Planning & Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Will the Washington County Quorum Court meeting please come to order? Good evening to all of y'all. First is our prayer and our pledge. And I believe that JP Rivera-Lopez has been asked. So if you would, would you turn on your mic, please, sir?

Thank you, Chair. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for the opportunity today to serve our county. I would ask that you soften our hearts and harden our resolves in order to love and serve our others as you have. We are hoping to do right by all the people that make this county their home. And in Jesus' name I pray, amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Justice Lopez. I am not Judge Patrick Deakins. He has asked me, I shaved, he asked me if I would open tonight's meeting, and of course, by ordinance, we're going to take nominations for those that will like to chair tonight's meeting. I have a motion by Justice Willie Lemming that Justice Ecke chair, second by Justice Dennis and Dean. Do we have, yeah, one more. So we also have Justice Bruns.

I'd like to nominate Vladimir Lopez.

OK. We have a nomination by Justice Bruns for Justice Vladimir Lopez, Rivera to, I'm sorry, Rivera Lopez to chair tonight's meeting. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second from Beth Koger. We're going to take these one by one. First of all, for Lisa Ecke to chair tonight's meeting. All in favor, raise your right hand and say aye.

Aye.

All in favor of Justice Rivera-Lopez, one, two, three, four, five, six. Are you okay?

I'll try.

You know, tribe. That's a brave soul. Thank you for the confidence and I will chair tonight's meeting. Next on the... agenda we have the adoption of the agenda and i would like the public to understand we had technical difficulties at our budget and finance committee meeting therefore the consent agenda and other items that are going to be proposed to be added to the agenda tonight last minute is due to the technical difficulties that we had at the regularly scheduled budget and finance committee meeting And with that, I have Justice Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Along that line, I move that we add the consent agenda from the Finance and Budget Committee meeting that met earlier and passed to put it on the consent agenda. Second.

I have a motion to add the consent agenda Are there any other, okay, and the second by Justice Dean. All in favor to add the consent agenda, say aye, raise your hand. Aye. All opposed? The consent agenda will be added to tonight's agenda once it's adopted. We also have another one by Justice Rios Stafford. Justice Stafford.

Thank you, Chair. This is from that same Budget and Finance Committee meeting. it's an ordinance prohibiting the use of county funds for automated license plate reader systems item 2026-0-049 so i move that to add that to our agenda as well i have a motion from justice rio stafford second by justice lines i'm sorry all in favor um it's going to be part of the adoption of the agenda

We can put it after item number 12? Is that okay? We could do 12.1 or 12A, either one or B. Which do you prefer? Okay. And then we also have the... All in favor say aye.

All opposed?

on the flock yes thank you that's good to know I'll oppose that motion carries it will be now item number 12 point a one more addition is a resolution by the Freeman health that needs to be added and probably it's gonna be number eight before the parental leave, it's a resolution. So we can make that number.

But that is.

We had a motion for Freeman Health to be added, the resolution to be added to the agenda. Excuse me.

Second.

I have a second from Justice Rhea Stafford. And I have Justice Koger to make a comment.

OK, I object to this. It's $425 million. And I don't even know what a host approval means. It did not go through committee. We have an ordinance that requires resolutions to go through committee. I want time to research it, and I'm not blaming Mr. Allen, but we should have had this, something this important should have been emailed to us beforehand. And as reading from what I've just read since I got here to this meeting tonight, what we're doing tonight will not be a real public hearing, I don't think. But, you know, the bond council can rule on that if it passes, but I very much object to this being added. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Justice Bruns.

Yes, Madam Chair, I would appreciate it if we could do a single roll call vote like we normally do at the quorum court and give a verbal. I would like for us to stay consistent with how we have done things in the past when it comes to quorum court.

Thank you. Duly noted.

Pardon me?

Well, duly noted. Thank you. We will. I have Justice Lines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to agree. With the amount of funds and what we're talking about, just receiving it doesn't seem to be proper. I will not support to put it on the agenda, and if it makes the agenda, I will not support it tonight. But I would like to have Counselor, if you don't mind, address the fact of the public. Is this a public meeting or is this not a public meeting? Just so everybody has an understanding, if you don't mind, ma'am.

This is, in fact, a public meeting. In my previous work in grant administration, I don't know what this type of grant or their funding requires, but in the grants that I administered, a public hearing in that context would be advertised to the public to come talk about that funding matter, that grant or whatever it is. So I saw this at three o'clock today, so I don't know anything about it. But while this is a public meeting, I don't know if it meets the requirements of a public meeting as far as what their funder would require. I just don't, I don't know, yeah. Right, sure.

Okay, one more, I have Justice Koger.

Sorry, also another reason this should not be added is the public has not been informed of it. If we didn't know about it until we got here tonight, I doubt the Washington County taxpayers knew about it. How it's gonna affect them, I don't know. No, it's point of order.

No, thank you. Please.

So if the taxpayers didn't know it was gonna be on, we didn't know it was gonna be on, another reason it should not be added.

Okay, thank you. Now... A motion was made to add and it was seconded. We'll do a roll call. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? And this is to place the resolution on the agenda. Okay. To add it to the agenda. If you say yes, it will be added. If it's no, it will not be added. Okay. Any other clarifications needed? Yes, sir. Would you please turn on your mic? Justice Bond?

Tell us what this resolution's about.

It would be to just add it to the agenda, is what the motion is. You should have.

Could we have this lady come forward and explain to us what this is about? No, we can't.

It's right here. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Okay. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? No. No. Justice Rios-Stafford? No. No. Justice Lemming? No. No. Justice Ricker? No. No. Justice Pond? Abstain. Abstain. Justice Bruns? No. No. Justice Wilson? No. Justice Massengill? No. No. Justice Rivera-Lopez? No, sir. No. Justice Lyons? No, sir. No. Justice Ecke? No. No. Justice Dean? No, sir. No. Justice Washington? No. No. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Abstain. Abstain.

That motion fails. Now we need a motion to adopt the amended Agenda. I have a motion from Justice Dean to adopt the amended agenda and a second by Justice Lyons. Do you want a roll call or just voice for the agenda? Roll call. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hires? Yes. Justice Rios Stafford? Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That motion passes and the agenda has been adopted. Next, are there any preliminary motions? I have Justice Dean.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to make a motion that all ordinances and resolutions be read by title only.

I have a motion by Justice Dean, a second by Justice Ricker, that all ordinances be read by title only. This is a voice vote. It always has been. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. Next on the agenda, we have citizens' comments. We have 15 minutes, a time period, with a maximum of three minutes each for individuals to comment on items on the agenda or other items. If you will come to any public comment. And if you would please turn on that red button. There you go, and please state your name.

Good evening, my name is Jill Grimsley. I'm an attorney at Mitchell Williams Law Firm. We represent Freeman Health System. On September 2nd, I emailed the county attorney, the county judge, the county clerk, and the coordinator and requested that the Freeman Health System resolution be put on the agenda for this evening and that a public hearing be conducted. I was advised the same day by the county attorney that the items were added to the agenda. Notice of the public hearing was published in the legal notices on September 10th in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette. So the public is on notice that there's a public hearing this evening on the representations of the county that these items were on the agenda. Freeman Health System out of Joplin has recently acquired the Northwest Health System. and is looking to refinance their outstanding bonds and provide some additional funds for upgrades to their software system here. None of this is a budget item as far as the county is concerned. The county is not obligated on any of the debt. It is simply an IRS. requirement that the host county or city hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution that says that the public hearing was held. So I'm disappointed because their closing on their bonds was scheduled before your next quorum court meeting, and I was very specifically told it was added to the agenda. I recognize today when I pulled the agenda from the website that it had not in fact been placed on there and was assured by County Attorney Brian Lester that it could be added in the amendment to the agenda process, which it was not. So now at this point, Freeman Health System's in an absolute terrible position. I would urge you to please reconsider. I would be happy to answer your questions.

This is public comment time and we can't have an exchange of questions and answers at this time.

Those are the comments I have.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

Good evening, Quorum Court. My name is Bryson Austin. I am a resident of J.P. Chandra Washington's district. I think now we know why Brian Lester's not here. And I'm really, quite frankly, tired of this squirreliness. We're back in.

Excuse me. You were not going to make comments about people that are not here to defend themselves?

I can make whatever comments I want in my public comment time.

No, sir, you cannot. You will not disparage.

I'm not disparaging anyone. I moved on from that.

And you will address your comments just to the chair.

I'm not addressing anybody else. I'm talking to the audience. That's what I'm doing.

Please leave our county attorney, Brian Lester, out of this conversation.

Okay, but he's not here, and he told these people that it was put on the agenda, and it wasn't. And that's not how this works. The quorum court puts things on the agenda. So he did not do his job, and he's not here to answer for it. And neither is the county judge. Two people who we pay to be at these meetings. They have to come to them three times a month. I have to be here as well.

This is inappropriate rant.

It's the truth. And also, if taxpayers don't get to come to you and tell the truth, I don't understand why we pay you. I don't understand why we pay the county.

I'm going to turn off your mic if you're going to pursue this kind of comment.

Honestly, I don't know if you have the ability to do that.

To turn off your mic?

For what?

Disparaging comments. They're inappropriate comments.

Again, and also, I don't know where this is coming from, that we can just walk things on the agenda without the taxpayers knowing, but something being in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, which I am not subscribed to, and a lot of people are not subscribed to, is not proper notice, and it not being on the agenda is also just not appropriate. I don't know why you're filming me. Why do you feel the necessity to do that? But it's a little weird. It's going to be on the recording. Yeah, whatever squirrely stuff is going on, I really hope that this all changes in January, because this is not appropriate. And you tone policing and PC policing me is really, really weird. This is government accountability. I don't understand why you all get so up in arms when we just want to ask questions. It's completely disappointing.

Public comment?

Seeing that there's none, we're gonna move on to the agenda.

Pardon? Next on it is the approval of the minutes. They were sent out to everybody. Is there any corrections to the minutes? I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? On the county judge's report, we have the Washington County Library System. Ernie Pence is supporting and renominating, and I need somebody to nominate here, Travis, what is that, Warren? To the library board. And he's already serving on there. Justice Ricker, if you want to say anything on that? OK. Would you turn on your mic, please? There you go.

Sorry, Travis Warren has been on the library board.

I believe he's representing West Fork, or is that correct?

Farmington. He's been in different positions on there. But he's been on the library board for quite a while. And he was a good candidate for that. So I'll support him. OK.

I have a motion.

I'll move that for a second.

I have Justice Pond.

I'm sorry. I was just going to move to reappoint. Since it's already been done, I'll say I will be in support.

