Finance & Administration Council Committee - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everybody. It's 4 o'clock. I'll call today's Finance and Administration Council Committee meeting to order. Please confirm your attendance by pushing the appropriate button. We do have five present, so we do have a quorum today. Next up is approval of minutes from the Finance Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2026.

Move to approve unless there's a noted change.

Motion to second. Any questions or comments on the minutes as presented? If not, please record your vote on whether or not to approve the minutes. Moving to new business, first up is Resolution 26074, a resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to amend a portion of the employee handbook for all employees for the City of Jonesboro. Whereas the current handbook employee handbook was previously revised by resolution 24, 167 on December 17th, 2024. Whereas this handbook serves as a primary policies and procedure manual for all employees. And whereas the city council desires to revise a portion of the employee handbook regarding the city's nepotism policy. Now, therefore be resolved by the city council on the city of Jonesville, Arkansas, that section one, The entirety of the section of the employee handbook titled nepotism and personal date, personal dating relationships, beginning with the title on page eight and continuing on page nine up to, but not including the section entitled drug free workplace policy is hereby deleted and its entirety in place with the following nepotism and personal dating relationships. Nepotism. The city welcomes the opportunity to hire and retain qualified employees who are related to one another by blood or marriage. However, since such relationships sometimes can create problems in the workplace, including suspicions of favoritism with the related employees or in a supervisor slash subordinate relationship, it is the policy of the city that number one, any employee of the city who is a relative or becomes a relative with another employee shall not have any direct or indirect administrative or operational authority over the other person. This prohibition means not only that a person cannot supervise a relative, but also that the relative cannot be in that person's chain of command. For example, a relative cannot work in the department in which a relative is their supervisor. Number two, an employee of the city cannot use his or her authority or position with the city to benefit or to disadvantage another employee in a familial relationship. Although all such potential misuses of authority cannot be listed here, Examples include an employee signing an evaluation for a relative or signing slash approving a check payable to a relative. Number three, employees are required to notify the city's human relations department of A, any existing familial relationships, B, any familial relationships that were created among employees, for example, by marriage of two employees, and C, the potential employment by the city of a relative. Number four, The city will refuse to hire a job applicant who is a relative of a current employee if the applicant or current employee would be in a supervisory or subordinate position to another. City employees who marry one another during their employment will be allowed to remain with the city unless they are in a superior subordinate relationship and there is no open position to which one of them may be moved. Number five, any person who is a relative of the mayor or any city council member not be eligible for hire with the city during the term of the mayor or city council member. A relative of either the city clerk or the city attorney will be eligible for hire with the city so long as they do not work in the office or under the supervision of the elected official with whom they share a familial relationship. Number six, familial relationship. Within the meaning of this policy means a husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, or granddaughter, or any of those relationships arising as a result of marriage, for example, brother-in-law. Number seven, relative. It means anyone with whom there is a familial relationship. All hires that must be considered nepotism will require the mayor or the mayor's designated approval. Failure to approve the mayor's or the failure to obtain nepotism the mayor's or the mayor's designee's approval will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Neither the mayor nor the mayor's designee may approve a new hire in violation of number paragraph five of this policy regarding relatives of elected officials. It is important that any relationship that may cause a conflict of interest be reported to human resources for the necessary approvals. Personal data and relationships. The city realizes that personal relationships of a romantic nature may develop between coworkers, and while the city does not wish to ban all such relationships outright, those who choose to engage in such relationships do so at their own risk. With knowledge, their employment may be affected if the relationship results in inappropriate or unprofessional behavior, negatively impacts the common good or morale of other employees, or creates conflicts of interest. If such relationships exist between employees, then employees must report it to their supervisor and HR. The city reserves the right to take the appropriate action it deems necessary. Date and relationships in which one of the employees is a direct supervisor are prohibited. If you plan on entering into a date and relationship with another employee in your department and one of you is in a direct supervisory position, the following actions must be taken. Number one, you must notify your supervisor and the human resource director immediately Two, one of you will be required to resign or transfer to another department if there is a position available within 30 calendar days. Three, you may mutually agree on which of you will transfer or resign. Four, if you cannot agree, the employee with the lowest, with the lower classification will be required to transfer or resign. Section two, the employee handbook table contents will be amended to the extent necessary to accurately reflect the sections and page numbers. Section 3, any portion of the employee handbook not specifically revised, elated, or amended herein shall remain in full force and effect.

