[22-I-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 17-OR-12 (PULASKI COUNTY PERSONNEL POLICY) TO UPDATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE BENEFITS FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES.]

THANK YOU, CHRISTINA [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.

EVENING, JUSTICES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINA [INAUDIBLE], AND I'M A PROPERTY OWNER IN ROLAND.

I CAME TO ARKANSAS TO RETIRE.

I CAME FROM CALIFORNIA.

AND ARKANSAS IS JUST ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL STATES I'VE EVER BEEN TO.

SO I MOVED IN AUGUST AND I WAS HERE FOR FOUR DAYS AND I FOUND A FLIER POSTED ON MY CALL BOX.

AND I OPENED IT UP AND I LOOKED AT IT AND IT SAID, THERE IS GOING TO BE 76 HOMES BEING DEVELOPED RIGHT NEXT TO YOU.

AND I HAD NO IDEA.

76 HOMES ON 20 ACRES.

SO THAT MEANS THEY'RE LIKE THIS.

AND SO I WENT TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING THAT WAS SPONSORED AND TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

SO I AM NOW THE PRESIDENT OF PMCC, WHICH IS A LOCAL NONPROFIT.

I'VE TRIED TO AVOID THIS KIND OF THING MY WHOLE LIFE, AND WE WORK TO INFORM OUR MEMBERS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COMMUNITIES.

AND WE NOW HAVE A MEMBERSHIP OF OVER 260 PEOPLE.

IN RURAL AREAS, WE'RE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND SOME SOME OF US ARE MANY ACRES APART.

I WITH MY PROPERTY, THEY ONLY HAD TO NOTIFY SIX PEOPLE.

ONE WAS THE DEVELOPER AND ONE WAS A PERSON WHO HADN'T LIVED AT THAT ADDRESS FOR THREE YEARS.

SO I DON'T REALLY FEEL THAT IT'S A PROPER SYSTEM.

SO MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY HAD NO IDEA THAT THIS WAS COMING.

THEY HAD NO IDEA IF THERE WAS A SIGN, IF THEY HAD BEEN NOTIFIED WITH A SIGNED CERTIFICATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPORTING THE 1300 FOOT NOTIFICATION RADIUS AS MINIMAL AMOUNT.

AND IT WAS A COMPROMISE FROM HALF AN ACRE.

AND WE'VE WORKED FOR FIVE MONTHS ATTENDING ALL THE MEETINGS AT THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE CAME UP WITH A SUITABLE WAY TO NOTIFY, A SUITABLE NOTIFICATION PROCESS.

SO I PLEASE I ASK YOU TO VOTE YES ON THIS AMENDMENT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME AND HAVE A GREAT EVENING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.

THANK YOU. AND KRISTY EANES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND ALSO FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION AMENDMENTS.

[00:05:06]

MY NAME IS KRISTY EANES AND I'M A COMMISSIONER ON THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY I'VE BEEN GIVEN BY JUDGE HYDE AND THIS BODY TO SERVE YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

AND I HAVE DONE THAT WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE BOARD AND THE STAFF FOR FIVE MONTHS.

DILIGENTLY MAKING COMPROMISES AND REASONABLE CHANGES.

EVERYONE, INCLUDING STAFF.

HAD FINALLY AGREED THE CHANGES WERE READY TO BE SENT TO THE QUORUM COURT.

AND THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THE NOTIFICATION AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU YET AGAIN THIS EVENING.

IN YOUR APRIL MEETING, IT WAS PULLED AND RECEIVED CONFLICTING REASONS.

ULTIMATELY, VAN MCCLENDON TOLD THE PLANNING BOARD IN APRIL THAT IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION AND WOULD APPEAR AT YOUR MAY AGENDA MEETING.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A NUMBER CHANGE.

LATER THAT SAME WEEK, I HAD LEARNED THAT THERE WAS A 1300 FOOT CHANGE THAT WAS TO BE SENT BACK TO US AND CHANGE TO 500 FEET. NOW, IN THESE MEETINGS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD, THE STAFF WOULD ALWAYS LET US KNOW WHEN THEY HAD A PROBLEM AND AN ISSUE.

AND MR. MCCLENDON IS VERY EXPERIENCED, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD HAVE OVERLOOKED THIS.

HE EVEN MENTIONED THAT 1000 FEET WAS NOT AN ISSUE DURING THIS FIVE MONTH PROCESS.

ALL THE COMMUNITIES ASK IS TO BE ABLE TO KNOW ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS WHICH IMPACT THEIR LIVES FOREVER.

AND THE NEW CHANGES ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO RECEIVE A FREE LIST OF PARCEL RECORDS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT VERSUS AN ABSTRACT COMPANY AND YOU WILL SAVE $25 PER HOUSEHOLD MAILING FEE.