OK. I have a motion and a second to reappoint Travis Warren to the County Library Board. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers. Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford. Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming. Yes. Justice Riker. Yes. Yes. Justice Pond. Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns. Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson. Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill. Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez. Yes. Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? No, sir. No. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Coger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That motion passes. Congratulations to Mr. Warren for being reappointed. Secondly, the snacks were provided by the Hawgeye 4-H Club, and it's always a highlight in my month to see the 4-H'ers and so young engage their civic leaders with such a smile and a firm handshake, and they do a tremendous job at the 4-H to help develop our next generation leaders. So thank you to the Hawgeye 4-H Club. Our former county judge, Marilyn Edwards, passed away, and today was her gravesite service. And I just, as a personal note, those of us that served under her, she was a kind lady, And she was also very witty and funny. She was an asset to this state. She served also in the state legislature. She was dedicated to the people of Washington County. And I will say, I'm a Republican, she was a Democrat, but we found out that our favorite book, our favorite author was Harper Lee, and our favorite book was To Kill a Mockingbird. And we found that out at dinner when her husband just asked, well, young lady, what's your favorite book? I said, well, I love Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. And he laughed and clapped his hands, and he pointed to Marilyn, and he said, Marilyn, there you go. And she said, that is my favorite book. And from then on, we were very good friends. colleagues and work together in any way we could. So I just want everybody in Washington County to remember the Edwards family and what Marilyn Edwards meant to this county. Thank you. Moving on to new business, we have 8.1 is the consent agenda. Yes, it is. And because 12A is gonna be the flop, correct? Okay. Do I have a motion to pass the? Oh, sorry. Go on. Councilor, would you please read the consent agenda? Oops.

Got it? Okay, number one, an ordinance anticipating and recognizing additional revenue in the amount of $857,515 in the DEM grant fund and appropriating the amount of $857,515 from the DEM grant fund 3511 to various Homeland Security budgets for 2026. Number two, an ordinance anticipating and recognizing additional revenue in the amount of $206,288.25 in the DEM grant fund and appropriating the amount of $206,288.25 from the DEM grant fund to the Hazard Mitigation Generator Grant budget for 2026. Number three, an ordinance recognizing and appropriating grant funds from the Administrative Office of the Court's Court Improvement Program to the Juvenile Court Division III budget for 2026. Number four, an ordinance recognizing and appropriating grant funds from the Administrative Office of the Court's Court Improvement Program to the Juvenile Court Division VIII budget for 2026. Number five, an ordinance amending the juvenile detention center budget for 2026 and for other matters pertaining thereto. Number six, an ordinance amending the sheriff's office jail budget for 2026 and for other matters pertaining thereto. Number seven, an ordinance anticipating and appropriating additional revenue in the amount of $406,601.10 in the drug court grant fund for 2026.

Thank you, Counselor. Do I have a motion? Justice, hold on just one moment, please. Justice Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we pass the consent agenda.

I have a motion to pass the consent agenda. Second. Second by Justice Brens and Dean. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

We have to take a vote.

I think it's a roll call vote, correct.

Would you please call the roll, Mr. Allen?

Justice Hiers. Yes. Yes, Justice Rios-Stafford. Yes. Yes, Justice Lemming. Yes. Yes, Justice Ricker. Yes. Yes, Justice Pond. Yes. Yes, Justice Bruns. Yes. Yes, Justice Wilson. Yes. Yes, Justice Massengill. Yes. Yes, Justice Rivera-Lopez. Yes. Yes, Justice Lyons. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes.

Yes. That motion passes. I'm going to back up just a little bit. Your disposal, the county's disposal information is in your packet. I'm not used to doing that one, so just going through it. Just everybody know that the disposal report is in your packet. Moving on to item number eight. Councilor, would you read that please?

An ordinance establishing a paid parental leave policy for Washington County employees and for other purposes.

This is an ordinance that was delivered by Jessica Bennett, who's our HR director regarding amending our maternal leave policy, and I have various people. We have Justice Rivera-Lopez,

Thank you, Chair. When this first came to my attention, I was actually speaking to a deputy. And the deputy had advised us that this was something that we should look into. With that being said, I was excited when I spoke to Director Bennett that the county had already taken some steps to introduce this program, and it wasn't something that we were gonna have to start from scratch. With that, after hearing the discussions that we've had in committee, I'd love to see this get a unanimous vote, but I do support that we pass this ordinance. Oh, I'll move it to the second reading. I'd like to suspend the rules and move it to a second reading.

I have a motion by Justice Rivera-Lopez to suspend the rules and advance it to the second reading, a second by Justice Pond. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? Those in favor or opposed, please.

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? No. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? No. No. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That motion passes.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move that we pass this to a third and final reading.

Oh, that's a good point.

Let's read it.

There you go. An ordinance establishing a paid parental leave policy for Washington County employees and for other purposes.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move that we move this to a third and final reading.

I have a motion by Justice Rivera-Lopez to move this to a third and final reading. And I have a second by, I believe, Gary Ricker. No, Justice Pond. Justice Pond. All in favor, call the roll, please.

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? No. No. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? No. No. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That motion is passed to the third and final reading. Justice Rivera-Lopez?

Third and final reading first.

Got to read it?

Yes.

An ordinance establishing a paid parental leave policy for Washington County employees and for other purposes.

Thank you, Chair. I move that we pass this ordinance. Second.

I have a motion and multiple seconds to pass this ordinance from Justice Hiers and Justice Bricker? Bond. There you go. Is there any discussion? I have Justice Lines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we amend this ordinance. You should have a copy of the amendment that I'm proposing so you can read it. It's quite lengthy. In general, what it does is it, the original amendment was for eight weeks of paid parental leave for both the mother, the father slash partner. What my amendment does is it takes it to four weeks of medical recuperation leave for the mother and four weeks of bonding leave for the mother and four weeks of bonding leave for the father slash parent. Also, because the definition that I'm using of the medical recovery leave would not apply to those that are adopting or fostering, it would take their bonding leave to four weeks.

Thank you, well, this is a discussion. Did you make a motion to amend? I made a motion to amend. Okay.

And all the cross-throughs are, because I had to put definitions in there and different things like that, and I had to change the, where she had it was still in the back in the table, still does the same thing. Again, it has all the same things in there, adjusted based on the change in the number of weeks that is given.

Okay, I have a motion and a second by Justice Massingale. to amend the ordinance to four weeks medical and four weeks bonding for the mother and four weeks bonding for the father slash partner. Is there any other discussion? One moment. Let me turn on your mic.

Thank you. I didn't see your mic. Come on. I'll get you next.

It's on.

OK. Thank you.

Just so I understand what we're voting on, your suggestion is to go from eight weeks to four weeks.

It's from eight weeks to four weeks for the paternal, I mean for the father.

For the father slash partner.

Slash partner. And that's bonding time. The mother gets four weeks medical and four weeks bonding time. So that's a total of eight weeks. So the mother does not get less than what we had originally discussed. But the father, it has four weeks instead of eight weeks.

Is that coincide with Title IX? Co-cycle with what? I'm sorry. Title IX.

Yes, and that's the reason it's written the way it is, is you have to give the same number of weeks for bonding to both parents. Otherwise, it's considered discriminatory. But the medical recovery is only needed for the one that actually gave birth in a hospital, right? So that's the reason the definitions are there. That's the reason that change was there and why the stipulation was there is to stay in line with the law and not have a discriminatory problem.

Ms. Baker, are you in agreement with that?

I'm not prepared to give a legal opinion on just reading this now. I do have my immediate concern, though, is the potential for a discrimination claim from adoptive parents. But if we're languaging the leave for the mother as medical leave, that might work. It does raise a concern.

So I can add, if you would like, that this did go through Councilor Lester as a finalization to see if he had any concerns with it, and he returned it with none.

Yeah, but he decided not to come.

No, that's fine. I'm just adding, just providing information.

Okay. Well, I've got a concern that we violate Title IX if we do that. I have a real concern with that. I'd like to have some research to know, because I don't want to put us in a lawsuit over it. I mean, I agree. If we can give the mother eight weeks, I'm happy to do that. OK, and I'll support that 100%. But I don't want us to chop it up and mask it to where we're gonna have a problem with Title IX. We don't need a federal lawsuit.

Okay. May I provide additional information?

Yes, you still have it.

You can't hear me, really? So when I researched this, what I got was Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the core federal employment discrimination law. It prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. and it applies to employers with 15 or more employees. In 1978, Congress amended Title VII with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, excuse me, which made clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a form of sexual discrimination. Title VII is enforced by the EEOC. So how it applies to parental leave. The EEOC enforcement guidance draws a sharp line between two different things that often get bundled together as maternity leave. medical recovery leave time for a birth mother to physically recover from pregnancy and childbirth can lawfully be limited to women because it is tied to a physical condition not to parenting typically this covers something like six to eight weeks parental bonding caregiving leave time to bond with and care for a new child regardless of who gave birth must be offered to men and women on the same terms. An employer cannot give mothers extra paid bonding time that is as it give fathers and it cannot use primary caregiver versus secondary caregiver labels that in practice default mothers to the richer benefit and fathers to the lesser one. The EEOC's own illustrated example, a policy giving birth mothers 10 weeks of recovery leave plus six weeks of parental leave and giving fathers six weeks of parental leave is lawful. The extra 10 weeks is medical and not parental. A policy giving mothers six months of paid bonding leave and giving fathers none is unlawful sex discrimination. This isn't just theoretical. The EEOC has sued and settled with employers over exactly this pattern. paying fathers less parental leave than mothers or denying fathers the same flexible return to work benefits, and a well-known class action challenged, a 16-week primary caregiver, two-week secondary caregiver policy that presumptively treated birth mothers as primary caregivers. So that's where the reason, that information's the reason I awarded this amendment as I did.

I have Justice Koger. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment comes as a surprise to me, anyway. As far as I can see, we don't have Ms. Bennett here tonight. And I think she should weigh in on this. And I am not able, I mean, I'm trying to compare the two with what we have on our screen. And frankly, I need more time. I do not understand. I'm afraid this amendment will have consequences for some people. that we may not know about right now. And for that reason, I make a motion that we table this until next month.

The proper motion would be to postpone it till next month.

Oh, I'm sorry, postpone to next month.

I have a motion to amend the ordinance Right now, that's what we need to dispose of first. And then we will take care of that motion afterwards. I have Justice Rivera-Lopez.

Yes. While I understand what is being proposed here, I wouldn't support something like this. Again, I don't think it's our job to legislate how and why these people take the sorts of leave that they want to take with their family. I don't find that I want to get to splitting hairs and saying this time is dedicated to a recovery and this time is dedicated to towards bonding with your child. I don't think it's for this court to establish the roles that these parents take within their homes. If they want to take that time together as a family, I think that's totally suitable. I'm not in favor for us making different designations on the basis that one had the child and the other I mean, was involved in the process of making that child. So I just don't agree with the spirit of this amendment. So I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

Justice Hires.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'd like to agree with my colleague, JP Rivera-Lopez. I think the policy that was written by HR that we discussed in committee was well done. It was well written. And I thought it was comprehensive. And I do have one kind of serious issue with this. And that would be on line 54 and 55. One of the concerns that I have, it says as an adoptive or foster parent of either sex is eligible for four weeks of bonding leave. And one of the concerns that went through my head is that if we're dealing with a newborn child in a family, it's at least six weeks before you can even be allowed to place them into any kind of childcare. So I think that that's adding a hardship to, that's where I see the hardship being added to adoptive parents in particular. So I would prefer it as not amended. Thank you.