DAVID BURRAGE, MOVED FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL TO GET IT ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.

I GOT A FEW THINGS TO SAY REGARDING THIS BEFORE I OPEN THE FLOOR UP TO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. Typically, when a resolution is brought up to us, especially the handbook, it's addressing a problem. I personally don't believe that there's a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that our current nepotism policy covers what needs to be covered. I looked at other cities, including Little Rock, Conway, Cabot. Our policy falls in line with those. Number two, I spoke to Dwayne Douglas today, our HR director, and Dwayne told me that he didn't see any issues that needed to be addressed by this policy change. In particular, you know, the one that, you know, obviously hits closer to home with us is the, any person who's a relative of the mayor or city council member should not be eligible for hire with the city during the term of the mayor or city council member. I mean, we currently have 49, openings in the city of Jonesboro. There's quite a few in the police department, the fire department, streets, engineering, city planning, communications. And I would just really hate to limit our job pool because one of our grandkids or nephews or nieces or cousins want to apply for a job with the city. I feel that there's checks and balances in place. There was a change to nepotism policy, I believe, in 2024. In talking with Carol, the state law that this was based on, ACA 21801, 101, it deals with state boards and commissions. It doesn't deal with a city council or a mayor in a mayor-city council relationship. So I just don't really feel that there's a need for this change. I'll open the floor up for other discussion.

And I'll just say to clarify that there's just not a state law that deals with mayor-city council. That's why that was the one I think that they were looking at as well.

Is there some issue that brought this up for a change?

Is there something specific that brought it about?

It's your resolution.

Well, I don't guess I've ever stood here, so this is really different. This was a conversation with Carol. I mean, I've just kind of witnessed over the years. I mean, the problems we've had primarily in state government and schools, schools have a zero tolerance policy. And Dr. Coleman, maybe you could speak to that. I mean, I know I read an article recently. like the Conway School Board president had to resign from being on the Conway School Board so their kid could be a teacher. So we've obviously had a problem over the years with mayors hiring their kids. I mean, happened with mayor parents, happened with this mayor too. So I think from a public perspective, we just kind of have to be above reproach. And I hear Councilman Hafner's point, you know, yeah, a lot of open jobs, there's no doubt that there's difficulty filling jobs. But the challenge is the public just needs to know that it's fair. And I don't have the statistic in front of me, I can't remember. But I think in the instance, when we created the park ranger program we had four jobs and man i can't remember the statistic off the top of my head i want to say 40 50 60 people applied and the mayor's son got one of the four jobs and maybe he was absolutely entitled to it maybe that's great maybe the same thing's true for mayor parents and maybe that's fantastic maybe he was the perfect person for the job i was not around for any of that This just prevents any of those problems, prevents any of those sort of conflicts. And so I think it's obviously something schools absolutely abide by. The state has had that problem historically. If you'll remember back in the day, Gus Wingfield was the state treasurer. He put two of his kids on the state payroll, gave them both cars. And so then the state started to take action against constitutional officers misusing resources. So I think when it comes to public officials, much like we can't take a gift over X amount of dollars and we can't take a contribution over X amount of dollars and we have to fill out a statement of financial interest saying where our money comes from, I think the public just wants to know we're way above reproach. And so this prevents any of those issues. So that was my motivation, if you will, to prevent any future problems. Because I think public integrity is super important. And people now are more skeptical of us than ever. So anyway, that's why I brought it forward.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. So I'm not in, I mean, I think it's something that is not a problem until it is a problem. And so I think one of the things that we Got to be reminded of, Mr. Bryant just brought it up, previous administration had someone employed, son employed. That son was found to be doing something on city computers and accessing firewalls, all that kind of stuff, and then it became a problem. A former IT director was terminated. So to me, like I said, it's not a problem until it's a problem. So anything that will give us some clearance in terms of this is our policy, you cannot go beyond this, I feel like that would be moving in the right direction so we don't have some issue that arises.