SO IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, MR. MCCLENDON USED AN EXAMPLE.

WE, THE COMMUNITY ORIGINALLY WANTED A HALF MILE, SO IT WAS WHITTLED DOWN, BUT WE DID HAVE A HALF MILE EXAMPLE.

MR. MCCLENDON BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND HE TALKED ABOUT 50 HOUSES WOULD BE HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED AT THE COST OF $32.33. NOW, THAT INCLUDES THE $25 ABSTRACT COMPANY FEE.

AND THAT WOULD COST 1600 DOLLARS.

THE NEW CHANGES SAVES THE APPLICANT $1,231, AND THAT BECOMES $369 FOR 50 HOUSES.

MS. EANES, YOUR 3 MINUTES ARE UP, CAN YOU WRAP? I WILL. YES MA'AM I'LL LET YOU WRAP IT UP.

I'M SORRY. SURE.

I'LL WRAP UP.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE PASS THIS TONIGHT, BECAUSE 500 FEET IN A RURAL AREA IS ESSENTIALLY ABUTTING BECAUSE PEOPLE LIVE SO FAR APART.

AND SO IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.

ABUTTING, 1300 FEET IS A COMPROMISE AND WE FEEL THAT AS WHOLLY ADEQUATE AND RESPONSIBLE.

SO I DO ASK THAT YOU PLEASE PASS THIS 1300 FOOT.

AND IF YOU ARE IF YOU DO HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IF YOU HAVE A BUSINESS DEALING AND YOU FEEL LIKE THIS IS A CONFLICT WITH YOUR BUSINESS.

I'M SORRY TO RECUSE YOURSELF.

OKAY. OKAY. I AM DONE.

THANK YOU. CAN YOU HOLD.

ONE MOMENT. I THINK THERE'S ONE QUESTION FOR JUSTICE STOWERS.

GO AHEAD, JUSTICE STOWERS. THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. SO, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR REMEMBERING THAT YOUR APPOINTMENT BY THE JUDGE AND RATIFICATION BY THIS BODY WAS TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, THE CONSTITUENTS, AND TO BE A CHECKS AND BALANCE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF, NOT TO BE A RUBBER STAMP, NOT TO BE A YES MAN OR A WOMAN.

THANK YOU. I YIELD.

OH, THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU.

OKAY. THERE ARE NO OTHER LIGHTS.

GO AHEAD MS. MCMULLEN.

WE'RE VOTING ON 28? YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM.

AND THE ONE THAT WE JUST VOTED ON IS NOT ON HERE? NO, WE VOTED TO SEND IT BACK AND IT FAILED.

BUT IT ISN'T ON HERE.

[00:10:03]

WE TRIED TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THAT VOTE FAILED.

SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.

OKAY. JUST TO.

WELL, JUSTICE MCCOY, HIS LIGHT IS ON.

UM. IF I COULD GET MISS EANES TO THE WELL, PLEASE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HER.

MS. EANES. I DID PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECT, RIGHT? YES, SHE DID. YES. THANK YOU.

SO AND MR. MCLENNAN, I INTEND TO ASK YOU TO COME TO THE WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION, BUT MY CONCERN IS AND UNLIKE AARON, THIS ISN'T A PART OF MY JOB.

SO BUT GREW UP IN THE COUNTY.

MY CONCERN IS PEOPLE'S EXISTING PROPERTIES BEING DAMAGED AND EVERYTHING I HEAR, I KEEP WANTING TO PROTECT THE EXISTING PROPERTIES.

CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON WHAT THE CURRENT PROCESS IS AND HOW IT COULD DAMAGE EXISTING HOMES AND PROPERTY AND SO ON COMPARED TO HOW THIS 1300 FEET RULE WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM? WHEN YOU SAY DAMAGE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN EXACTLY? FLOOD.

OH, SURE. I MEAN ANYTHING.

YES. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A A LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING OUT IN THE COUNTY NOW.

AND AS WE'VE HEARD, A 76 HOME DEVELOPMENT AND ONLY SIX PEOPLE WERE NOTIFIED, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF. THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN CLEAR CUT.

AND WHEN YOU CLEAR CUT AN AREA, IT CAUSES FLOODING.

AND THIS FLOODING, IT WAS CLEAR CUT, I THINK, IN MY OPINION, BEFORE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

BUT IF YOU COULD NOTIFY MORE PEOPLE BEFORE SUCH A THING IS DONE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING UP ISSUES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OF AND WHICH IS THE CASE WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

MANY VIOLATIONS HAD OCCURRED AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED IT, AND A NOTIFICATION PROCESS IS JUST MORE INFORMATION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CAN RECEIVE FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

AND IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE MORE DATA.