Next I have Justice Massingale.

Yeah, I think this is a good amendment. I think this more aligns with the county's doing with the private sector. We need to be protective of the taxpayers' resources and not get too far out of where the private sector is, I feel like. Without this amendment, it's overly generous with the taxpayers' resources. I want to thank J.P. Lyons for doing the research, putting this together. I think he did his research. I think this is a good amendment, and I support it.

Thank you. Next we have Justice Washington.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I would urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. First of all, if we differentiate between the bonding leave and the medical leave, as someone who has birthed two babies, what I can tell you is If I'm on medical leave, I need someone there with me, depending on the type of birth that I've had. If you've had a cesarean section, a lot of times you can't even lift anything heavier than your baby. And so this notion that we can give the person that birthed the baby medical leave, but the other parent would not be eligible for that same leave, that just doesn't It just doesn't make sense to me. While I did miss the meeting when this was first presented, I did read through it, and I did watch the meeting, and I agree with JP Hires that the original ordinance was well written and well thought out, and I just don't want us to get caught up in the minutia of we need to save money, yes, this is legal. What we're talking about is a time where in a family that really changes everything. And I think that we owe it to our county employees to not look at this as an amount of money or a time, but we owe it to them to really make sure that they have those eight weeks, both parents, to bond with their babies, whether they birthed the baby, whether the baby was adopted, whether it's a foster baby. So I would just urge us not to vote this down and to give a good vote on the original ordinance.

I have Justice Stafford.

Thank you, Chair. Early childhood development is something that you can never go back and redo. It is incredibly important in the development of a child. I haven't had a chance to read through this. If it came in my email, I didn't see it before the meeting. I don't know if it did or not. And we've already heard at least a couple of different concerns that folks have already flagged in the amendment. Our HR director is not here. I'm not comfortable with that either. And so the whole thing just sort of comes as a surprise to me. I was unclear if J.P. Koger was talking about postponing the entire ordinance to next month or just postponing the amendment until next month. But in either case, I'm comfortable with passing what we've had before us. and what we've already seen and what we passed out of committee. If JP Lyons wants to bring forward an amendment at a later date in next month in committee that we can all look at ahead of time, we can do that and talk about that at that time. But I'm ready to vote yes on the eight-week ordinance that we had before us, that we've discussed already, and leave everything else for another time. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Justice Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, first, let's deal with Robert's rules. Madam Councilor. I believe, and I believe this is what you said earlier, because there is a motion to amend on the floor that has to be dealt with before you deal with a motion to postpone, is that correct? Okay, thank you, ma'am. Just wanna make sure we're all working off the same page, okay? So we have to deal with the amendment before we can move on. Reflects respectfully, needless to say, I disagree. This does not tell them when they can take leave. It simply, I think the eight and eight is just way too much. And it's paid leave, the county's paying, doesn't come out of their leave that they've accrued. It's not FMLA, it's basically we're giving them more leave. And I think the eight and eight is way too generous. It's more, extensively more generous than anybody else, public or private industry gives in the area. I think this still gives more than what's given from other companies, so it gives us that advantage for hiring purposes, but it doesn't go overboard, which I think the original does go overboard, which is why I wrote the ordinance and put it in there. Also, this doesn't stipulate. It says four weeks. He can take the first four weeks that the mother has and be there for when they come home from the hospital when they probably need them the most. That's fine. He can take the last four if that's what they choose to do. They can split it, two in the front and two in the back. Again, whatever fits their needs back to the points. Whatever fits their needs, they can take. They also have additional leave that they've accrued that they can take and... I guess the fathers can take FMLA as well. Is that correct, Councilor? Okay, I don't know for sure, so I'll just leave it alone. So again, that's why I wrote it. I think the previous one is entirely too generous and quite honestly, I will not support it. So it's the reason I wrote the amendment and brought it back so that it's something I can support because, Historically, there's a lot of people in this world that survived just fine and never had this. Historically, okay? Now it doesn't mean it should be that way going forward, I agree. Again, splitting the hair, I believe we can give them something, that is what's out there, a lot of companies are doing it, it's a hiring benefit, it's something to try to attract people in, but I can't support the eight and eight. Thank you.

Thank you, I have Justice Pond.

I'm a little uncomfortable with it. But I was one of the ones that, as many of us did, a majority of us did, voted to go through all the readings to settle it tonight. And then we turned around and we're We're talking about an amendment to this after we already pushed it forward to the third and final reading. And then have some kind of notion come up to amend it after that. I don't really have any problem thus far with the amendment. But I think if we were set to vote this in tonight without the amendment, it could be worked on later. The amendment could be worked on later on. Or maybe it couldn't. We'd be taking something away. So I'm uncomfortable with it.

It can always be. just as from Director Bennett, that this original ordinance runs concurrent with FLMA, okay?

The original?

Yeah, the original one. And she says families need both incomes today. So.

I'm just, I see a lot of good points in this amendment. I'm not.

saying it's it's that the amendment is bad but i wouldn't you know we didn't our attorney our attorney hasn't had time to study the amendment but we will have a i mean this is just going to be a vote whether or not to accept this amendment and then afterwards we we have to then vote on the original ordinance that passed out of committee. So are we ready to vote on the amendment? Or is there still further discussion? Justice Lyons, one moment, you're not recognized. I have, yes, one moment, please. Justice Rivera-Lopez was next to speak, please.

Thank you, Chair. Again, so I think what the very first thing that we were proposed, the reason it was proposed the way that it was was that family medical leave, the FMLA, runs for 12 weeks. It is so that if you need to take more time in the time that you are guaranteed by the federal government that you can take off because you've had a family medical emergency, And the four weeks that they have that they can take a medical leave would run to the expiration of that time. That's Delegate Solution. That's why it's eight weeks. But again, I think that like we've all indicated today, we were comfortable with the proposal that we had in front of us. We understand that proposal. We had our experts at the county look over and provide us an expert. She is an expert in compensation and how these works. I've worked in compensation for one of the largest employers that we have in the region for over two years. And in that time, what we discussed was this is pretty in line with what you're getting at the private sector. We're not being overly generous at all. This is what is being provided at the largest employers in the region. So this argument that all of a sudden we are being overly generous, we set the norms for our county. If nothing else, why should we not aim to be generous to people who keep the lights on here? The people who go out and do the work every day. That's exactly the sort of people where it is our job to set the norms. I don't understand why we would try to give them the least amount that we could. I find that embarrassing. Thank you.

I have Justice Dennis. Justice Dennis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll say it up front. I'm going to vote against the amendment and for the original, and then I'll make a couple of comments. I've been through four births with my wife. And back in those days, we took our PTO days, or vacation days. So I'd take my time off that I had, and we made it through it. But for the county to be competitive today in today's world, The benefit, this benefit is just a normal benefit. I've looked at a lot of different industries. It's common. It's very common. And so I'll be for the original. I'll be voting for the original because I think it's a good thing for us to have to get future employees to come to work for the county. And we're going to be in a competitive market before we realize that we don't have enough people for all the jobs. And if you don't have good benefits, you're not going to get good people. And so I'm for going back to the original, voting on it. I'll vote against this one. And then I'll vote for the original one. And I'll remind you that all the departments said they could cover all this with what they had working. And of course, what my mind thought on that was, well, maybe your budget just a little bit fat on how many people you have working for your departments. But that's a whole other topic. But I think this is a good benefit to add. I've seen a grandson go through this, his wife's a schoolteacher. And exactly what we're going to vote for after this is what he got. And he works for a plumbing industry. And so it's kind of ironic that they have such good benefits, but they wanted the benefits to gain the employees. So I'm all for it. So that's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Justice Washington.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say this as respectfully as I can. As someone who has birthed two babies, eight weeks is not even enough time. It's not. I don't know what type of births y'all had. Maybe I was an anomaly or something. But eight weeks is not enough time. And I just believe that it is disingenuous for us to sit here and to look at our county employees as if they are only numbers and they're only dollars. We have an opportunity to do right by the employees of Washington County. I don't believe that Washington County is gonna become baby central. Everybody is not about to have a baby. They're not. So let's just keep that in mind. And when we're using words like overly generous or better than, what does that mean? Because even in other countries, women are able to take off for an entire year paid. So eight weeks is nominal. It's the least that we can do for the employees of our county. And so once again, let's move past this amendment. Let's vote this down. And please, let's support the original ordinance.

I have. OK. We're gonna take up the motion that is on the floor, and that is to amend the Ordinance of Paid Parental Leave. Mr. Allen, this is to amend it. Would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. No. Justice Rios-Stafford? No. No. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? No. No. Justice Pond? No. No. Justice Bruns? No. No. Justice Wilson? Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? No, sir. No. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? No. No. Justice Dean? No, sir. No. Justice Washington? No. No. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? No. No.

That amendment fails. Now that we, do I have a motion to pass 8.1?

Oh, you had, okay.

Thank you. I have a motion and a second by Hires to pass item number eight, the ordinance establishing a paid parental leave policy for Washington County employees.

I have Justice Coger. I want this to pass very much. But I also remember that I had a motion on the floor which I would like to withdraw.

We didn't have a second.

Oh, OK. Which was good. Well, that's great.

Yeah. But thank you very much. Keeps us all on the toes. Is there any discussion on item number eight? Is there any public comment? Good evening. State your name and your address, please.

Hi, Andela Hines, District 7. I just actually wasn't planning on saying much today. But as someone who is in this phase of life where we are trying to figure out if and when we have kids, I will tell you, my husband, as he has searched for jobs and as I have searched for jobs, one of the very first things that we look for is the maternity and parent paternity and parental leave policies. And often he has actually landed jobs that had better policies than I did and that made him more likely to stay there and retain that job. So that's very important to us as we search and I really appreciate the comments about staying competitive in our hiring, especially as we see multiple places in this county having many open positions. So I appreciate that and just want to support this, thank you.

Thank you, public comment. Good evening.

