the only issue before this committee right now is to approve a JETS contract or not approve a JETS contract. And the motion that is there is to postpone indefinitely. And while I know that sounds scary and procedurally scary, postponing indefinitely kills that contract. Like arguing for us not to postpone indefinitely is arguing to keep the JETS contract alive and allow this committee to vote on it procedurally. So I don't think that's really what y'all are trying to do. That's all I'm going to say procedurally.

I'm going to call for a vote on the motion.

That's administration's decision on who uses the pool.

I'm still asking, what's stopping them from getting the pool? Will they still be able to get the pool?

After this, we'll have a vote.

And Bryce was an amazing student, I would add. At this particular point, Dr. Coleman, again, we didn't allow anyone in the pool until we thought we were moving forward with agreement between the two teams as far as a contract.

Hold it. Let me ask it this way. If we stop this contract, they will still be able to get in the pool now.

Again, that is a decision that I think we'll have to have some discussions about as an administration. And right now, there's only one team, and one team was allowed to return to the pool, what, had it been a week, Jim? Had it been a week, or just, about a week ago? Yeah, we've had one team that was allowed to return to the pool. Now, and again, If the two teams will sit down, I've heard different days. We went through that. They didn't want to do different. No, that posed challenges. Then we heard, you know, we've gone through just about all of the scenarios that are being discussed. And so, again, I'm putting the onus upon, administration is not going to negotiate this contract.

All right?

I want you all to understand.

Mr. Thomas, will you? Please direct your comments to the administration.

I just heard that come in a minute ago that there's no confidence in administration, uh, to negotiate the contract. Administration is not negotiating the contract. I mean, administration will move forward what the swim teams agree to now.

That's true. Miss Thomas, but I'm still asking when can they get in the pool? Can they get in the pool? That is not a decision I am in a position to make. Does Jim have that make a decision?

That has been a team effort with an input from a number of individuals. And so we will work with both coaches. We will work with... As an administration, we'll work with both coaches to ensure that kids are not penalized because of the lack of agreement at this point between the two teams. Yeah, please do that. And again, I'll communicate that to you as quickly as that decision is made. We want to see kids swim. We want to see both programs grow. We want to see both programs prosper. But we also want to see agreement in regards to a contract from both entities.

Thank you. All right. Do we need a voice vote? OK. So please record a yay is to table. A nay is to not table, correct? Just so we're clear. So please cast your ballot on whether or not to table resolution 26059 indefinitely. This resolution is tabled.

I have a question. If two teams, they are able to come to a decision, would it be possible for us to have a special call meeting to?

I have no issue with that.

So that we can hurry it up? Yep. I think I'd be willing to attend such a meeting.

All right. Yes, I would definitely.

Can Jim come to the podium?

Okay, but we're no longer on that item.

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

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

So you're saying Jim can't talk to us about it?

I'm just saying we're not on that item anymore. I have no issue personally. I'm just talking procedurally.

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

We can bring it back up in other business. All right. All right. Sorry to be so. As I said, we've never dealt with this before. So it's, I mean, at least I haven't. We're going to pending items now. This is resolution 26044. I'm just going to read this by title only because it's already been read once by Mr. Emison. Resolution 26044, a resolution of the city of Jonesboro, Arkansas authorizing the mayor To enter into an agreement with the North Jonesboro Community Development Corporation to lease space at 911 Magnolia Road.

Move forward to full council. Second.

Motion seconded, forward to full council. Any questions or comments from the committee? Anything from staff? Anything from the public in attendance on resolution 26044? Seeing none, please record your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26044 to full council. That will go to full council. Now we move to other business. Mr. Stearns, would you please come to the podium?

My question, same question. When will they be able to get in the pool?

When will they get in the pool? I'm going to assume we all come to an agreement.

Okay. I guess my question is, what agreement? Because we just tabled an issue about...

Without an agreement, I would assume we're not going to be swimming.

Was that again?

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

So that means both teams will not be swimming?

That is correct.

Can I ask a question in this way? Hopefully we can quickly come to something that both teams are able to continue swimming. I see where you're coming from, but as we've said, hopefully both teams can work something out. I know 7-3 may not work, maybe 6-4 will, but maybe they agree upon 5-5 and they have some sort of you know, dialogue to where, you know, as was mentioned earlier, if one team has more swimmers and the other team doesn't need a lane, they can share a lane or do something like that. But, I mean, I think the bottom line is we want the kids to be able to swim. We want the teams to be able to work out an agreement. And we need cooperation between the teams because.

Joe, excuse me for cutting you off. And you're doing a good job. My point was for him to get, make, I want to hear him say that so it could be on record because if they, other people are going in the pool, it's going to cause him a problem. Personally, I think, you know, and for one team to go into the pool and another team not going into the pool, I think that would be totally unfair.

Oh, can I? Yeah, go ahead.

So that's not somebody putting him on the spot. It just needs to be said and put on record.