SO TO HAVE A LARGER RADIUS, TO NOTIFY PEOPLE, YOU WILL GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYTHING AND IT ADDS TO ENHANCING THE THE TO MAKE A MORE PROPER DECISION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

IT DOES.

HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT CLEAR CUTTING PROPERTY AND I HAVE A TREE SERVICING BUSINESS AND I GET CONFLICTING ANSWERS ABOUT THIS WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE AT THE COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OR OTHERS THAT ARE ARBORISTS.

BUT HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE THAT CLEAR CUTTING OF PROPERTY RESULTS IN FLOODING? I'M 100%.

SECOND QUESTION, AND I THINK YOU ADDRESSED THIS EARLIER, BUT LET'S SEE IF I CAN PHRASE THIS CORRECTLY.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE PROPER STORMWATER CONTROLS IN THE COUNTY.

I THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO PASS SOME ORDINANCES TO CONTROL STORMWATER.

THERE'S A HUGE PROBLEM WITH FLOODING WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S CAUSING COSTLY DAMAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA.

FRENCH DRAINS ARE HAVING TO BE INSTALLED.

FLOODING IS CAUSING FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS. IT IS.

IN FACT, THE ADEQ GOT INVOLVED WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER BECAUSE THEIR STORMWATER IS ABUTTING THE ROADWAY THE COUNTY ROADWAY AND INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE COUNTY.

THERE'S A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

AND SO IT'S VIOLATING THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.

I THINK IT'S CALLED A SWIP.

SO THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY HAVE BEEN SCREAMING ABOUT IT.

AND I FEEL THAT THAT IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PLANNING BOARD TO STEP IN AND TRY TO HELP AND ASSIST IN THESE AREAS ALSO.

ALL RIGHT. MY SECOND QUESTION GOES AND I THINK YOU ADDRESSED IT SOME AS FAR AS THE COST OF NOTIFICATION, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.

BUT HOW DO WE ADDRESS SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS A PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OR CLOSE TO THE CITY LINE? AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GO FROM, LIKE MR. ROBINSON SUGGESTED, LESS THAN A DOZEN TO OVER FOUR DOZEN.

COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? AND IF YOU DID EARLIER, I APOLOGIZE.

OH, NO, THAT'S OKAY.

WITH THESE NEW CHANGES.

AND THIS IS A GREAT UPGRADE TO THE CODE.

[00:15:01]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE READ THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION CHANGES, BUT IT REALLY IS A WONDERFUL UPGRADE.

AND THE CHANGES ADD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION OF OF USING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. AND IT WAS HIS IDEA TO GET A LIST OF PARCEL RECORDS FROM THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, AND THEY COULD USE THAT RATHER THAN PAYING THE $25 PER HOUSEHOLD FEE THAT THEY CURRENTLY PAY OF AN ABSTRACT COMPANY SAVING ALL OF THAT MONEY PER MAILING. AND IN THE EXAMPLE I GAVE, IT WAS 50 HOUSES AND ORIGINALLY IN THE CURRENT CODE.

IF YOU. IF YOU DON'T USE THE PARCEL RECORDS FROM THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, WHICH I THINK IS GOING TO BE MORE ACCURATE, THAT IT WOULD COST 1600 DOLLARS AND THE NEW UPGRADE TO CODE ALLOWS THEM THE OPTION TO USE THESE RECORDS AND IT WOULD REDUCE THAT TO $369 FOR 50 HOMES, MUCH MORE REASONABLE.

AND SO THAT MAKES ALMOST NULLIFIES THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S GOING TO COST MORE MONEY TO NOTIFY MORE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY NEGLIGIBLE AND THERE'S A GREAT GAIN YOU GET TO THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA.

WILL WE'RE LETTING THEM KNOW YOU MATTER ALSO.

YOU ARE ALSO STAKEHOLDERS AND WE WANT YOU TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT COULD IMPACT YOUR LIVES.

I APPRECIATE IT. SURE.

SURE. MR. MCCLENDON. LIKEWISE.

MY GREATEST CONCERN IS DEVELOPMENTS, AND I MEAN THAT BROADLY.

I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS.

COULD BE.. PUSH YOUR LIGHT TELL HER TO HIT HER LIGHT, OH, COME ON.

OH, NO, I THOUGHT YOU'RE TALKING TO ME.

NO, NO, I'M SORRY. BUT I KNOW YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT IF THIS WERE IMPLEMENTED, IT WOULD AFFECT THE FAMILIAL SEGREGATION OF LAND AND SO FORTH. BUT SO TO THAT SMALL INCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE WAY TO A LARGE SCALE, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF HOMES.