Good evening, Bryson Austin, District 8 again. It's interesting how often people show who they really are, that you care less about parents, mothers, working people, than you do about locking people up in jail, more and more people. The more people that sleep on the floor, the more people you can put in that facility, the more people you can put in jail, the more people you can, the more, money you can give the police officers, the happier you are. But I also think, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I think it's also really reflective of why the Republican Party is just eating it right now. Because so many, so many working class people think that Republicans hate them. And it's the policies that are passed that make them think that. We were talking about what people used to get. Life used to be worse. People that looked like me didn't used to be able to vote. Women didn't used to be able to vote. We didn't used to have any leave from work at all. It's what Labor Day is about. We didn't have any rights. So let's just all go back to the past, because somebody in the past suffered, and we should all suffer in that same way. No. And it's also harder than ever to be a parent at this time. It's hard to afford housing. Gas is higher than it's ever been, or at least diesel is, and gas is approaching. It is so expensive. It's so cumbersome. And again, these are the people that work for the county. These are the people that make the operations go. These are the people that keep the courts running, and keep our tax revenue in collection, and keep our schools funded. It is just shameful. And you won't feel the shame. But it is incredibly shameful that we're even having this discussion that is overly generous. Again, as was previously said, eight weeks is not generous. Eight weeks is the bare minimum. The United States is behind so many other peer countries in this. And it also just, there's part of it, right, because we're talking about certain types of ways we become parents, excluding certain kinds of people. And I won't say what kinds of people, I think you know what's going on here, but it's also a deeply, deeply misogynist sentiment. It is we in this country hate women. We in this world hate women, even though they are 50% of the population and equal people. And I'm not saying that you hate women, but I am saying there is this level that mothers, that working people, that women, don't deserve what other people deserve, don't deserve what certain people in power deserve. We are trying to give people what they deserve. That's it. And they deserve better, but we're not there yet. Thank you.

Public comment, .

Hi there, my name is Sally Ganim, and I'm in Kyle Lyons District.

Sally, could you bring the microphone close, thank you.

Move it down for my short stuff.

So my name is Sally Ganim, and I am in Kyle Lyons District.

Yes, you must address the chair only and not any of the other members of the court.

Okay, and I can't ask questions either. No, you can't ask questions.

Unfortunately, I'm in Kyle Lyons' district. I'm really sad to hear some of his opinions tonight in this discussion. I had two children and I had six weeks of unpaid leave with either one of them and I was really grateful to be able to have my job at that time. after the six weeks of unpaid leave. And how nice would it be if I worked for a place that actually let me have a little bit of income during that time so I could, I don't know, buy diapers, buy groceries for myself, those kind of things. And I also got lucky and didn't have to have, I can't address her, I didn't have to have a major surgery with either one of my births. So it wasn't an intense recovery on my own body as well as trying to deal with how do you figure out how to feed a kid. How many employees of the county are there? This is the question that I can't ask. Or can I ask you a question? How many employees?

We can't comment. This is just a comment.

So there are 10 men here on this 10 JPs around you. And I feel like only maybe two of them are going to adopt or foster or have births in their family. And the rest are kind of at the retired age. But I guess I'm not allowed to comment on that. But how many babies do you guys think that people have? Let the people have the leave. I mean, for real, just be decent. Just because somebody else had it harder before doesn't mean that we need to let people have it harder now. Take care of our workers, please. And also, maybe then they'll fix the shoulders on the roads. Thank you.

That's the end of public comment time. Allen, will you please call the roll? This is to pass ordinance number eight.

Justice Hires. Yes. Yes. Justice Rio Stafford. Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming. No. Justice Ricker. Yes. Yes. Justice Pond. Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns. Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson. No. No. Justice Massengill? No. No. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? No. No. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That ordinance passes. Moving on to number nine. Counselor, would you read that by title only?

an ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Phillips Masonry Incorporated project.

Thank you. Do we have Dr. Atta here to speak to item number nine? Yes, we do. Good evening.

Good evening, everyone. So this project was approved by the planning board on August 13th. Five members voted yes, one member was absent, and one member said no. So we're going to listen tonight to three projects in the same neighborhood. Most of them share the same access easement. So I'm going to just cover all of this information so it makes it easier on everyone. So it's in District 7. They share Starnes Road. which is a private road that is not maintained, not on the schedule of maintenance, but it could be maintained by request only. So this project came to our attention, this one and the fourth one on the list came to our attention when the applicants submitted a survey to split the property, and then we recognized that there was no conditional use permit, so we considered this as, they started this way back before 2006, until one of the neighbors called us, and he complained about the project, so we called the property owners, and they willingly came to the office, and they applied for a CUP, So the third one, the one to the north, which is the canine, pine canine, we're going to listen to it next. We only had one neighbor complaining about it, and when we asked him, he came and applied. So three projects in one access easement, same neighborhood. So for this one, for the Phillips Masonry, the purpose of that project is to have a shop to put all the equipments for his construction business. It's not a storefront. His business, I guess his office is in Prairie Grove, I believe.

Correct?

Yes. So his office is not there. That's the whole purpose of it. Employees go in, take the material, trucks, come back in the afternoon, leave everything, and go home. That's the whole thing. It's a storage area. So it's a small shop. The whole lot is like 3.2 acres, and we only received, as I said, one complaint, and the other complaint we received was during the planning board about the drainage, and he's addressing this right now with one of the engineers, local engineers in the area. Our contracted engineer, he asked a question, and it was, for the drainage and it's being acted on. But if you have any further question, the property owner and the business owner is here and please let me know.

Justice Dean? Justice Lyons first, I'm sorry. Justice Lyons.

Thank you. I want to start. It's been a while since we've had cups, and there's been at least one significant item that happened since then that affects how we consider these, in my opinion. I want to make sure we all remember that. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the denial of conditional use permits was a quasi-judicial act, not a legislative one. because it involves applying existing ordinances provisions to the facts of the application rather than creating a new law. We are a fact finder applying criteria, which is different than the way we used to see this based on counsel from our counselor. The circuit court should have, in doing so, and everybody knows the criteria, it's in Section 5I, But in doing that, we no longer, it's evidence-based. So it's no longer opinion, it's no longer emotion, it's not policy, it is if somebody is against this, have they fulfilled the evidential criteria for one or more of the criteria to go against it, or they've approved all the criteria to pass it. Again, it's been a while, this came out, I don't remember, Councilor, three months ago. I wanted to remind everybody that that is out there, and we consider these differently because of that, in my opinion. For this particular cup, I'm gonna move, we send this back to the planning board, and this is why. The planning board, when they made a motion to approve this, and I apologize to the applicant. I do not believe the planning board followed the ordinance and followed the appropriate rules to pass this, and I think that's a problem for us, and that's the reason I'm gonna send it back to them. During the planning board, the person that made the motion to approve made the motion to send this back to engineering to review for runoff purposes and to approve it. So that tells me that criteria E and F, that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare, and F, the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the surrounding area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the surrounding area, if they don't have all the engineering facts to make a decision, there is no way they considered those two criterias, in my opinion. And I think that causes a problem for us if we debate this and pass it or deny it. I think that causes a problem, especially with the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, I move that we send this back to the Planning Board for reconsideration after they get the additional engineering review that they've asked to have done.

Second.

I have a motion by Justice Lyons and a second by Justice Coger to send this back to the planning board to get everything legal. Once they get the additional engineering. Yes, and once they get the additional engineering information to them.

And I don't think the results are going to change it. I really don't. it causes us problems if we do it under this scenario.

I have Justice Rios-Stafford.

Thank you. Dr. Atta, could you tell us more about this particular issue?

There was no evidence that this project is causing any problem. So this property, it used to have, where they split the property, I wish I have, it should be online somewhere in the presentation. They used to have a road, now that it's been vacated, I believe, and it's been used as an access to the easement for, like, Ozarks Electric and the City of Federal Water Line. Where the neighbor, like, who's, like, about, like, three blocks, one block, or, like, three to four, 600 feet, 700 feet away from that property across the street. He's complaining about runoff. It's a speculation. Nobody knows if this runoff is coming to his property because of this development or it's because of the road. Nobody knows. So, I mean, I will let the applicant speak for this because he's been in operation since 2018 and nobody had any complaints about it until we sent the neighbor notification. So, Dylan. I mean, he would know more. He's been there longer than any of us.

Good evening, sir. State your name, please.

Dillon Phillips. Not sure what to say. I found the property down Starnes Road. I grew up on Devil Springs pretty much my whole life. I used to actually ride my dirt bike before that road was vacated. It starts on the top side of Devil Springs, goes down to the bottom of Devil Springs. There's a main water line that runs through there. There were some power poles that the Ozark Electric vacated, and they actually ran it a different direction on my property. AT&T and Waterline kind of runs along with Starnes Road. From my understanding, that property was used by the county actually to dump concrete, asphalt, culverts. It was just a dump. When I bought it, it was growing up, and when I bought it, started cleaning it up, I hauled probably a couple hundred loads to the dump. And Boston Mountain could verify that, because the person that's complaining to me called the EPA on me. It's been going on for over a year, just getting complaints and stuff. But I just bought the property in the county, cleaned it up. a couple shops there and we store our equipment there. My employees do come there in the mornings, grab the trailers and stuff, and then in the evening when we're done, come back and leave for the day. The runoff from up there runs down where Starnes Road was. It's always ran that way. It still runs that way because the road was direct drive down through there. So I don't really know what I could do about that. In the planning board, I told them that I was more than happy to put a burrow. And I was going to put a burrow, but I was afraid that because of that water line running through there that somebody might have a complaint about that. And so that's why the whole engineering thing was even brought up in the first place. I said, well, If you're all as engineers or with the water, if it's okay for me to put a berm there, I'll put a berm there and that would help slow the water down that runs down what used to be Starnes Road. So I think that's, it's just turned into a mess. We've been there, like I said, since 2018 and never had no problems until just recently and so. I don't know why, but, so, any questions?

Are there any questions? Yeah.

I have one more before I move on. Thank you, I wanted to just get an understanding of what the issue was that the, or potential issue was or question was that the planning, board was looking at at the time. I actually have a question for Ms. Baker. If you had an opinion or thought of whether we have an issue considering the Supreme Court opinion, whether you think we might have some issue with passing this tonight or whether it might be more prudent to send this back to the planning board.

My personal opinion is no, that the error would be on the part of the planning board and it doesn't sound like maybe it was an error because it's just more of a let's double check and make sure it's not coming from your property instead of from this road or wherever else. But that's just my opinion. I would need to look at the law. I mean, this is a not well litigated gray area. The CEPs, you know, Washington County does it different from everybody else, and so it's kind of hard to give prospective legal advice. But we would have the argument that the planning board felt comfortable voting to approve it. and that's their day-to-day job, and also that it wasn't clear that the runoff was coming from your property. It also sounds like you have a complainer out there. So I don't think that it's just a jump up and down, no, absolutely do not do this. But if you guys wanted to put it off a month, I mean, that would be the safest approach.

Okay, thank you.

Can I make one more comment, if that's possible?

Certainly.

OK. A couple of things that I just think is worth noting is that I maintain that road. I put gravel on it two to three times a year. I pay for the gravel. There have been times where some of the other neighbors have pitched in. But I use my equipment. I roll it in. And some other point, but I'm a little bit nervous, so I forgot my other point. But we're not trying to cause no problems. I mean, I try to maintain the road and just, oh, I know what I was going to say. In 2018, which Tyler ,, which he's here, we bought the land together. And we split it. It was originally almost seven acres, and we basically just split it in half. When we bought it and we were going to build, we actually went to Brian Lester just to make sure that we were in coordinates or that we were doing OK. And we actually went to his office, had a meeting with him. And somebody else was there, too, maybe a lawyer. I don't know. There's two people there. But anyway, we double checked and thought we were doing our due diligence and had been operating. And then all of a sudden, we had a problem just first this year.