I agree with you, Dr. Coleman. And so I want to ask it in this way. since there has been a contract in the past that both have complied to, is it possible, I don't know if it's your question or Carol's question or whoever, is it possible using the agreements or the contracts that were made in the past, can we do that until, because I don't know when they're going to come together or not, but until then, I'm asking is it possible that those two entities can use a facility until that time comes when they come together, based on the former contract. Certainly possible. Two things.

I mean, I'd have to re-read it, but I don't think there was anything in those contracts that allowed them to, it's not like a lease in this traditional sense where if you have a holdover tenant, they continue to lease month to month after the contract ends. I do not believe that those contracts had that language, but I can double check that. So in that sense, those contracts expired some time ago. Now, that's not to say, I also have said before, and I'll say again, I don't know that legally you're not required to have a contract to swim in our pool. We can let people, I mean, we have day cares in schools that bring kids to our pool, and I'm not aware of any contract with any of them. on which days they come. We just work it out with them. We want kids to swim, right? And we allow them to bring their daycares or their afterschool programs or whatever they have in the summer on certain days to come swim in our pools. So you're not required to have a contract to swim in our pools legally.

So that being said, couldn't we do, and it's just a Rick suggestion, I'm just using an arbitrary number, 21 days. They can use it, but then they have to come together within these 21 days based on the former agreements. It's a verbal agreement. They can use it for this number of time, and they have to come together with this order. before coming to us with a new project.

And I don't want to put words in Tony's mouth, but I think that's what he was trying to say, is that we want people to swim and we'll sit down and try to do that.

I think 21 days is entirely too long. I mean, hopefully they can come up with an agreement in a week. I just want the kids to swim. Yeah, me too. Why do you sit so far back? I mean, there's an extra chair at that table. I try not to come up here. He's getting his steps in. I try not to come up here, but yes. You want your steps?

I'll say we want kids to swim, and what we do for one, we will do for the other. So that's a non-issue. We want kids in the pool. It may not be what they want, but we will have opportunities to get kids in pools for both until there's an agreement that's worked out.

I also think that's a, I call it effort in the room, and maybe I'm not hearing something through my hearing aid, this heater type thing. So you tell me the disproportion, one is paying one price and one paying another price.

Nobody's paying any price right now.

Was that again?

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

Okay, until fall. But even when that happens, whatever contract happens, then why aren't they still paying?

I think if you go back to the thought process that was related to that is you don't heat four lanes in a pool. You don't heat six lanes in a pool. You heat a pool. So regardless of how many lanes were divided among each group, you have to heat the pool all right and so if if we could break out cost you know if you could break out cost that way it would be fine but that was just a thought process behind that is that you had to heat all of the pool regardless of who was using it how many lanes were being used the entire pool had to be heated uh therefore the cost i didn't know that's why i'm sure that's why yes sir yeah that regardless that's why the costs were split equally because you heat it all at one time or you can't break it down by laning. So even if SWAT was not in the pool that day, we had to heat the entire pool. I know the city's pretty rich right now. What city are you from?

Why they haven't even closed that pool?

Yeah, but I appreciate you guys. I appreciate all of you today and your thought processes. I just want you to know kids are going to swim. We're going to work with kids and with groups to ensure that kids swim. And again, we're putting the onus upon the two teams in order to come up with a solution that they can both live with and then move that forward to administration. You're absolutely correct. When we get in the middle of it, because we don't know. That's right. how swimming works we don't know what it takes uh in order to run a practice we don't know but there are professionals who know that who have to use that expertise to come up with the best solution that they can live with and we'll gladly move that forward to you all as a body i just want to leave steve patia a statement that we need to line out and close that food okay

Maybe not that particular pool, maybe that location. All right. Do you have something else? No. OK. All right. Is there any other business from the committee today?

The only thing I had was a question when we will see for the bank for the deposits.

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

I had a question about the impact fee, the firm that is working on the study for that. I think, Brian, you had said that you and Daryl had contacted them, and you're waiting to hear from them?

Sure. Daryl's been in. pretty consistent contact with them, trying to kind of push this along. You know, it's a process that was supposed to have taken, I don't know, eight months. Now that's stretched out, obviously past that nine months. And the last communication with them last week was they requested, I think, the square footage of one of our public works facilities. Don't know why, but that's what they requested. But they've... We've asked them to get us a date where they can bring the committee back together that was recently reappointed, present what those look like, and see if it's something we even want to continue pursuing. I mean, it's not going to be the windfall that everybody would hope for, but I don't think anybody was under the anticipation that it would be. Daryl is out today, but I will have him email the group again and see exactly where they're on the process, because I am ready to get that presented so we can either move on or decide to just table it.

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

Thankfully, we have a very active committee that is very engaged with that. It's not a fun thing to talk about, but as soon as we can get that information back, we'll bring it forward.

All right, thanks a lot.

Thanks.

All right, anything else from the committee? All right, we'll move into public comments. This gives the public a chance to comment on something that has not already been discussed today. Anybody have a public comment? If not, next item's adjournment.

Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you, everybody.