But wasn't the prior mayor's son terminated? when he was found doing something wrong. So it seems like there was a check and balance in place there. But somebody else lost their job from it. But I think that's getting into the weeds somewhat, assuming that it was retaliatory. I mean, I just think this is far reaching when it talks about, you know, like one of my nephews can't be hired to be a lifeguard at a pool when we're looking for swim guards and having to coach pools early last summer because we didn't have enough lifeguards. I just think this is, I understand with being above approach, I think that's why there's, you know, you have an HR director, you have an HR department, you have directors, you know, you have procedures you can go through if there's, you know, if someone feels like they were wrong somewhat. But, you know, I think this is, I understand you don't need to have nepotism, you don't have favoritism that results in problems. I just think this is way over the top for our current situation.

And I think my final comment is, you know, even in our small town, your last name gets you special favors, you know, and there's just no way to design a system that's fair when you're part of a certain family, and this prevents any of those conflicts. But anyway, appreciate the consideration, and that's why I was brought forward.

Any other comments from the committee?

I'll say one more last thing. Like I said, it's not a problem, it's just a problem. Going forward, looking 20 years down the road, I don't know if not having something in place is, I mean, I understand we have a current, but maybe something with a little more teeth would prevent things from happening.

Thank you.

Roman? I don't really have any problem having something in place, but I think at the same time, it needs to be on an individual basis. More than collectively.

Would this affect anybody employed right now?

No.

Anything else from the community? Anything from staff?

Thank you, Chairman.

You good, Dwayne? I mean, it's totally up to you, but now is your time.

Did you bring the check? Say what?

OK. Well, the current policy, basically, I feel like addresses all the needs that we wanted it to. Back in 24, that's what we did, was kind of strengthen that. So we had to have certain approvals in place to make sure there's, try to avoid some conflict. And so the only difference in our policy and the one that's recommended is that paragraph number five or point number five about being able to hire the council member or the mayor's family. So, you know, I would hate also to restrict. It's hard enough to fill positions. I would hate to think if one of your members of your family or something like that wanted to be a lifeguard or work in parks, wanted to serve their community, they would not be required to do so and so on. You get all kinds of employment issues and most of them don't have anything to do with nepotism. You deal with them as you get them. And so we address those things and we try our best to do so.

We'll go to Mr. Miller.

Thanks. Kevin Miller, 1111 Lehman Jonesboro. I agree with a lot of what you said. I understand needing to have a nepotism policy. I think we have one. I think it works. I do think this is a step too far. I wanted to absolutely make sure that this doesn't affect in any shape, form, or fashion current employees. Guaranteed lockdown, this isn't going to affect any current employees. And that's good. It shouldn't. But I also don't like the idea of excluding potential employees. Now, my kids are grown and got their own careers and moving down, but it would absolutely thrill me someday if one of my grandkids decided they wanted to follow in my footpaths and maybe join the fire department. But because of who they're related to, we simply have to tell them, you're not welcome here. That simple. I also did a little research checking with some other cities. I understand school districts have different policies. State has different policies, but I checked with Paraguay, Fort Smith, Conway, Bentonville, Rogers, Springdale, Hot Springs, Little Rock. None of them have a policy like this. Most of their policies pretty much mirror our existing policy. No one has that additional step. I think we're excluding people that we don't have to. We have a system in place to address those potential conflicts without adding another layer. That's my opinion.

Thank you. DAVID BURRAGE. Any other questions or comments on this item? If not, please vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26074 to full council. All right, next item is a municipal lien. I'll just read these by their title only. Resolution 26079. Resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to place a municipal lien on property located at 218 West Forest, partial at 01-144-073-27900 owned by Der LaVon in the amount of $315. I move for the full council. Second. Motion to second, forward to full council. Any questions or comments on this item? Anything from staff or public in attendance? If not, please vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26079 to full council. Resolution 26080, resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, to place the municipal lane on property located at 413 Parkview, Parcel 01-144-302-18300 owned by Sandhill Property Management in the amount of $1,240. DAVID BURRAGE, MOVING FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL.