Next I have Justice Coger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have some questions, but is it OK if we talk about this now before we vote on JP Lyons' motion to send it back? Is that what we're doing, a discussion on that?

It's just a discussion on this.

OK. Dr. Atta, is there any way you could pull a photo of this land up? Because if I remember correctly, it's on a hill, a wooded hill, and it's just a bare area. Is that correct? Maybe I'm confusing it with another one.

I mean, it's the upper part. I mean, there's lower parts below it. I don't know if you, I don't know.

You have to go into your property, drive up a little bit to go in.

You know, where you turn off, the road actually gets way down and comes back up. But I would say the plane of our property is probably pretty close to where Double Spring starts off. It's not, you're not driving from, from where you come off Double Spring, you're not driving up.

Go ahead, Justice Koger.

Thank you. Okay, so again, if I'm thinking the correct one, when the Planning Board Commission happened, there was a dispute over as to whether or not it was, how much acreage was included.

It's 3.2, the whole lot is 3.27. He is using only, the building is like 3,200 square feet. First shot building, that's everything. It's less than one acre usage. He never went beyond the one acre. And even in the comments from the contracted engineer, he pointed out to the building size. He never pointed out to the usage completely. The whole dispute was during the planning board is explaining if, why did not this go through the large-scale development? The question is, we never received that. If it's not more than one acre, one acre or more usage, the disturbed land, if it's one acre or more, it's automatically, the CUP needs to go also through a large scale. Also, if it's less and the contracted engineer find a reason for it to go through the large scale, he will recommend this to go to large scale. So it's neither nor. We never received anything from the contracted engineer stating that this project needs to move forward for the large scale, or the use itself, like the disturbed land is more than one acre. Currently, yeah, currently, like, the applicant is working with, like, a local engineering company with great reputation. They're trying to do, like, a drainage, simplified drainage report for us so they can send it and to mark the pre- and post-drainage problem and if they have any solution for that. So based on that, that's the recommendation we got from the planning board, and based on that recommendation, We added, updated the staff report. We posted it online. And any changes that's going to come from that engineering request is going to be reviewed by our contract engineer. And based on that, he's going to fix or not fix. It depends on the report.

But that seems like. getting the cart before the horse. Because if we approve it, then what's going to happen? But did you ever settle on the amount? Because in the packet it says 1.75, right?

Is it like the whole thing, 1.75 being used?

I think we're really at a disadvantage because we don't have the slides that you usually have, Dr. Adams.

Yeah, it's been like over a month. I know, I know. It's August, yeah. I mean, that's why I'm... We have like 16 projects right now, so it's hard to remember all of those numbers.

Let me think. About the runoff, is that something, the runoff, That would be something that the engineering review would tell us.

Yes, it's basically that's what they look at. They do the coefficient before and after the construction. But since this has already been constructed, so he moved it into a building that's already been there. So he just fixed everything. So I believe one of the problems that having a detention pond And where, like, that vacated road is, since they have, like, utility access easements right now, it's going to cause a problem for him, for the property owner and the utilities, of using that area because it's already, it's used for something else, it's used for utilities. You're not supposed to build anything permanent in it. So that's the whole deal. If the engineering report comes back recommending a different location or a different variation to the land, change the layout of the land to be able to have anything that mediate for that problem, the drainage problem, if there is any, the applicant is required since we have that recommendation from the planning board.

We do have a motion pending to send it back to the planning board, but just from the photos that I remember from seeing, it's on a wooded area, and all of it has just been bulldozed down.

It's just dirt. It's compacted gravel, and compacted gravel is not 100% impervious or pervious, so it's in between. The reason we ask for compacted gravel is for stability so that if there's any fire equipment or fire trucks needs to be there so it won't spin. Just like that's the whole thing. We like to reserve that agricultural land because that gravel could be removed and you can always re-sod if you have to. That's why we don't ask people to have concrete or asphalt as much as they need to.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next I have Justice Lyons.

Thank you, ma'am. I just want to be clear. I support your call. Nothing to do with you. You've done a lot out there. I mean, I listened to the planning. A lot of things you said here, you said there. And if they come back with something, I wholly believe you'll fix it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the planning board has put us in a caparious situation. that opens up gaps that people could use to appeal, to take it to circuit court, et cetera, and that's what I'm trying to protect against. I don't believe, based on what I've heard from Dr. Atta, I mean, it's three properties over, I don't remember, whatever, that it'll come back with anything, but I still have to try to make sure that we're staying within the ordinance, within the law, and trying to keep us out of any additional lawsuits or continuing this on because of those suits, right? And that's really where I'm from. And if my colleagues decide I'm wrong and they wanna move forward with it, I'll support your comment.

Appreciate it.

I have Justice Lemming.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanna make sure I'm at the right property. You go out 16, it stopped like you're hanging right on the sharp curve, you fall off the hill. Well, we all know water runs downhill. And from that blacktop where it drops off that hill, it starts running. And Washington County has had trouble with that ditch and all that whole thing because it floods the other end of Double Springs. And it always washes about a foot of gravel on the pavement on the other end of that. And it's been doing it forever. And a lot of people out there blame the county for dumping all that stuff out there that directs that water off over that hill. But your buildings will have a significant amount of water runs off the eaves that will run off and run down that ditch and go down that road. And you bought this in what year, 18? A lot of the people that live there, the houses that's below you and the big long driveway that hangs off the right, they said they built all that and they hauled all that stuff in. And they've had trouble with people that's not helping with some of that road. And they've tried to get the county to maintain that road, but they've not had no luck. So... To say the water runoff is your problem, you're a little bit of the problem, but the county's got a lot of the problem, too. And somehow or another, we need to fix the other end of that road so it don't flood that whole bottom out. Did the subdivision they just built, does that water go that direction? Comes back around there, or does it go forward?

I can't recall, but one of the things we received back, the feedback we received from the road department for the three projects we're going to hear today, no concerns. That's what we got back from them. So there was no concern about the projects going on.

Well, I don't think there's a concern either, but there is a concern because we've had a problem. Washington County's had a problem at the bottom of that hill for 20 years, 30 years. No, yeah. I mean, it's way before you've been there, but the county needs to figure out how to either put a big box covered it across that road down at the bottom, but that's just going to dump all that gravel and all that stuff onto the neighborhood. It you know, I don't know that there's an issue there with flooding for the people down to bomb that he'll but there's a lot of homes around that corner once you go around that corner down that he'll there's a lot of homes that distribute water just like your buildings does and in that that other long driveway comes down that draw it comes down to there. So there's a lot of water that goes through that they get it.

Plan planning looks staff like use all the feedback we receive from look you know as as usual we receive all the feedback from the viewers. And based on the feedback, we formulate the conditions. So it's not to us to say, hey, there might be like a drainage issue if we did not receive any feedback that confirms.

We've had feedback out in that area for a long time. We've had people that's not like that runoff and not like that. And we've had neighbors complain about these buildings. It's there because they was there without CUPs. It wasn't properly put in to begin with. And I understand you're trying to get it in, and I appreciate you trying to get it in and bring it in. And I don't have a problem supporting you, but we're going to have to figure out if we've got to put retention ponds in, if we need to put some rock up to catch the water, slow it down. The county needs to work. The road department needs to help work with that because some of that's the county's fault, I think.

As I said, we receive no concerns.

But again, what Mr. Lyons is saying is we're kind of playing rock in a hard place. I understand. I understand. But I don't have a problem with the issue being out there. We just need to fix it. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Justice Bruns.

Oh, that's me. Well, I've sat here and listened to all this, and this is exactly what has always bothered me about this. the communication between the Planning Commission and this body. I would like to support your project, but you ain't ready to bring it to us. I hear questions out the ears about different things. This needs to go back to the Planning Commission. You need to, Mr. Otte, you need to get these questions answered and get a resolution and bring us what you've done so that we can either vote on what's there, what has been completed, and what we've got to go on. Now, I have historically been against CUPs simply because we have nobody employed at the county to make sure they go by our CUPs. And I think you've brought this to us immaturely. I think we need to send it back. I think it needs to go. And there's a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Sir, we've done everything by our ordinances. We received all the feedback we needed. We wrote a staff report that was forwarded to almost everyone, including the quorum court. And we have a stack of paper of all the information we had before and after and what happened. So we brought to the planning board a project, and they approved it, and based on our ordinances, we have to come to you to request for ratification. It's in your jurisdiction to either approve, deny, send back, and do whatever. We followed the process as it's written in our ordinances.

Okay. I accept that. You do what you need to do, and I'll do what I need to do. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Justice Pond.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to get this straight. I like looking at pictures that are not there, but.

Well, I don't have anything to show anything. So please don't blame me on something I have no control over.

We have.

That's why we present during the planning board.

I'm going to try to get this. You have a shop building on this property? I have two shops, sir. Two shops? Yes. And a park.

No concrete other than a small pad. And then the majority around the shop is gravel. So permeable gravel. And then around that is just grass.

In a driveway.

Gravel, yes. OK. Gravel driveway.

Are you? And the shop area and the parking area and where you drive in and out, is that less than one acre or more than one acre?

Well, the two shops are 40 by 80, both of them. So it's 6,400 square feet. So I don't know.

Yeah, that was . So my question is on the acreage. Is that less than an acre or more than an acre?

. Yeah, just that area that you're using there. You drive your trucks in and out and park them there and you have your shop buildings.

Yeah, all the gravel area around the shops. Yeah, I don't know exactly. You don't know. That's where...

where it comes in, whether it's large scale or not, whether it's one acre or less. Is it more than one acre or less than one acre or one acre? Do we have anybody here that could calculate that out?

Yeah.

Dr. Sam?

I'm trying to find out this one.

Okay.

Yeah, that's the entire property. It's not like the disturbed land.

That's the whole land. Yeah.

But I don't think he's using the whole acreage.

Yeah.

I'm showing you the comments that were received from the engineers.

Did I hear you say you own the land?

Yes. It's way too slow.

Justice Pond, do you still have another question or can somebody else?

That's it. I want to know the acreage of the actual part of it that he's used.

OK. Can we have those that are in line to ask a question? Thank you, sir. Justice Massingale.

I forgot what I was going to say.

I can't hear you. I can't answer. I can multitask.

No, I just...

So...

Correct or added was the only issue with this the drainage is that the only?

Well normally normally if it's an impervious a compacted gravel is not like concrete So it's like what like would soak slowly, but it will soak and like absorb So if it was concrete what we normally like or like asphalt that we acknowledge that as like impervious and It goes into the disturbed land because like that will like increase the runoff coefficient So that's the only comment we received from the engineering. It's like in red. And he says, like, please describe the stormwater flow. And that's what, like, the current engineering company that Mr. Phillips is hiring is trying to answer. We can always ask them. I can always send them emails asking them, could you delineate the area that's being disturbed or used if it's, like, beyond one acre or not? That's something we can always do.

Okay. But drainage is the only issue?