MY CONCERN IS DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROPERTIES.

CAN YOU SPEAK ON HOW THIS WOULD WOULD SOLVE THAT OR AND OR MAYBE MAKE IT WORSE? I ASSUME IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE, BUT IF YOU CAN SPEAK ON THAT, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE THINGS THAT KRISTY HAS SPOKEN AND SAID TO YOU THIS EVENING.

THE STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGE BECAUSE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAD WERE FAR ANTIQUATED.

THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH. THEY WERE NOT WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY NOTIFY PEOPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS OR VARIANCES OR SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THEIR PROPERTY. SO THAT THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING THIS AND THAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WE THINK THAT AT THE TIME MAYBE WE OVERLOOKED, WE OVERREACHED, AND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DID.

AND THE STAFF WAS NEVER REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE GREAT DISTANCE OF NOTIFICATION, THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE DISTANCE WE WERE.

BUT IF WE HAD NOT AGREED TO DO THE ABSTRACT WORK, IT HAD BEEN DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

IT WOULD HAVE NEVER GONE ANYWHERE.

SO WE'RE THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE.

I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW.

I'M KIND OF RELUCTANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT BECAUSE NOW I'M STUCK WITH IT.

BUT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE COUNTY.

IT'S NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO DO IT.

WE'RE GOING FROM THE WE'RE GOING FROM THE OUTHOUSE TO THE PENTHOUSE.

AND THAT'S A FACT.

IT'S TOO MUCH.

IT'S TOO EXTREME.

IT WAS TOO POOR THE WAY IT WAS.

IT'S TOO EXTREME THE OTHER WAY.

THE DEVELOPER THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU CLEAR-CUT LAND IT'S GOING TO INCREASE RUNOFF AND YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANYBODY'S APPROVAL IF YOU JUST WANT TO IF WHEN HE APPLIED FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT UNTIL THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED, HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO CUT EVERY TREE HE WANTED TO.

AND HE DID. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS THAT RIGHT PRETTY MUCH.

AND SO YOU THAT WOULD NOT HAVE FORESTALLED IT.

AND IF YOU IF YOU CREATE A DRAINAGE ISSUE ON YOUR PROPERTY AND IT HAS AN EFFECT ON A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, IT'S A CIVIL MATTER.

IT'S A CIVIL MATTER.

IT'S NOT THE PLANNING BOARD'S MATTER UNLESS IT'S AFFECTING PUBLIC PROPERTY OR UNLESS WE KNOWINGLY DO SOMETHING THAT CREATES A FLOODING ISSUE.

BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT ONE DEVELOPER, BASICALLY, AND IT IS A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT.

[00:20:01]

I WILL NOT DOWNPLAY THAT.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO FLY PERSONALLY AS LONG AS THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, IT MAY NOT.

BUT HE HAS A RIGHT TO APPLY FOR IT.

HE'S A RIGHT TO DO IT AND DO IT WITHIN THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

SO IT IS A GOOD THING FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A GREATER NOTIFICATION.

NOTIFICATION [INAUDIBLE] STOP WITH THE LETTERS.

THERE'S SIGNAGE THAT GOES UP ON THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE A WEBSITE THAT WILL HAVE THOSE ITEMS AND ISSUES POSTED.

SO THERE'S A DIGITAL REPRESENTATION, THERE'S A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION, AND THEN THERE'S A MAILING REPRESENTATION OR A HANDHELD DELIVERY REPRESENTATION.

SO I THINK PEOPLE WILL HAVE SOME IDEA THAT SOMETHING'S GOING ON.

AND THEN DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? REGARDING MY SECOND QUESTION, AS FAR AS THE I DON'T CONSIDER ESPECIALLY FOR A LARGE DEVELOPMENT, I DON'T CONSIDER AN EXPENSE.

MAYBE I SPEAK FOR MYSELF OR TWO OR 3000 TO BE HUGE FOR A 76 PLAT.

BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD THAT HAS BEEN THAT HASN'T BEEN SHARED PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE BURDEN? LIKE MR. ROBINSON SAID RIGHT NOW HE CAN DO HAS TO NOTIFY EIGHT.

IF THIS WERE TO GO INTO EFFECT, HE HAS TO NOTIFY 65.

IT WILL BE A BURDEN.

ABSOLUTE BURDEN WILL NOT COMMISSION.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

IT'LL BE A BURDEN. IT'LL BE A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT LIKE ECONOMY OF SCALE, THE LARGE DEVELOPER.