SECOND.

DAVID BURRAGE, SECOND FORWARD TO FULL COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ANYTHING FROM STAFF OR PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, PLEASE CATCH YOUR VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO FORWARD RESOLUTION 26080 TO FULL COUNCIL. Resolution 26081. Resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to place municipal land on property located at 616 East Oak. Partial 01-144-191-17500. Owned by Joyce Scarborough in the amount of $275.

Move for the full council.

Motion seconded for the full council. Any questions or comments regarding this item from anybody? Please cast your ballot on whether or not to forward Resolution 26081 to full council. Resolution 26082, resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, in the place of Ms. Folleen, on property located at 704 Vine, partial of 01-143-134-22-200, owned by ECB UCO in the amount of $275. Looking forward to full council.

Second.

Full council, any questions or comments on this item? If not, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26082 to full council. Resolution 26083, resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro-Arkansas Place of municipal land on property located at 1702 West Nettleton, partial 01-143-242-00800 owned by EF Hoco WRE Assess Rio LLC in the amount of $315. Move forward to full council.

Second.

Motion to second, forward to full council. Any questions or comments on this item? Seeing none, please cast your ballot on whether or not Afford Resolution 26083 to full council. Resolution 26084. Resolution by City Council, City of Johnsonville, Arkansas, to place municipal lien on property located at 5017 Mount Carmel, partial 01-133013-01500, owned by Catherine Arterberry, in the amount of $465. Move for the full council. Second. Second. Motion seconded forward to full council. Any questions or comments on this item? Seeing none, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26084 to full council. All right, Resolution 26085. Resolution by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas to adopt a revised employee handbook for the City of Jonesboro. whereas the current employee handbook was previously revised by Resolution 24-167 on December 17, 2024, and whereas this handbook serves as a primary policies and procedures manual for all employees, and whereas there is a need for a revised employee handbook that outlines updated information and procedures, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, that Section 1, the City of Jonesboro employee handbook is hereby adopted by reference as though set out herein word by word as a guide for all employees of the city of Jonesboro. Section two, the city of Jonesboro employee handbook will be effective for all employees. Section three, all previous editions of any employee handbook for the city of Jonesboro are hereby repealed in their entirety.

Does this need to be postponed indefinitely to do away with it, or is this codified, the other one?

My mic isn't working for some reason, but this is different than the other.

Do we need a motion?

We'll move forward to full council.

Second.

Motion to move forward to full council. Mr. Douglas, do you want to explain what this is about?

Yeah. Since the nepotism change was coming up, we... kind of been working on a whole new handbook revision. But these are a couple of items that had some urgency in them, like the AI policy. If we were gonna make a change, then we'd go ahead and get the AI updated in there. And then also the employee rep committee has been requesting to try to have some language put in there to more define their role. And so if we're going to council to make any kind of change, we thought we'd need to at least get those two updates. but also to have a working on a total update to the whole handbook, basically.

So you want these to go ahead and go to full council?

I'd rather it wait myself, but these policies... What do you think, Carol?