Well, that's the only feedback we receive for the drainage is like this. This is it for the whole project.

So I'm in support of passing the CUP as it is tonight. I feel like Dr. Arata has put something in place to try to address the drainage issues. You know, it's getting harder and harder for businesses like Mr. Phillips to operate in northwest Arkansas. You've got to go out in the county. You can't do it in the city. And you can't do it in the pretty places where people are building houses. You've got to pick a place with drainage issues. Another issue is a conditional use permit. Conditional means it could be withdrawn. So if we can't satisfy the drainage issues and Mr. Phillips doesn't

um cooperate with the county in the future the cup could be withdrawn so um i'm going to support this business and i'm not going to vote for the and we added those conditions that like they were like imposed by the planning board and if you feel this project needs to be delayed until like we receive any feedback and if the feedback requests them to go through the large scale they will have to go through the large scale that's part of the technical conditions so

I have a point of order, Justice Washington.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What is the motion that's on the floor? What's the motion to send it back? To planning. I just feel like we're talking about a lot of things that really have absolutely nothing to do with the motion that is on the floor. So we've had an extended discussion, but we still haven't addressed the motion that is on the floor. So can we please address the motion that's on the floor and dispose of it in some type of way?

Thank you. Justice Lemming.

Thank you. Let's call the question. Second.

I have a motion and I have a second to defer this back to or send this back to the planning board for consideration with the new engineering. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? No. No. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? No. No. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? No. No. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes. Yes. Justice Ecke? No. No. Justice Dean? No. No. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Justice Dennis? No.

At six to nine, the motion passes. So we just need a simple majority on that one to send it back to planning. So that one's been sent back to planning. Moving on to...

Question, is this need to be sent to planning the next coming cycle, which is next week? Can we add this during the planning board on the agenda?

Thank you so much. We have another CUP. I'm going to ask for just a three-minute or five-minute point of privilege break, if we could. Okay? Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. This meeting is now coming back to order. Next is item number 10. Would you all please quiet? Item number 10 is next on the agenda. I'll go ahead and read it. An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Long Pine K-9 project. This is your district? Okay. Do you want to speak on it or have? Oh, there you are. Sorry.

Thank you. So this project also was approved during August 13. Six members voted yes for it. One member was absent. It's a small-scale boarding and training facility for dogs. It's on 0.7 acres. It's operated by the Monday through Sunday by appointment only, and it's run by the same property owners. They have a 12 by 24 portable structure that can accommodate between six to eight dogs. They have all the utilities, but they don't have any running water in that facility that requires any additional requirement from the health department. They have 900 square foot grass parking. They can accommodate up to two vehicles. They have non-illuminated signs at two by three, and they have gates, and it's the same spot like on Cindy Hollow, but you could reach also from Starnes Road. The ladies who run the business are here if you have any question for them. We only have one objection to it from the same neighbor.

Okay. Thank you. Justice Stafford?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this sure is odd. Two businesses right next door to each other coming to us for conditional use permits at the exact same meeting.

Three. Three. Three. Yeah, the three of them. All in the same place. Do you still have the presentation, the previous one? Okay, so it's, yeah, it's Mr. Phillips, Mr. Alterberry, and the ladies here. So it's really just like on a corner.

Uh-huh.

Yep.

Okay.

We've never had this before, yeah, it's like.

Yeah, this sure is strange. And the folks who filed for, I don't know the exact word for it.

They called us the complainant. The complainant.

Are the same people for all three?

No, actually they complained only on two of them. And the third one, he was spared, I guess. I guess he's done something right.

He did something right.

He's a saint, I guess.

That's interesting. All right, thank you very much.

I have Justice Washington. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to ask that same question, that that's just like, why two and three and not one?

Unless someone comes to us, if we see any violation as a staff, or like it's reported by the county, like... staff. Sometimes the road department will notice stuff and they will come to us, the supervisors, like, hey, is this permitted? If not, we reach out. But we operate basically based on complaints. Or if the applicant comes to us and says, hey, I'm going to start the business, what do I need to do? So this came as a complaint.

Okay, so, and I definitely understand that, but it's still giving me pause. So this is still on the first reading.

Yes, ma'am.

So my request of the court is let's just leave it on the first reading until we get the other information back from the other one. For some reason, yeah, I don't, it's just giving me pause.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, I have it. Thank you. Justice Dean. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I've been out and looked over all three jobs. The drainage, I really have to disagree with it being from them. I think it's just natural runoff that's out there. And I have to agree with my colleague, Lemming, that stated our road department doesn't have adequate ditching and stuff. for the water run that eats out along the edges of the roads and you've got big craters and everything else, but that's not their problem. What I want to do is suspend the rules and move it to the second reading.

Is that a motion?

A motion.

I need also like to clarify, so this CEP is for the business, the business like operation itself is not for the dog kennel. The dog kennel is agricultural by right.

Excuse me, you're not recognized, please. If you want to be recognized, turn on your mic. Justice Dean is recognized.

Did you make a motion?

There is a motion on the floor to leave this at first reading. Is there a second?

Point of order?

That was my question is whether this is, I appreciate the motion. I question whether it's a valid motion because if we're just leaving it to go to the next reading, we just do nothing.

It's okay.

I have a motion and a second to advance this to the second reading by Justice Dean, second by Justice Dennis. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

No.

Roll call vote. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers.

This is to advance it to the second reading.

Yes.

Tonight. Yes.

Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Justice Ricker? No. Justice Pond? Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? No. No. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes, sir.

Yes. That motion passes. Would you like?

I'd like to suspend rules and move it to the third and final reading.

Second. Would you read it, please, Councillor?

Oops, I'm sorry. There we go. An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Long Pine K-9 project.

Justice Dean. I would like to approve this and pass it. And I have a second by justice lines roll call please I

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rio Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? No. No. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? No. No. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes, sir.

Yes. That motion passes. Counsel, would you read it for the final time? Here we go.

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Long Pine Canine Project.

Justice Dean.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move this to be passed.

I have a motion to pass and a second by Justice Lyons. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers. Yes. Yes. Justice Rios Stafford. Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming. Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker. Yes. Yes. Justice Pond. Yes.

Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes.

Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? No. No. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes, sir.

Yes. This ordinance passes. Item number 11. Councilor, would you read that by title only?

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the Planning Board for the Father's House Church project.

This is an ordinance sponsored by Justice Lines. Justice Atta. Dr. Atta.

Yes, ma'am. So it's the same. It was approved during the August 13th. Six members voted yes. One of them was absent. So it's a 24-acre lot. They're going to split this and use only like... The eight-acre portion is going to be a tiny church. They're going to be there Sundays from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Wednesdays. No, I'm sorry. And, like, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. also, like, on Saturday, and on Wednesdays only 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. The applicant is only the only servant there, and with his wife is the assistant. And basically, possible volunteers are going to be there, but they're not going to be employed. The project site includes a 6,000 to 7,000 square foot building equipped with all the utilities. They're going to have a gravel driveway that might accumulate up to 35, three ADA. Three of them are going to be ADA compatible. They initially asked for, like, 100, maximum capacity of 100, but because of the septic system and the design, it was requested by the health department to reduce it, and it's now reduced to 50. That's going to be the maximum. And also, like, based on the size and the capacity of the septic and the fire, like, they're going to stuck with the 50. The property is close to the way on the upper north of Fort Worth, east north, close to the bypass that's going to come from Springdale. We never had any complaints. Unfortunately, the applicants were unable to attend tonight, but if you have any other questions, I'm glad to answer.

Justice Lyons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we suspend the rules and move to the second reading.

I have a motion to suspend the rules and advance it to the second reading by Justice Limming. Mr. Allen, will you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons?

Yes, sir.

Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes, Justice Koger? Yes. Yes, Justice Dennis? Yes.

That motion passes. Council, would you read it? Second time. There we go.

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Father's House Church project.

Justice Lyons?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we suspend the rules and move this to the third and final reading.

I have a motion by Justice Lines and a second by Justice Dean to move this to the third and final reading. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Justice Rios Stafford? Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Justice Lyons?

Yes, sir. Gotcha.

Yes. Justice Ecke. Yes. Yes. Justice Dean. Yes. Justice Washington. Yes. Justice Koger. No. Justice Dennis. Yes.

That motion passes. Justice Lyons. Oh, Clamson. Well, you need to make a motion to read it for the final.

Third reading.

Yeah.

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Father's House Church project.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we pass this.

I have a motion by Justice Lyons and a second by Justice Dean to pass item number 11. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? Is there any discussion? Is there any citizen comment? Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? Thank you.

Justice Hires. Thank you. Yes. Justice Rios Stafford. Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming. Yes. Justice Ricker. Yes. Yes. Justice Pond. Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns. Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson. Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill. Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

Item number 11 passes. Moving on to item number 12. Counsel, will you read that by title only? Oh, do that again, please.

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Green Space Creations Incorporated project. Dr. Atta, you're on.

Yes, ma'am. Same deal, like on August 13, this project was approved by the planning board. Five members voted yes, one member was absent, and one member voted no. Mr. Arterberry, he bought this land previously, as we mentioned, with Mr. Dillon, and they split it halfway. Green space creation is a hardscaping business, so it's not landscaping. It's not the green. It's the brick and everything associated with it. They have 0.9 acres of usage. They're operating Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Three employees. The shop is 40 by 60. It's used only for storing material. Same thing, same deal. Come in the morning, take the material, park trucks in the afternoon, and leave home. We did not receive any complaints about this project, and he's not going to paint anything with.

That's terrific. I have Justice Dean.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to suspend the rules and move this to the second reading.

I have a motion and a second by Justice Dennis to advance this to the second reading. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? No. No. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons. Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke. Yes. Yes. Justice Dean. Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington. Yes. Yes. Justice Koger. No. No. Justice Dennis. Yes. Yes.

That motion passes. I have, would you read this again, Counselor, please?

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the green space creations incorporated project.

Justice Dean.

I'd like to suspend the rules and move this to the third and final reading.

I have a motion and a second to move this to the third and final reading. I have discussion. Justice Coger.

Well, I have some questions about it, but it's not about what we were voting. It's not about whether to move it forward. So may I ask it now or should I wait?

I think once it's ready to be approved is when you can ask the question. Thank you. Is that OK? OK. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hires? Yes. Justice Rio Stafford? Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Justice Ricker? No. Justice Pond? Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Coker? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes, sir.

Yes. That motion passes. Counselor?

An ordinance ratifying a conditional use permit recommended for approval by the planning board for the Green Space Creations Incorporated project. Justice Dean.

I'd like to move this to be passed. Second.

I have a motion by Justice Dean and a second by Justice Lyons for this to pass. Is there any discussion? I have Justice Coger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Atta, is this a property at the end of North Stars Road? Yes, ma'am.

That's like the one south of the Mr. Phillips, like the Dylan Phillips other project. So that's like the two of them were like butts each other and this split in half. 3.27, 3.27.