IT'S NOT GOING TO MATTER TO HIM.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT'S $2,000 ON A $1,000,000 DEAL? IT'S NOT A DEAL. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

BUT THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING FAMILY EXCLUSIONS, THEY'RE GOING FROM PAYING ZERO EXCEPT FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE PAYING ZERO WITH A STAFF ASSISTANCE OF ON THEIR OTHER THAN A SURVEY COST, YOU KNOW, THE DEEDS FOR THEIR CHILDREN OR WHATEVER THEY ARE.

THEY'RE GOING FROM ZERO TO WHO KNOWS IF THEIR PROPERTIES NEAR TO A LARGE, MORE DENSELY POPULATED AREA, IF IT'S IF IT'S NEARER TO A DENSELY POPULATED AREA, IT'S GOING TO BE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AND IT'S NOT.

COULD THAT BE EXCLUDED SOMEHOW? I MEAN, I ASSUME WE COULD ADD LANGUAGE IN THERE AND SAY THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY.

I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CHARGE ONE AND NOT ANOTHER.

THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT TO BE A LEGAL SUSTAINABLE IS YOUR QUESTION WHETHER YOU COULD EXCLUDE VARIANCES FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT OR YOU SAY ASKING WHETHER YOU CAN EXCLUDE THE THE COST? I WOULD SAY GOING BASICALLY EXCLUDING PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION.

I'M JUST DISCUSSING THIS OUT LOUD.

I THINK THAT THAT'S THE TYPE OF CONSIDERATION THAT THAT REALLY I MEAN, IT CAN BE FORMULATED HERE.

SO IF I CAN TAKE A STEP BACK WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE QUORUM COURT WITH RESPECT TO A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OR A PLANNING CODE, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR MODIFY.

YOU CAN ACCEPT IT AS IT'S WRITTEN.

YOU CAN REJECT IT.

ONE WAY TO REJECT IT WOULD BE TO SEND IT BACK FOR MODIFICATION BY BY THE PLANNING BOARD, OR YOU CAN MODIFY IT YOURSELF.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE, THE, THE MENU THAT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM.

I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT IF I CAN TAKE A POINT OF PRIVILEGE.

YES, SIR. THE SUBDIVISION CODE IN ARKANSAS, THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS DIRECTED THAT WHEN A SUBDIVISION CODE IS ADOPTED, THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF A SUBDIVISION CODE.

IF WHOEVER IT IS, IF THE APPLICANT COMES IN AND THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE MET THE THE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE SUBDIVISION CODE, THE PLANNING BOARD IS OBLIGATED TO APPROVE IT.

AND SO I KNOW THAT THERE ARE FRUSTRATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

I THINK IT IS A HEALTHY RESPONSE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE AND TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

AND AS MS. EANES AND AS VAN HAVE INDICATED, THERE ARE REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN WHAT IS PROPOSED.

I DON'T WANT THE STICKING POINT OF 500 FEET TO GET LOST, BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE Y'ALL ARE, WHERE Y'ALL ARE GOING RIGHT NOW AS IT APPLIES TO MAJOR, MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS AND IT APPLIES TO VARIANCES, WHICH COULD BE AS SMALL AS BE A THRESHOLD. YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPLICATIONS.

I WILL CAUTION AGAINST HAVING DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES FOR DIFFERENT SETS OF APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE THEN IT GETS CONFUSING.

[00:25:08]

AND I DON'T DO DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY, BUT I DO HAPPEN TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT BUILDING AND PLANNING CODES.

AND AND THE THERE IS A, THE THE MOST VALUABLE RIGHT THAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAD HAS IS CALLED AN ENTITLEMENT.

IT'S THE RIGHT THAT YOU CAN USE BY JUST GO INTO THE PLANNING STAFF AND PULLING A PERMIT.

YOU'VE GOT TO STILL COMPLY WITH RULES AND REGS, BUT YOU JUST GO AND PULL A PERMIT.

THE MOST DIFFICULT IS THE ONE THAT REQUIRES PROFESSIONAL EXPERTIZE AND IT YOU GET INTO EQUITY QUESTIONS WHEN YOU'VE GOT A SMALL PROPERTY OWNER WANTING TO DO A SMALL THING AND HAVING TO MEET THESE REALLY HIGH OBLIGATIONS TO CLEAR THE REALLY HIGH HURDLES THAT REQUIRE PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND COST INVESTMENTS.

AND NOTIFYING PEOPLE IS IT'S NOT A HIGH BAR, BUT WHEN THOSE NUMBERS GO UP, SO DOES THE COST.

I CAN IT COST $8.35 TO SEND A CERTIFIED LETTER WITH A GREEN RECEIPT WITH THE CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT.

SO IF THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU PAY FOR, FOR 450 PEOPLE, YOU'RE OVER 400 BUCKS.

