[23-1-48 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37,000,000 PULASKI COUNTY (ARKANSAS) PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD STUDENT HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (PIDLANDER SMITH COLLEGE PROJECT) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STUDENT HOUSING ON THE CAMPUS OF PHILANDER SMITH COLLEGE AND FINANCING THE ACQUISITION OF FURNISHINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE STUDENT HOUSING FACILITY.]

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ RESOLUTION 23-I-48.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $37 MILLION PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD, STUDENT HOUSING REVENUE BONDS.

PHILANDER SMITH COLLEGE PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF STUDENT HOUSING ON THE CAMPUS OF PHILANDER SMITH COLLEGE AND FINANCING THE ACQUISITION OF FURNISHINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE STUDENT HOUSING FACILITY.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

YES, I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND RESOLUTION 2348 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT SOMEONE IS HERE TO DISCUSS? I THOUGHT I SAW. OKAY.

IF YOU'LL COME UP. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JUSTICE STOWERS.

OKAY. YES, SIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUT LET'S ALLOW.

OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S FINE. ALLOW HER TO SPEAK FIRST.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE? YES. HI I'M ASHLEY EDWARDS.

I'M WITH MITCHELL WILLIAMS LAW FIRM HERE IN LITTLE ROCK.

WE'RE ACTING AS BOND COUNSEL FOR THE PROPOSED BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD ON BEHALF OF PHILANDER SMITH COLLEGE, AND THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS MERELY PROCEDURAL.

THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD CONTAINED A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE FACILITY BOARD TO BRING TO THE QUORUM COURT ANY OBLIGATIONS IT PLANS TO ISSUE FOR APPROVAL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE FOR THE MEETING NEXT IN THE TWO WEEKS.

OKAY, AND DON'T RUN OFF.

WE MAY HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS JUST TO STOWERS.

THANK YOU, SIR. SO, MR. FOGLEMAN, IS THERE ANY SCENARIO WHERE PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT, IF THERE WAS TO BE, GOD FORBID, A DEFAULT ON THESE BONDS, IS THERE ANY SCENARIO WHERE PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT COULD BE HELD

[00:05:06]

LIABLE? SHORT ANSWER, NO.

I'M GOING TO THE LONGER ANSWER, AND I'LL LET MS. EDWARDS ADDRESS THIS IF SHE WOULD LIKE, BUT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITY FROM THE COUNTY.

SO IT IS A TO GET OVERLY COMPLICATED, IT'S A CONDUIT FINANCE ENTITY.

IT BASICALLY ISSUES DEBT TO BENEFIT IN THIS CASE, PHILANDER SMITH AND THE REVENUES GENERATED FROM RENTING TO THE STUDENTS THAT WILL OCCUPY THEM WILL BE USED TO SATISFY THE DEBTS.

MR. FOGLEMAN, YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

I DID. YOU ANSWERED IT IN LEGAL SPEAK.

NO, THE SHORT ANSWER.

ANY SCENARIO? IS THERE ANY SCENARIO WHERE PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT IF THERE WAS DEFAULT BONDS COULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT AND HAVE TO PAY THE BONDS? NO. THE SHORTEST ANSWER IS NO, AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ENTITY FROM PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY A PUBLIC CORPORATION, BUT IT CAN'T ISSUE BONDS UNLESS IT FIRST COMES TO THE QUORUM COURT AND ASKS AND RECEIVES YOUR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THAT A FAIR REPRESENTATION? YES, THAT'S CORRECT, AND WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COLLEGE AND FROM THE UNDERWRITER HERE TONIGHT, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. JUSTICE MASSEY HAS ARRIVED.

JUSTICE MASSEY.

YES FORGIVE MY LATENESS.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DEFINITELY DONE IN THE PAST AND EVERYTHING WENT GREAT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER.

NO. OH, OKAY.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

I'M SORRY. BECAUSE YOUR LIGHT'S ON, SO YOU NEED TO JUST AT LEAST LET ME SEE.