At the Planning Commission, there was a question as to whether or not part of the septic system was on the applicant's property.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah, we asked the same question to the health department, and they said as long as they don't have any issue, the septic most likely was there like before. So it did not cause any problem to them to approve it. So we asked that like again. During the technical review, That's what they said. They said, like, everything is okay based on the information they have on their system. So the septic is being approved previously. And I don't think there's any issue with the septic system being operational. That's why they did not give us any feedback, negative feedback about it. Is it close to? It has to be. The state regulation, the current state regulation, it has to be away minimum 10 feet from the property line, but if it's been built like previously and it's still operational, it does not have to move unless if it needs to be moved.

Okay, let me think just a minute.

So basically we never received any negative feedback that requires them to reestablish a septic system or redesign or move the existing septic system from that location.

I understood that there was somebody who was going to actually find out whether or not the septic... Yeah, we asked them and they sent us like, yeah, we have no issues with it. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Is there any other discussion? Any public comment? Seeing that there's none, Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? This is to pass ordinance number 12.

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes.

Yes. Justice Pond?

Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? No. Justice Dennis? Yes.

That ordinance passes. Now we have item number 12A. Council, would you read that by title only?

An ordinance prohibiting the use of county funds for automatic license plate reader systems.

Sponsor is Justice Rios-Stafford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This ordinance, we had to add to this agenda as a walk-on because of the rescheduled budget meeting, but it did pass out of the budget committee meeting earlier this week. I know there were several members who weren't able to be here at that meeting. This would basically... say that we're not gonna be spending county money to install or maintain or have contracts with automated license plate reader systems, or they're commonly known as flock cameras, which is a brand name, or other similar systems. We've heard a lot of concerns from the public about these, at least I have. I think some other JPs have expressed that as well. in terms of the data. Because unlike ordinary traffic operations where a human being is noting down license plates, this technology looks at every single license plate that goes in front of it and stores it in a database. And we know that probably 99.9% of those vehicles are driven by completely innocent people. And there's been a lot of concerns from the public around this data, how it's stored, who has access to it, can it be hacked, how can it be used, whose hands does it eventually end up in? We've heard concerns from women who are afraid that it could be used to stalk them. Because we've heard cases in the news like that, not here in Arkansas, but in other states. We heard from our sheriff, basically, His department doesn't necessarily have an issue with passing this ordinance because I tried to write it so that we are focused on only the funding. Because I know, if I know one thing, it's that the quorum court has jurisdiction over county funds. I tried to write it in a way that we're not interfering with sheriff's department investigations. They can still do their job. They can still look at data from flock cameras from other departments or from those that are owned by private businesses or private individuals, this doesn't interfere with that at all. So just because of all the concerns around this, I felt that it was good for the public to know that this is our county policy and the best time to get in front of an issue is before it is an issue. We don't have these cameras, this just says we're not gonna get them. Technology is always changing, I acknowledge that. At some point in the future, there may be better safeguards, things may change. We always have the ability to come back and amend this ordinance or even repeal it if we want to. So with that, I move to pass this ordinance.

Did we have a second?

Yes, we had a motion by Justice Stafford and a second by Justice Rivera-Lopez, but we need three readings. But this is to, correct. Justice Stafford.

I'll amend that and say motion to suspend the rules and go to the second reading.

We'll have discussion after the third final hearing. Is that okay? That's the rules. Thank you. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? No. No. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Justice Lyons. Yes. Justice Ecke. Yes. Yes. Justice Dean. Yes. Justice Washington. Yes. Justice Koger. No. Justice Dennis. Yes.

That passes. Justice, Counselor, would you please read?

Second reading, an ordinance prohibiting the use of county funds for automatic license plate reader systems.

Thank you. Justice Stafford?

Motion to suspend the rules and go to the third reading.

Second.

I have a motion and a second by Rivera-Lopez to advance this to the third and final reading. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? No. No. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That passes.

Third and final reading, an ordinance prohibiting the use of county funds for automatic license plate reader systems.

Justice Stafford?

Motion to pass.

Second. I have a motion and a simultaneous second by Justice Rivera-Lopez and Lines. Now for discussion, I have Justice Dennis.

Just have a question, if you could, to another JP.

Yes, yes, you may.

So the brand name is not mentioned in there, is it? Okay, then I'm all for it. We've had that come up before in the past, and sometimes you cannot use a brand name.

Can't use a brand name. No brand names are mentioned in this ordinance at all.

Thank you. I'm all with you.

Justice Lines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll support this. I agree with J.P. Rios-Safford and appreciate her bringing this. There's a lot of questions, a lot of possible problems with this technology today. We get to a point that the sheriff believes it's something he needs to provide better protection for our citizens, then we can have the discussion. We can have the discussion about all the guardrails that we wanna put around that as well at that point in time. So I think this is a good step at this point until we can have further discussions, figure out what those guardrails are, protect our citizens, and protect our citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. I will support this.

Thank you, Justice Lyons. Next I have Justice Bruns.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't disagree with anything J.P. Lyons just said with exception. What bothers me is that we're taking funds and we're basically saying you can't use them at all. If if the sheriff was going to want them, he would have to come to us for them. It's already, I mean, we're setting a precedent, in my opinion, that we are banning dollars that are in our budget for something that we don't know whether it's good or not. And the other thing that I have a problem with is that I've spent a lot of time in law enforcement. I came up just short of the technology time. But it was at the beginning of that And it's now where police departments have to write certain stipulations and policies to regulate the least little thing. And I agree with that. I agree that we need to keep restrictions on that stuff. But to say that we're banning Any use of our dollars is the only problem I have. So thank you.

Thank you, Justice Burns. I have Justice Wilson.

Thank you, Chair. I want to say, if anyone on this body is standing for liberty and opposing intrusions into people's lives, I'm going to stand in solidarity with you on that. And I want to say that my colleague that brought this forward has done a good job with the wording here. I don't have problems with the wording. Did a good job of recapping our discussion in the in the committee meeting just a couple of nights ago, seems like. Yeah, it almost feels like we didn't have time to sleep on this before we came back, but we did, literally we did. But I wanted to add to that, as far as the recap on what was said, it was made clear that the use of this type of technology is trending down. And I will add to that that when you look at the news nationwide, we're hearing of more and more law enforcement entities who are saying, you know, we're not going to do this or we're discontinuing it. So based upon that trend, if it's a problem, it seems to be diminishing or going away. That doesn't mean we don't have any cause for concern. Also, I wanted to add, if I could paraphrase what the county sheriff said. Of course, it is true he said he didn't take a stand one way or the other on this. What he did say is, I can understand if a large metropolitan area needed to use this where there's a heavy dose of traffic going on and so on. And then he said, but in the county, we don't have that concern. Out in the county, I don't see a need for this technology. And he said he didn't really anticipate they would need it. I'm going to add this, too, and I'm not putting any words in anyone's mouth, but I have met with and talked to both candidates for county judge. And I'm going to speculate here a little bit, but I don't think I'm too far out on a limb. I can't imagine either one of those gentlemen coming in here on January and saying, we're going to implement this technology. I don't think either one of them would say that. So what we're looking at, we got a new term starting in January for elected officials. And what that means is, of course, years go by in a hurry, faster for me than they used to. But I can't see this being a concern in Washington County government. Maybe not until January of 31, maybe. And while I appreciate the spirit of this, I'm gonna vote against it because I'm thinking, I don't think it's necessary right now. Now maybe this is a concern in some areas, but it's not a reality in Washington County government. So those are my thoughts and I appreciate it, thank you.

Thank you, I have Justice Lopez.

Thank you, Chair. And my justification here is fairly short. For all that we may bluster about whether or not this is doing anything today, I know that my constituents have been pretty active about telling that they do not want this. They do not want this money going there. And even if it is a gesture, it is a gesture that we are listening and we are not going to enable that to happen. Again, we can't control what other municipalities do, but I do think that as a body, we have a duty to our constituents. And if this is what they don't want, then by all means, I will support this.

Justice Koger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very much in favor of this. I just want to, as I understand it, I mean, any ordinance can be repealed. If the sheriff decides he wants, I would be against it if he did, but if the sheriff decides he wants cameras or something, he could always come back. And, I mean, it's not like it's a forever thing. So that's, but I support this, and I hope it passes.

Thank you. Rather quickly, and I shared this with Justice Stafford as he was coming in, we had this discussion. And I said thank you because my neighbors and people blocks away said, hey, heard y'all are discussing this. Let me share with you. And it opened up a great conversation. So to all of y'all out there that stopped me while I was doing the lawn and whatever, It was a great conversation and this was the very thing that they used to feel like they could just broach the conversation with me. Can I have a moment of your time? Can I talk to you about this? And that's what we're here for. So I wanna say thank you. So at this point, is there any public comment? Good evening, y'all have three minutes. Please state your name and where you're from. And also, would you bring that mic closer to you so we can hear you? I did.

Thank you. My name is Scarlett. I live in Fayetteville. I see two issues with the issue of the automatic license plate readers. Should we use county taxpayer dollars to maintain what a multi-billion dollar company already has money to do? Definitely not. That money could be used in a lot of better places. Second of all, It's really not law enforcement that hasn't decided to use it. It's because 70% of Americans have shown up to their local government meetings to protest. Yes, it's fine. Thank you. To protest against this. Okay. We are under the assumption that law enforcement is always working in the best interest of the public without acknowledging that there are abuses of power. You can reference many, many articles currently that there are actually hundreds of law enforcement officers that have abused this power and accessed this information to stalk people. There's actually arrests that are being made and a lot of investigations. And that's not to say that there aren't good uses, but we already have surveillance everywhere. We've got this. We've got cameras there. Every private citizen has cameras everywhere. The DOT has cameras everywhere. Private businesses have cameras everywhere. Do we need to let private companies surveil innocent citizens that haven't committed any crime, collect their data? Not only is this technology collecting and storing license plates, it is tracking and building a profile where you go, who you see, what you do. to your identity what your opinions are and that is information that should not be in the hands of a private company and it should only really be in the hands of government with the consent of the governed as well as following the fourth amendment warrants paper trail of why you need this information um i do think that A lot of people in government really don't even understand the technology. I know I probably only use 10% of my phone, and I am sure that there's probably a lot of people here that don't even understand what they're doing with this technology, how powerful it is. And I do wanna say that a lot of these cameras are pointed at playgrounds, at schools, at.

Ma'am, thank you very much, your time is up. We appreciate your comments. Okay. Next person. Thank you. Good evening, please state your name and where you're from.

Hi, my name is Salvador Sanchez, Springdale, Arkansas. I was to pick up from where I was left off, They're pointed at playgrounds. They're pointed at gymnastics, where the vice president of Flock was staring at little girls practicing their gymnastics. They're disgusting people. There's no real moral standing when it comes to making capital. They will take whatever avenue that they can get. As far as how invasive they're also planning to make this technology is one system that they're trying to It's called signal integration, where not only would you be able to do facial recognition on every single person and read their license plates, but you would also be able to track them through their IP address with their phone, through RFID chips. If you go into a corporate office and you have a RFID card, they know how to integrate all the different signals that are around you, your Bluetooth headphones, the TPMS and your very own tires inside your car, that basic of technology. just to integrate it so that way they can have a complete encompassing image of you and then making an encompassing image of who you're connected with and who you associate with. This is deeply un-American. Every person on every side of the aisle should be opposed to this. And every single piece of our Constitution is being tested by technology. If anything needs to be known about new technology, it's that it's about testing our Constitution. Thank you.