BUT MAY I INTERJECT? I GUESS THE ONE THING THAT'S ON THE FLOOR IS THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT'S JUST BEEN DISCUSSED THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN IN IN IN IN THE IN THE PROPOSAL.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO SEND IT BACK TO ACTUALLY GET A SECOND LOOK AT IT.

AND ALSO, WE JUST APPROVED A WHO TO BE HIRED PLANNING CONSULTANT.

NOT YET NOW.

WELL, WE APPROVED APPROPRIATED THE MONEY.

WE HAVEN'T HIRED THAT INDIVIDUAL YET.

SUBDIVISION. IT'S A LAND USE STAY.

OKAY. SO, YES, SO ACTUALLY IF WE HAD THAT INDIVIDUAL ON BOARD AT THIS POINT, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY HELP US WITH SOME OF THE NUANCES OF WHATEVER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE HAVING RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT POSSIBLE? WELL, THAT'S POSSIBLE.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO IF YOU DO THAT, IT'S GOING TO DELAY IT FOR AN UNKNOWN LENGTH OF TIME.

OH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. YEAH.

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, TO PARAPHRASE OUR ATTORNEY, A.K.A, CHERRY PICKING IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST.

SO YOU KNOW, MR. MCCOY, YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOW OF JUSTICE MCCOY.

YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR. SO IF YOU HAD TO GIVE A BULLET POINT, BULLET POINT, BRIEF LIST OF HOW THIS COULD BE MADE BETTER, AND THEN I'LL YIELD AFTER THAT. WELL, I'VE ALREADY I'M NOT WEDDED TO THAT NUMBER.

I JUST THINK IT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER AND IT'S A BETTER NUMBER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THE 500 FEET.

AND IF YOU WANTED TO MODIFY A LITTLE, YOU COULD ELIMINATE MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST A GENERIC THING OF FOUR LOTS OR MORE.

SO IT'S GRANDPA WITH FOUR LOTS, SO IT COULD BE MR. JONES WITH 162.

SO THE VARIANCE, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT WITHOUT DOING IT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN HAVE A GRADATION OF NOTIFICATIONS.

IT'S BUT I DO THINK THE PLANNING BOARD I THINK THEY WOULD APPRECIATE NOT ALL OF THEM APPARENTLY WOULD APPRECIATE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT.

BUT I THINK SOME OF THEM WOULD PROBABLY APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I'VE GOT LIGHTS, JUSTICE MASSEY.

I'VE GOT LIGHTS.

EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

I'M SURE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE TIME FELT THEY WERE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION, AND THEIR DECISION MAY BE THE RIGHT DECISION.

RIGHT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU ALL DROP THE BALL IN NOT ALLOWING THIS TO WITHOUT STOPPING IT BEFORE IT GOT TO US.

HOWEVER, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU FAIL OR REALIZE YOU'VE MISSED OUT ON SOME OPPORTUNITIES, THEN HECK, SEND IT BACK.

CORRECT. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

SO SENDING IT BACK NOW, THE NEXT OPTION WILL BE ONCE IT GETS BACK, OUR OBSTACLE IS HOW ARE THEY GOING TO VOTE GOING FORWARD? IS IT GOING TO COME BACK TO US THE SAME WAY IT IS NOW? YOU KNOW, THE SAME FORM, OR IS IT GOING TO BE CHANGED? I DON'T KNOW. SO.

BUT DO YOU COME BACK TO YOU NONETHELESS? DO YOU HAVE DO YOU FEEL THAT WELL DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE THE VOTES TO TO TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AMENDMENT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU WANT?

[00:30:05]

NOW, I'VE NOT POLLED THE MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY TO ASK FOR THAT.

I JUST WANT TO LEAVE THEM, LEAVE IT UP TO THEM AND HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS IN IT.

AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

I THINK THEY HAVE THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING.

THEY'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THE PLANNING BOARD, WE CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE IF WE DID, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE AND STAFF COULD NOT DO IT.

SO THE PLANNING BOARDS WILL WAS TO BRING IT TO YOU.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

WE SAW TO IT THAT IT GOT HERE.

AND SO WE'RE MAKING A STATEMENT THAT WE DID THEN, THAT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT SOME OF THE PROVISIONS IN IT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

OKAY. WELL, WHETHER THAT HAPPENED, THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU WANT YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS NOW YOU FEEL THAT ARE NEEDED.

AND BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN, IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL.

I THINK WE HAVE THAT POWER AND WE SHOULD SEND IT BACK.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

ALL RIGHT, THEN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLOODING AND AND ALL OF THIS.

AND AT THIS POINT, I FEEL AS THOUGH I'M DROWNING.

AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE OF THIS.