I mean, I have some concerns about AI that I think we do need a written policy on AI. So I personally think we could change it any time. You know, if we have further changes down the road, we could do those. But my biggest concern is cities have had problems with employees not realizing that when they upload personal sensitive or confidential information into like chat GPT to get it to help them write a letter, they're not realizing that that personal sensitive information is being stored by whatever free service they've uploaded that to and it's no longer personal and private. So like if you want chat GPT, I'm not going to say HR would do this, but I'm going to use HR as an example. Let's say they're about to, you know, terminate you and they say, I need help writing a letter because he did this, this and this. And, and these are all the personal things that would not be releasable other than in that letter, but they upload it to chat GPT to help them write a letter. many of those databases then store that, we had a lot of education on this at the Municipal League this time, but they store that information and then you have released essentially confidential information to someone that you don't realize who you're releasing it to, dates of birth, social security numbers, things like that. So they were really using, wanting us to use caution on And wanting cities to develop an AI policy. So I think that one's pretty important. I would like to see us go ahead and approve that. And if there are additional changes to the handbook later, we can also bring those back. But I think an AI policy that just makes it, and then some education, right, of our employees after that can follow this. But to have a policy in place that says, you're not allowed to do this. And also something about human oversight that says, check your work. You know, we learned at Municipal League about attorneys that submitted briefs where they said, write me a brief that argues this. And it would write that brief okay, but it would also make up case law that doesn't exist to support what it's saying. And they didn't go back then and check that case law to see if that was real case law. And it wasn't. ChatGPT or whoever just made it up. and then they submitted that to a court and got in trouble and i'm not saying it would be that serious here my office is certainly smarter than that but what i'm saying is i think that we need to employees don't realize that yes it is smart and yes it is helpful but use caution when you're using it with private information and double checking that it's telling you what you need to be told.

This is on city-owned devices is what you're talking about?

I'm just talking about city information, essentially. I don't care if you use ChatBT to write a letter to break up with your boyfriend. I mean, I don't. I don't care about that. I'm talking about if you're in a department where you have access to what's considered confidential information, whether that's the police department or HR or finance or wherever that we have access to confidential information, we need something in place that tells employees what oversight and what they need, what our policy is on putting that information into a computer somewhere that you don't know where. anything about, really, that's storing that.

That's what I'm asking. Specific for, like, city devices?

And city employees.

Just employees as a whole. So, I mean, how would you know if I got my letter from my chat GPT account versus...

Well, I mean, if we find out that confidential information has been leaked in some way, it's a violation of our policy.

If I'm using it to write something up, I just make sure I remove names, confidential information.

I mean, you can say, help me fire a guy named David, and here's what he did without saying, like, you know. It was McClain, and here's his social security number, and here's his data bar. I see what you're saying. His kids' names. You don't want to put that personal information out there.

Sure.

It's dangerous, and people don't realize how dangerous it is.

So these two changes are two changes that kind of have some urgency to them, especially the AI piece. So it would benefit going to council and getting approved, but know that shortly we'll have other changes coming.

Can you explain what the other change is?

Yeah, there's been changes along the police and fire. Fire has adopted the Bill of Rights and things of that nature. So a lot of that in this one city handbook gets kind of confusing trying to separate the uniform and non-uniform. So the changes you'll see coming will be you'll have a non-uniform employee handbook like this one. but then you'll have one for police and fire separately as well.

And I think the only other change in here is about the rep committee, right?

Yes, that's correct.

That's the only other change in the current one that's in front of me.

You asked us to relay this for later there. I'm sorry? You asked for this not to go to the council right now. I think Carol wants it to.

I think the AI is important to go now.

I'm kind of confused. They're saying go ahead and approve this and send it to council, and then later we'll have other changes coming.

Okay, so that's what, okay.

And I'm fine with that.

Any other questions or comments from anybody in council chambers? If not, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward resolution 26085 to full council. All right, last item under new business is resolution 26086, a resolution by the City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, to accept the low bid and enter into a contract with R.L. Persons Construction Incorporated for the South Carraway Road widening project, job number 202620. Whereas the City of Jonesboro has a desire to accept the low bid and enter into a contract for the South Carraway Road widening project, Whereas the low bidder in the firm selected for the South Carraway Road widening project is RL Persons Construction Incorporated. Whereas the funding for the execution of the contract shall come from the capital improvement revenue bond budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the contract documents. Now therefore be it resolved by city council for the city of Jonesville, Arkansas that section one, the city of Jonesville shall accept the low bid and enter into a contract with RL Persons and Construction Incorporated for the South Carraway Road widening project. Section two, the funding for the execution of the contract shall come from the capital improvement revenue bond budget and compensation shall be paid in accordance with the contract documents. 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 this contract.

Move to forward to full council. Second.