Thank you. Public comment time. State your name again for us, please.

Hi there, I'm Sally Ganim and I live in Washington County. I told you guys before a couple months ago, or last month I guess, about being stalked by a police officer when I was 16. That man pulled me over so many times. He just would follow me here, follow me there. I'd make U-turns, he'd follow me around. So could you imagine when He got fired from our police department and went two towns over to that police department. He still could have been watching me the whole time if we had this. One of the gentlemen over here that I'm not allowed to talk to apparently said that we can't afford federal lawsuits. Well, what do you think will happen if we get the flock cameras? I think that somebody is going to make a mistake and it's going to hurt somebody. there we are with a giant lawsuit that our county can't afford we can't even afford like eight weeks of vacation for people that have babies that's crazy so I don't want the flood cameras I think that it's terrible violation of everyone's privacy and if you guys like the flood cameras and decide that we need them for safety you know I think there's one gentleman over there that likes him and wants him like let's put one in front of his house so he can be extra safe

Public comment time. We have three minutes left.

Well, please. William Terrell, East Fayetteville. I just want to thank my lovely JP, Madam Chairwoman. And I would like to thank all the great Republicans who I know who are going to support this amendment or resolution, ordinance, whatever it is today. And thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening, state your name. Hi, Andela Hines, District 7. Just really quickly, last county services meeting, I read the Fourth Amendment onto the record, and so I appreciate that mention tonight by other, by JPs here. opting into a system or spending our taxes in on technology like this not only does it violate our rights as citizens as it pertains to our local police departments or Sheriff's Office but it actually what it does is it allows my government or my police here to consent on my behalf to share my data with police departments and other officials in other states, which is certainly a violation of our rights. And so I ask you to support Justice Stafford's, Rio Stafford's ordinance tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

With that, in the public comment time, Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll, and this is to pass ordinance number 12.

Justice Hiers? Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Justice Bruns? No. Justice Wilson? No. Justice Massengill? Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Justice Lyons? Yes. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes, sir. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? Yes. Yes. Justice Dennis? Yes, sir.

Yes. That ordinance passes. Now we have Justice Washington.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I... move that we reconsider the addition of the resolution approving the issuance of the Health and Educational Facilities Authority of the State of Missouri health revenue bonds.

I have a motion to reconsider. One moment. We have a motion to reconsider. the resolution by Justice Washington, and the second by Justice Lemming, and I have a point of order by Justice Lyons.

Correct?

Yes. The rule is if in the same session that a motion has been voted on, but no later than the same day, et cetera, A member who voted with the prevailing side, in this case the losing side, can move to reconsider the vote and propose the question come before the assembly again as if it had not been previously voted on.

With that, Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll? This is to reconsider the resolution. This is just to add it to the discussion or add it to the agenda as item number 13. Mr. Allen, would you please call the roll?

Justice Hiers? Yes. Yes. Justice Rios-Stafford? Yes. Yes. Justice Lemming? Yes. Yes. Justice Ricker? Yes. Yes. Justice Pond? Yes. Yes. Justice Bruns? Yes. Yes. Justice Wilson? Yes. Yes. Justice Massengill? Yes. Yes. Justice Rivera-Lopez? Yes. Yes. Justice Lyons? No. Justice Ecke? Yes. Yes. Justice Dean? Yes. Yes. Justice Washington? Yes. Yes. Justice Koger? No. No. Justice Dennis? Yes. Yes.

That motion passes. It has been added to the agenda. Now, we'll...

just about the nature of the resolution.

I'd like to make a comment just about the nature of this resolution, and I'm not familiar with this exact funding mechanism i'm only familiar with the grant world but i think it's in some ways analogous and what this resolution is asking the quorum court to do is to acknowledge this event really there's no money on the line from the county side or any kind of oversight or legal responsibility taken on It's more, I guess the word acknowledgement is kind of the best word that I can think of. And if I'm wrong, please correct me. But this is just bringing it to the public's attention that this event is occurring and that it has gone through a governmental process of acknowledgement.

Thank you. Do we have anybody from the, we have the, yeah, you sure way. Go ahead and approach. No, go ahead. Good afternoon, my name is Jill Grimsley. One moment, please. I have Justice Willie Lemming.

I just want to, you might talk about it here in just a second, but thank you, Chair. This is really a time deal. You're really in a crunch, and this was brought about to the right people to begin with, and And I'm sorry that we're having to battle this, but I think it's in our best interest to get it done for y'all so y'all can move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Justice Lemming.

Go ahead, please. My name's Jill Grimsley. I'm with Mitchell Williams Law Firm. We are local bond counsel for the state of Arkansas for the Freeman Health System. Freeman recently acquired the Northwest Health System. So it'll be Northwest Hospital in Springdale, Willow Creek Women's Hospital, and then some ancillary smaller clinics. I want to thank you all very much for the reconsideration. We did follow the appropriate processes. I apologize to you all that you just got this information and so there was some breakdown of communication and I very truly appreciate the consideration and I recognize that you all are in a position of having to consider something on short notice. In this case, This is simply an IRS code requirement for the health system to issue their own bonds. These are not bonds of the county. There is zero fiscal impact to the county, zero obligation of the county. They're the only obligor on their bonds. This is simply an IRS code requirement as your legal counsel told you, that shows that there was a public hearing, there's public comment here. Notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper as per the statutory requirements of the state of Arkansas and the IRS TEFRA requirements. So those requirements for public hearing have been met. this meeting constitutes a public hearing where you invite public comment. So I did want to assure you that those requirements are met. And I do apologize that you all just got this before the meeting. We did submit it on September 2nd, and it was confirmed. And I was not trying to stir the pot about whose fault it was, I promise, either. So I very much appreciate that. I have with me Mr. Sanders with Freeman Health System. He came here from Joplin. He is their VP of Finance, and I thought he might, if you all allow, have a couple of minutes to just explain what they are doing in our community and the investment they are making here.

Come on up, yes. Mr. Sanders, good evening.

good evening ladies and gentlemen i also want to thank you for reconsidering adding it to the agenda so as mrs grimsley mentioned my name is michael sanders vice president of finance for freeman health system freeman did acquire four northwest hospitals from chs on june 1st and so as part of that process we have some financing that we are issuing some bonds, some tax exempt financing. It's no greater than 425 million that you see in the issuance there. It will be less than that. I won't bore you with the details of everything that's financed unless you'd like, but I wanna hit on a couple of aspects and the first is, The acquisition of the four hospitals in Northwest Arkansas, the two that were mentioned here, Willow Creek and Springdale being two of those four, the financing for the acquisition was $112 million. That's part of this bond issue. What's also part of this bond issue is money to implement Epic in the hospitals here in Northwest Arkansas, which we are very excited about. and we hope the community is very excited about it as well if you don't know epic is kind of the premier electronic medical record and it's amazing for patients and amazing for staff so i'll just it's been a long evening so i don't want to take your time unnecessarily but i just want to share freeman health systems and not-for-profit health system we are based out of joplin before we acquired the northwest hospital we were four hospitals now we're eight hospitals and we've been around for 101 years, and we really look forward to serving the patients of Northwest Arkansas, and I would be happy to take any questions.

I have Justice Bruns.

Well, before I ask you a question, Ms. Baker, I'll let you take your drink. Since they're not really asking for anything at this meeting, Could this not be their public meeting?

I trust their council to know when she's had a public meeting.

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand.

I trust their council to know when she's had a public meeting. I'm sure that she's met her requirements.

We have published notice of a public hearing at this meeting. And because you invite public comment before you adopt the resolution and public is available to make comment, the requirements are met.

Well, I would disagree with you if you were coming and asking us for money or something, but you're not.

No, sir. We're not asking for your money. But if you want to give us some, just let me know.

Thank you. You're not asked for money yet. It's a resolution.

Yes, sir. It's a resolution only as opposed to an ordinance. So it's not a law.

I see no problem with this. I'll be supporting it.

I have Justice Koger. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could someone go into detail and tell us what a host approval, why are we the host, and what What does that mean for Washington County?

Yes, ma'am. The IRS code, and I believe the code section is even cited in there, does require, as your counsel indicated, that the public is sort of just notified what is going on. And the reason for that is, as he mentioned, Freeman Health System is a nonprofit organization, and so they are able to get the benefit of tax-exempt bond financing meaning interest on those bonds doesn't accrue. You don't have to pay a tax on the interest that you receive as a bond holder, people who purchase the bonds. So what that results in is a slightly lower interest rate to them, which is a benefit. And so we make the public aware that they are issuing the bonds and where they are spending the proceeds, which in this case was, I believe, They're refunding, which is a fancy word for refinance, some of their existing bonds and then investing in the acquisition of the hospital systems here and then making some upgrades and the software.

What is the exact location?

The host, in this case, we did an identical hearing last week in Benton County because there's a Northwest Hospital in Bentonville, if you'll recall. There's also two large facilities and some smaller clinics here in Washington County. Those would be the Springdale Hospital and Willow Creek are the two primary hospitals.

And so Washington County is also a host. Go ahead, they are the primary.

What are the Springdale and Willow Creek?

Willow Creek, yes. Willow Creek, okay, yes, thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead.

So because those are located here in Washington County, we're able to combine the host hearing in front of a governing body of Washington County for those locations.

Do you have an approximate amount of how much money might be spent here?

I believe it says $125 million. That's a lot.

I'm just really torn because it didn't go through the process, but I'm gonna think about it and listen to what my colleagues have to say.

And just to be clear, that's their investment. That's not anything for which the county is obligated or liable.

I have Justice Lopez.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for sticking around. I'm under the impression that you guys wanted to go pretty early on in the evening, so thank you for that. My question is for the VP here. My understanding is that EPIC is currently in an FTC antitrust lawsuit, and I'm not sure that that affects anything on your end, but I'd imagine that there might be a shakeup in that, and I'm sure you're more informed on this. I just wanted to make sure that that doesn't affect anything that you all are doing.

yeah so i'll be honest i'm not aware of that lawsuit that you're alluding to i uh this would be speculation i mean epic is the largest electronic medical record and it's vastly growing across all health systems so i would say there's a question at some point on whether there's a monopoly in that business that the government might be interested in but that's purely speculation it wouldn't it would not change things okay

Yeah, no, I think it's fairly recent. I think it's within the last month, but that it was brought forth. But I mean, that satisfies me. That works for me, thank you.

Justice Lemming.

Sorry.

That's nice. I have Justice Lyons. That's you.

Well, she said that. It didn't sound like she sounded Lyons. I'm sorry.