AND I'M GOING TO ASK A SHORT QUESTION, THEN JUST LISTEN TO ME.

BEAR WITH ME. HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE ON WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR, AT FIRST I VOTED YEA OK. I HAD BEEN CALLED BY SEVERAL PEOPLE.

YOU WERE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, WERE YOU? NO, MA'AM, NO.

AND AT THAT POINT I WAS THINKING THE YAY VOTE WAS IN FAVOR OF WHAT THEY WANTED.

AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE OK JUST TELL ME THIS, OKAY? REGARDING ORDINANCE 22 I 28.

ALL RIGHT. NOW HAD 22 I 28 BEEN SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD? YES, MA'AM.

AM I CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THOSE WHO CALLED ME, PERHAPS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD NOT HAVE AMENDED THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS THE ORDINANCE NINE OR 28.

AM I CORRECT? I THINK MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT CALL YOU DON'T WANT IT MINUTE DO NOT WANT.

THAT'S CORRECT. NINE OR ARE 28 AMENDED.

WELL, THEY WANT IT AMENDED.

THEY DON'T WANT IT SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

THEY DON'T WANT IT SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS.

AND THEY WERE AFRAID IT MIGHT CHANGE, I THINK NINE OVER 28.

IS THAT THE ORDINANCE? THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

YES. REMAIN THE SAME.

THE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THIS TIME WE WANT TO VOTE, ASKING IT TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW.

OKAY. RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN I GOT RIGHT.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT.

JUSTICE BLACKWOOD. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW MANY OF THESE BIG SUBDIVISIONS, THESE BIG SUBDIVISIONS COME IN AND WANT TO BUILD OUT THERE.

AND THE LITTLE ONES I MEAN, WHAT IS YOUR WHAT'S YOUR DIFFERENCE HERE? 94. SO I'M SORRY.

YEAH. IS IT WHAT IS IT? IS IT 90%, 30% OR MORE SMALL? YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.

WHAT, WHAT'S THE BUT THE VARIANCES COULD BE ANY, YOU KNOW, A SMALL ONE OR A LARGE ONE.

SO THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE WON'T CHANGE ON THE SIZE FOR THE MOST PART.

BUT THERE'S NOT THAT MANY, AT LEAST CURRENTLY.

THERE'S NOT THAT MANY LARGE PROPOSED LARGE SUBDIVISIONS IN THE COUNTY.

SO THERE'S NOT VERY MANY LARGE SUBDIVISIONS OUT THERE NOW.

PROPOSED. NOT NEW ONES.

NO. AND HOW BUT BUT THEY'RE LARGE WHEN THEY ARE OUT THERE.

IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE ONE.

YEAH. THERE'S, THERE'S CURRENTLY ONE THAT'S CAUSING ALL THIS COMMOTION.

OKAY. OKAY.

AND THEN THE OTHER.

AND BUT MOST BUT MOST OF THEM MOST OF THE OTHER ONES ARE 90.

SO THIS IS THE PROBLEM IS THE COST FOR THESE 90 FOR THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE OUT THERE? WELL, THE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, NOT JUST THE COST, LIKE I SAID, THE FAMILY EXCLUSION, IT'S YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO IT'S GOING TO COST THEM SOMETHING.

BUT IT'S THE LEGWORK AND THE MAN HOURS, IF THEY TRY TO DO IT THEMSELVES OR EVEN IF THEY IF THEY HAVE TO PAY SOMEBODY TO DO IT, YOU DON'T JUST GET 115 NOTICES PACKAGED, SENT AND DELIVERED.

I MEAN, WE HAVE BECAUSE YOU WISH YOU I TO DO IT IN A TIMELY FASHION, TOO.

I MEAN, I LIVE IN HILLCREST WHERE WE HAVE TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING.

I MEAN, I LIVE IN AN AREA WHERE I'M HIGHLY REGULATED.

I MEAN, IT'S I GOT TO DO ANYTHING.

[00:35:02]

I GOT TO NOTIFY EVERYBODY, RIGHT? SO I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT MY AREA IS LIKE.

CORRECT. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T I'M I'M USED TO IT AND I UNDERSTAND DOING IT.

SO I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT BIG OF A DEAL.

IT'S 200 FEET IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

YEAH, RIGHT.

SO, I MEAN, I'M USED TO IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST.

THE COUNTY CITIZENS AREN'T USED TO IT.

YEAH, OF COURSE. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT.

THAT'S WHY THEY MOVE OUT THERE.

WELL. WELL, IT'S NOT JUST THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT USED TO THAT.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE REGULATIONS.

THEY'RE JUST NOT USED TO THE ENCUMBRANCES OF AND THE COST ASSOCIATED BECAUSE THERE ARE FEES AS COUNTIES FEES ARE WOEFULLY.