YOUR MICROPHONE IS ALREADY ON.

MY LIGHT IS NOT ON.

OKAY. NO, IT'S NOT.

OKAY. YES, MA'AM, BUT YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

YES, MA'AM. NO, WHAT I DO IS EQUATE THIS WITH SOMEWHAT WITH--JUSTICE MCMULLEN, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK THIS CAN BE EQUATED SOMEWHAT WITH THE REQUESTS THAT COME TO US FROM BUSINESSES FOR APPROVAL, ALTHOUGH IT IS DEFINITELY THROUGH THE STATE AND IT'S A RESOLUTION.

IT THE COUNTY SIMPLY HAS TO, I GUESS, APPROVE IT TO GO THROUGH.

IT IS NOT ANY DEBT.

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WILL BE NO THROWBACK, NO REFLECTION UPON US.

SO THIS FACILITIES BOARD, PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD IS A STATE BOARD.

I THINK IF IT'S NOT A STATE BOARD, IT IS A YEAH, I THINK IT IS A BOARD.

OKAY. IT IS.

IT'S A COUNTY BOARD.

IT IS A COUNTY BOARD.

OKAY. WELL, I THOUGHT IT WAS A SEPARATE ONE.

I KNOW WE DO SEPARATE FROM THE QUORUM COURT.

THERE ARE PUBLIC FACILITY BOARD STATUTES IN ARKANSAS THAT ALLOW COUNTIES AND CITIES TO CREATE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD TO FACILITATE THESE TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS, AND SO PULASKI COUNTY QUORUM COURT CREATED THE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD IN 92.

I THINK AND LET ME INTERJECT.

I THOUGHT THAT I KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD.

SO YOU'RE BASICALLY ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

IT IS NOT A SEPARATE IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE STATE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS THE SAME FACILITIES BOARD THAT WE HAVE.

OKAY. YES, MA'AM.

YES, IT'S PULASKI COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD.

WE HAVE SEVERAL. I'M SORRY.

I THINK I HEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL.

THAT WAS ME. SEVERAL? WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WE HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC FACILITIES.

BOARDS, AND THAT'S THE CONFUSED, OH, THERE YOU ARE.

SORRY, I'M RIGHT HERE.

[CHUCKLING] DON'T WE ALSO HAVE ONE THAT FALLS UNDER THE STATES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC FACILITIES, BOARDS THAT WERE CREATED BY THE QUORUM COURT, AND THEY THEY OPERATE THROUGH BOARDS INDEPENDENT OF THE COUNTY'S OPERATION.

I UNDERSTAND.

WHICH ONE WOULD THIS FALL UNDER.

SO IT OPERATES UNDER THE IT'S THE PULASKI COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD AND THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

YES. FIVE MEMBERS THAT SERVE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

DO THE OTHER ONES HAVE A DIFFERENT NAME? YOU SAID WE HAVE FIVE NOW.

THAT IS SOMETHING I DID NOT REALIZE.

[00:10:02]

WE HAVE SEVERAL. SO JUST ONE EXAMPLE IS THE PULASKI COUNTY MULTIPURPOSE PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD, WHICH OPERATES I'LL CALL IT ALLTEL ARENA.

IT'S NOT ALLTEL ANYMORE, SIMMONS.

OKAY. SO THAT OKAY, SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE COUNTY'S FACILITIES BOARDS.

ALL RIGHTY. OKAY.

THANK YOU, BUT I'M VERY PLEASED, THOUGH, TO HEAR THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SOME FUNDS FOR PHILANDER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CAMPUS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU LETTING US COME TONIGHT.

JUSTICE CURRY.

YES, I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR.

OKAY, AND SO WOULD I.

OKAY, AND SO WOULD--I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED TO [INAUDIBLE] OKAY, SO WOULD I.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY, WE'LL.

LET AMY.

MS. EDWARDS. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR COMING. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23-I-48 RESOLUTION? CALL] MISS MEDLOCK IS ABSENT.