I motion to forward to full council. Any questions or comments from the committee?

Just one, Mr. Chairman, if I may. So I know there, have we worked with this group before? No, and then also, have we spoken to any other cities, I almost said countries, any other cities that maybe have worked with them, just how they are on completion time, maybe change orders and stuff along those lines, and if there are any concerns for that.

RL Persons has been a contractor in this area for, as far back as I can remember, they've done lots and lots of projects. I don't anticipate we're gonna have any problem with them as a contractor on the job. They've been in business for a long time, doing highway projects.

You haven't talked to anybody else about?

No, the construction manager, project manager for them, I have worked with before. So I think it's gonna be fine.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments regarding this item from the committee? Anything from the public or staff in attendance? If not, please cast your vote on whether or not to forward Resolution 26086 to full council. All right. That was the last item under new business. Not aware of any pending items. Steve, do we have an update on the depository committee meeting?

Mr. Chairman, since we've worked on the depository services RFP, we've also been coordinating a bid for a short-term loan. We're planning to bring both of those items to the Depository Committee for their review. Additionally regarding the Depository Services RFP, we are preparing a document that will allow us to understand all of the intricacies in redeveloping our account relationship. So we're gathering this information. Tentatively, we've looked at it and there are approximately 300 ACH transfers that are gonna have to be coordinated. trying to figure it out internally how we would manage that, how either a new successful banking relationship would have to manage that with us. So kind of still gathering information.

Do you have an estimated date or tentative date when the committee will meet?

At this time, we'll monitor the legislation relative to the short-term loan and factor that in. Good deal.

Thank you. Thank you. I also believe the mayor would like to make a comment.

I'm going to go ahead and make the mayor's comments tonight so I don't drag it out tonight. I'm just kidding. I did want to give you, and I'm just here just to make a statement on the shelter facility, kind of give you an update on the tentative guidelines that we anticipate moving forward. So this is more just information, and then I just wanted to follow up with you all, because it's very important that we be methodical, but also to educate the public in the process. So we're currently working and almost complete with the facts and questions that you as counsel have proposed to us. We're still asking for any of those, and we anticipate having a special called Finance and Public Safety meeting next week to walk through the facts and questions and have a public discussion on this situation and matter. At that point in time, the process is a timeline, and we need to note that it is a short-term loan. It's being proposed. There will be two pieces of legislation, much like we did the revenue bond, a resolution to purchase the building, and an ordinance to approve Amendment 78 loan. So given the nature of the loan interest rates and quotes, it is standard that those are read three times in one meeting, so an ordinance. But at the same time, we would need to waive those readings in one meeting. So thus, I proposed the joint and public safety meeting next week to walk through facts and questions, then present the resolution and loading ordinance on August 11th at the finance meeting. Thus, you've got another time frame. And if advanced, then both items for the final vote on August 18th at that following city council meeting. So this timeline allows us to close purchase of the building under the whole terms of the agreed pond selling price with the property owner. So I just wanted to bring that forward. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Before you, I know we're getting ready to go to other business, but I'm gonna ask this anyway. I've been out of town, so I don't know. What is the update on Scott Roper?

On Scott? The news as of last night, and Councilman Heffner can support this, and if I leave anything out, obviously we're very concerned with his condition. The good news is today that his fever did break. It became lower. He is still under watch, I should say, in a very concerning manner, and his situation is grave concern. So we are... prayers are needed for a dear friend of many of us, but more importantly, his family as well. They are steady and strong. He's got a good physician's team behind him, but we have seen up and lows with Mr. Roper, and I think right now we're seeing some more positive results. So we need to stay strong as a city for him, but I appreciate you asking about that.

And I'll keep you updated as well. I know this is kind of out of order, but I'm out of order all my life, so I'm just going to finish it.

Did I leave anything else out there?

Have we got a card or something going around to the family or that type thing?

Yeah, I think we can, we'll make that occur. Okay, thank you, Councilman.

Thank you. All right, we'll move into public comments. Anything from the public that we have not already discussed on today's agenda? If not, next item is adjournment.

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And adjourned.