I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A GIFT.

YEAH. THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS THAT THE COUNTY REQUIRES FOR WHAT WE DO IS AN ABSOLUTE BLESSING TO THE COUNTY RESIDENTS.

YEAH. OKAY, I YIELD.

I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS IN THE COUNTY THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

JUSTICE REED.

YEAH. OKAY, SO I NEED HELP REMEMBERING ON THE SUBDIVISION CODE.

WE PASSED SOMETHING WITHIN THE PAST YEAR.

I THINK MAYBE IT'S BEEN LONGER THAN THAT, BUT I THINK WITHIN THE PAST YEAR WHERE IF YOU WERE A DEVELOP, IF YOU DEVELOPED A LOT, YOU HAD TO INCLUDE SOME KIND OF BICYCLE PATH.

YOU REMEMBER THAT, CORRECT? AND WE MADE A VARIANCE OR A WE MADE.

OKAY. YOU SAID FOUR LOTS.

IT WAS IT WAS TEN I REMEMBER.

THAT'S RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE SAYING FOUR IS WHAT IT IS OR IS IS A DEFINITION OF A MAJOR.

BUT WHY CAN WE WHY CAN WE NOT DEFINE MAJOR AS TEN JUST LIKE WE DID THE BICYCLE THING? YEAH. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DRFINE IT ANY WAY YOU WANT.

SO WE CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.

THE PLANNING BOARD CAN RECOMMEND ANYTHING YOU WANT.

IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU, WHICH IS WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO.

THIS WILL BE UP TO YOU ULTIMATELY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PLANNING DOES.

RIGHT. SO THAT IS POSSIBLE.

IS THAT POSSIBLE? SO, I MEAN, WE DID IT ON THE BICYCLE AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK YOU'VE GOT OPPORTUNITIES.

THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO TO ADJUST THE NOTICE PROVISIONS ADJUST THE DEFINITIONS.

[22-I-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE QUORUM COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY TO REAPPOINT MR. DWIGHT HARSHAW TO THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR A THREE YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE MAY 2025.]

CODES ARE HARD TO WRITE.

IDEAS ARE GOOD, IDEAS ARE EASY TO HAVE.

GOOD CODES ARE HARD TO WRITE.

AND I THINK THAT'S I THINK IF THERE'S A TAKEAWAY THAT MAY BE THE TAKEAWAY FOR THE NIGHT IS THE THAT GOOD IDEAS ARE EASY TO HAVE BUT BUT GOOD CODES ARE HARD TO WRITE. AND AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT.

JUST ONE COMMENT, PERSONAL COMMENT.

DORIS AND I SERVE A SMALL CHURCH AND WE DO BLOCK PARTIES AND WE SEND OUT MAIL OUTS TO 100 PEOPLE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE? AND WE DO IT OURSELVES.

AND WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT BECAUSE WE'VE SET.

SO I JUST THINK THAT'S NOT AS BIG AN ISSUE.

AND SO YOU HAVE A FAMILY.

THEY SIT DOWN, YOU FOLD THEM.

I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THEM CERTIFIED.

YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE THEM. AND WHEN ALL THESE CERTIFIED WITH THE GREEN THING ON THEM.

BUT ANYWAY, I JUST THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE.

WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

I YIELD.

OKAY, SO I'VE HEARD SOME GOOD COMMENTS, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE VOTING ON WHAT'S BEFORE US AND IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS OR THOSE COMMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED. SO IF THERE ARE NO MORE ISSUES, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? SIX AYES, SIX NAYS AND ONE ABSTENTION.

[INAUDIBLE] SO IT FAILS.

SO IT FAILS TO GO FORWARD.

BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

HUH? RIGHT.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AMY, 22 I, PLEASE READ 22I29 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 21LR 46 2022 ANNUAL BUDGET PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE JUVENILE OFFICER GRANT FUNDS FOR THE EIGHTH DIVISION AND 10TH DIVISION CIRCUIT COURTS JUSTICE

[22-I-28 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 09-OR-28 (THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

[00:40:06]

MEDLOCK.

A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 22I29 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE MEDLOCK WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO EXPLAIN? I THINK THIS IS JUST A GRANT, JUST YOU.

IT'S A GRANT FOR THE TWO JUVENILE JUDGES FOR A POSITION.

SO IT'S NO IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND.

OKAY. IT'S A GOOD THING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AMY WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? 11 AYES. 11 AYES WILL SEND 22I29 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 22I30? AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING MR. JUAN ZARATE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT WITH THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIVISION PURSUANT TO ACA 3-9-222.

JUSTICE ELLIOTT.

MOTION TO SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT.

DO PASS. GET IT OUT.