SO THAT IS 12 AYES AND ONE VOTING PRESENT.

12 AYES, ONE PRESENT, WE WILL SEND THE RESOLUTION 23-I-48 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ORDINANCES.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-I-45.

[23-1-45* AN ORDINANCE ADJUSTING THE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL SANITATION COLLECTION RA TE TO ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED EXPENDITURES.]

AN ORDINANCE ADJUSTING THE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL SANITATION COLLECTION RATE TO ACCOUNT FOR PROJECTED EXPENDITURES.

JUSTICE LEWISON.

MR. KEITH, IF I COULD FOR A SECOND.

SO THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED FOR 30 DAYS AT THE LAST MEETING.

SO UPON TAKING IT UP ON THE AGENDA, YOU ARE LEAVING OFF EXACTLY WHERE YOU WERE WHEN YOU LEFT OFF.

SO WHEN YOU LEFT OFF AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, YOU HAD AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR.

SO YOU ARE NOW BACK TO THAT BACK.

YOU HAVE THE AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR.

YOU WILL DISPENSE WITH THE AMENDMENT AND THEN MOVE ON.

OKAY, SO THE AMENDMENT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO.

SO WE JUST PICK UP AT THE AMENDMENT.

CORRECT. THE MOTION WAS ALREADY MADE TO SEND THE ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTRODUCED AND YOU WILL DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. SO THE AMENDMENT.

WE'RE STILL TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF THE AMENDMENT.

OH, JUSTICE STOWERS.

THANK YOU, KEITH. SO, KATHY AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS SINCE A MONTH AGO ON THIS ITEM, AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND THE NECESSITY THAT IT REMAINS SOLVENT.

MY VOTE THIS EVENING IS BASED ON THE ELECTORAL REALITY OF REPRESENTING A VERY RURAL, UNINCORPORATED DISTRICT, AND THEREFORE THE MAJORITY OF MY CONSTITUENTS BEING IMPACTED BY THIS INCREASE.

WITH THAT, I YIELD.

[INAUDIBLE] OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] IF THERE ARE NO MORE.

JUSTICE CURRY, YOU IF YOU COULD.

YES, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH SOME OF THE STAFFING FROM THE PRESENTATION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A FINANCIAL NEED THAT IF NOT, WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TO ABSORB THAT AS A COUNTY.

SO WE WOULD NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN FOR FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT INCOME-WISE WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.

JUSTICE ROBINSON.

THANK YOU. IT'S INTERESTING.

I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, KATHY, HAS ANYBODY LOOKED AT ANY OF THE OPTIONS OR ANY OTHER YOU CAN COME FORWARD FORMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A MONTH AGO? I'VE HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS FROM QUORUM COURT MEMBERS ABOUT SMALLER CANS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT THEY THOUGHT POTENTIALLY COULD IMPACT THE RATE. ANY CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT

[00:15:03]

AND I'LL ASK ADAM IF THIS IS CORRECT, BUT I SPOKE WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ANY CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT WOULD HAVE THE CONTRACT WOULD HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED. THE CONTRACT IS FOR 96 GALLON TRASH CARTS AND 96 GALLONS OF RECYCLING CARTS , AND ANY CHANGE, THE CONTRACT WOULD HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED.

SO WHEN WE WERE AND I KNOW YOU LOOKED INTO THE SMALLER CANS AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THOSE AND THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO SPECIAL ORDER THEM, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO COST MORE MONEY AND GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES, BUT DID WE LOOK AT THE RECYCLING PART OF IT IF WE DID AWAY WITH THE RECYCLING, I MEAN, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE RENEGOTIATED OR IS THAT GOING TO SAVE ANY MONEY OR WHAT HAPPENED FROM THAT? I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY RECENT CONVERSATIONS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN THE COUNTY.

FIRST INTRODUCED RECYCLING THROUGHOUT THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.

IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IT PERMITTED US TO EXTEND OR RENEW OUR CONTRACT WITHOUT AN INCREASE.

ONCE RECYCLING WENT INTO FULL EFFECT, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE ON TO THE COUNTY PER HOUSEHOLD , BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BY RECYCLING, THE COUNTY HAS AVOIDED SOME ADDITIONAL INCREASES OVER OVER TIME BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FILLING THE LANDFILL UP AS FAST EITHER.

THE SOLID WASTE STREAM.

HAS AS MUCH AS IT HAS IF WE DIVERT SOME OF IT AWAY FROM THE LANDFILL.

WE LENGTHEN THE LIFE OF THE AVAILABLE AND USEFUL LIFE OF OF THAT LANDFILL BEFORE IT'S FULL.

IF WE REMOVE RECYCLING AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT, WASTE MANAGEMENT OR OUR TRASH SOLID WASTE OPERATOR COULDN'T DO IT, BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A WAY TO PICK IT UP AT THE CURBSIDE ALREADY SEPARATED, AND SO BY US DOING THAT, WE'RE HELPING TO AVOID SOME OF THOSE COSTS AND MORE FREQUENT COST INCREASES THAT WOULD COME WITH HAVING TO OPEN NEW LANDFILLS MORE QUICKLY AND MORE OFTEN.

OKAY. WHAT ABOUT, WE TALKED LAST MONTH ABOUT THE VOUCHER SYSTEM THAT WE USED TO DO AS WELL, THAT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR CAME IN AND SAID WE COULDN'T HAVE TWO DIFFERENT RATES.

HAVE WE LOOKED BACK INTO THAT TO ACTUALLY SEE IF THAT'S STILL A THING OR.

THE WORD WAS PRETTY FINAL.

THE COUNTY HAD HAD A HARDSHIP PROGRAM AND THE AUDITOR SAID, WHY ARE YOU CHARGING TWO DIFFERENT RATES? AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY APPLY AND QUALIFY FOR THIS AND THEY'RE LIKE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

SO THAT WAS.

THAT'S TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE.

I WILL SAY THERE WAS ONLY AROUND 50 PEOPLE ON THE HARDSHIP PROGRAM AT THAT TIME.

FIVE ZERO, 50.

WE'RE ASKING FOR A MINIMUM OF $2 INCREASE.

THAT SHOULD GET US THROUGH TO 2025.

SHOULD AND I THINK THE AMENDMENT WAS FOR 467.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I YIELD. JUSTICE MASSEY.

JUSTICE CURRY WAS MAKING A COMMENT THAT I MISSED.

SORRY. PART OF WHAT SHE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE COUNTY INCURRING COSTS COULD EITHER COULD YOU EXPOUND ON WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT OR CAN SHE? IF YOU KNOW WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, WOULD YOU DO THAT? WELL, I DON'T MIND ANSWERING MYSELF.

WELL, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD. NO, GO AHEAD. WELL, I CAN'T DIRECTLY HAVE DIALOG WITH JUSTICE CURRY, BUT I CAN WITH YOU.

THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT IF WE IF THE ENTERPRISE FUND IS A STANDALONE FUND, IT IS NOT FUNDED BY THE GENERAL FUND.

IT IS A SERVICE FOR A FEE, AND RESIDENTS THAT USE THAT FEE ARE PAY THE FEE FOR TRASH SERVICE AND ALL THE SERVICES THAT GO WITH IT.

IT'S NOT ON TAX RECORDS.

IT'S A DIFFERENT FUND.

SO IF THAT FUND GOES BANKRUPT, IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY THERE TO PAY FOR THE COST, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH REVENUE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE COST THAT THE FUND GENERALLY BECOMES OVER TIME.

[00:20:03]

THEN THERE IS EITHER THE POTENTIAL FOR THE GENERAL FUND TO HAVE TO COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF THE COSTS.

THE DEFICIT OR THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE.

YOU'D NO LONGER HAVE TRASH SERVICE FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS.

IT'S SIMPLE.

YOU EITHER INCREASE YOUR FEE.

I DON'T CARE IF YOU DO $2, $4, $12 OR $0.60, BUT WITH YOUR CONTRACT AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR SANITATION, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE SANITATION AND THE MONEY'S GOING TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, EITHER THROUGH THE FEES OR COUNTY GENERAL IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT UP OR YOU DON'T HAVE SANITATION.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S.

RIGHT. YEAH.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO.

SO WELL, ONE WAY JUST THE POINT IS HOW MUCH.

YEAH, THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] BUT I MEAN, THAT'S THE DEAL.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SANITATION AND THE MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

SO.

OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

I JUST SAW JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

NO. OH, ALL RIGHT.

JUSTICE CAPPS. I'M SORRY.

I JUST HAVE SORT OF A PROCEDURAL.

CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? YEAH, I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.

SO IF THE CONTRACT, IF THE RATE, IF ANY CHANGE WOULD NULL AND VOID THE CONTRACT, ARE WE TYPICALLY DOING RATE INCREASES THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH CONTRACT RENEGOTIATION AND ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN .

SO LET ME WAIT A MINUTE.

OKAY. SOME CONTRACTS HAVE BUILT INTO IT.

IT'S BASED ON THE CPI, THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, FOR WHATEVER, AND SO THAT'S PART OF THAT CONTRACT.

WHAT MAKES THIS ONE, THIS CONTRACT A LITTLE DIFFERENT IS, LIKE SHE SAID, THIS IS A STANDALONE FUND.

THE FEES THAT ARE COLLECTED GO STRAIGHT INTO THAT FUND TO PAY FOR SANITATION, AND THAT'S ALL IT PAYS FOR.

OTHER CONTRACTS.

IF ROAD AND BRIDGE HAS A CONTRACT, IT COMES OUT OF ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND WHEN THAT MONEY IS DEDICATED, EVERYTHING ELSE JUST ABOUT IS COMING OUT OF COUNTY GENERAL AND THAT'S WHAT YOU THE BODY WILL VOTE ON FOR A BUDGET AT THE END OF THE YEAR, FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND ALL THAT.

SO THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION AND THE RATE INCREASES ARE MISALIGNED BECAUSE IT'S ONLY BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, AND AS THAT RAISES, WE HAVE TO RAISE IT. WELL, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ALL OF THEM ARE BASED ON THAT, BUT MOST OF THEM THAT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN IT ARE WHAT THIS IS, IS WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST WITH THE COURT HAS DONE IN THE PAST IS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS EVERY YEAR IS THEY COME UP WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WILL GET THEM THROUGH.

SAY THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

SO THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THIS OF THIS INCREASE, YOU'RE BUILDING MONEY IN THAT ACCOUNT.

THIRD YEAR, YOU KIND OF BREAK EVEN.

THE FOURTH AND FIFTH YEAR YOU'RE SPENDING OFF THAT INCREASE YOU HAD IN BEFORE BECAUSE THE COSTS ARE GOING TO KEEP GOING UP BECAUSE DIESEL GOES UP, MANPOWER GOES UP.

WHATEVER THEY SAY, THEY'RE INCREASING COST IS LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE GOES UP.

THAT'S WHY THEY ASKED FOR A BIGGER AMOUNT TO MAKE IT LAST LONGER.

YOU CAN DO IT WHERE YOU CAN DO IT YEAR TO YEAR.

I MEAN, THAT'S COMPLETELY UP TO Y'ALL.

I THINK YOU'LL WANT TO DO THAT ABOUT ONE TIME BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL GET TO RELIVE THIS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING EVERY YEAR, AND IS THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATED EVERY YEAR? WELL, NOT IF WE HAVE THE INCREASE, NO.

WE CAN BASE IT ON THE CPI AND GO FROM THERE.

OKAY. JUSTICE GREEN, I JUST WANT TO ASK I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.

RIGHT. OKAY.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMENDMENT AND THE ORIGINAL, I THINK IT TAKES IT FROM LIKE 27 AND CHANGE TO 29 AND CHANGE THE AMENDMENT.

YES, THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE A 29 POINT SOMETHING.

[INAUDIBLE] TO THREE YEARS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS WENT TO 29 FIRST.

27 AT FIRST THE AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE IT TO 29.

OKAY, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, RIGHT? AT MINIMUM, $2, AND LIKE HUTCH SAID, IF YOU DO THE LARGER AMOUNT, IT WILL GET YOU THROUGH 4 TO 5 YEARS.

THANK YOU. I JUST DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

JUSTICE ROBINSON HUTCH THE CPI.

IF WE LOOKED AT, LET'S SAY THIS PASSES AND IT GETS US FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS WHEN WE RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OR WHOEVER, IF WE BID IT OUT, WHATEVER WE DO, WE BID IT.

WE'LL GET WASTE MANAGEMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY COMPANY [INAUDIBLE].

RIGHT, BUT I JUST I'M WONDERING, WOULD IT BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO NEGOTIATE JUST A FEE FOR X NUMBER OF YEARS VERSUS HAVING IT TAGGED ALONG WITH THE CPI?

[00:25:04]

YOU CAN TRY THAT.

I MEAN, HE TRIES THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN. WELL, NO, HE'S A NEGOTIATOR.

WELL, NO, YOU WHEN WE GO IN AND LOOK AT THE CONTRACT AND I COME TO YOU AND I SAY, MR. ROBINSON, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO THIS FOR ME, AND I'LL PAY YOU THIS.

NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO IT FOR THAT.

WELL, HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO DO IT FOR? WELL, I THINK I NEED THIS MUCH INCREASE EVERY YEAR.

I NEED A 5% INCREASE EVERY YEAR TO CONTINUE DOING THIS.

THAT'S TOO MUCH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU.

SAME THING I DO ON INSURANCE; EVERY YEAR ON MEDICAL INSURANCE, WE GO BACK AND FORTH, AND SO WITH A LOT OF THESE DEALS TO FIND THE COMMON GROUND, WE'LL BASE IT ON THE CPI.

WHAT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAY THE INCREASE IN COST IS FOR THAT INDUSTRY FOR THIS YEAR.

WHAT KIND ARE THEY LOOKING AT? IF NOT, AND I SAY, OH, I AGREE TO A 5% INCREASE EVERY YEAR.

I MIGHT THINK I'VE GOT A SMOKING DEAL TO LOOK AT THE CPI AND SEE IT WAS 2.7.

I MEAN, SO YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO, AND YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.

YOU'RE GAMBLING EITHER WAY IT GOES.

OKAY, THANK YOU, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT ANY OF IT.

OKAY. JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

WELL, I DIDN'T REALIZE MY LIGHT WAS ON, AND OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. NO, NO, NO.

OKAY. IF I DID, I'M GOING TO YIELD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUSTICE STOWERS.

SO I'M GOING TO DEFEND MS. BOTSFORD HERE FOR A MINUTE.

A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP LAST MONTH NOR THIS MONTH IS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE FEE THAT WE PAY, WASTE MANAGEMENT, WE PAY THE WATER DEPARTMENTS THAT DO OUR COLLECTIONS, I BELIEVE $1.50 A MONTH.

THE OTHER COMPONENT IS WHAT THE CONSUMER PAYS THE 25.02 TODAY.

OR IF WE GO TO 27.02 OR WE GO TO 29.69.

SO WE'RE ON THE AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE 29.69, 20% OF THAT ARE SERVICES NOT PROVIDED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT BUT PROVIDED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

SERVICES SUCH AS BULK ITEM PICKUP.

[INAUDIBLE] PICKUP, TIRE PICKUP.

WE KNOW WE'VE HEARD IT UP HERE FOR YEARS OF THE DUMPING OF TIRES AROUND THIS COUNTY AND HOW OFTEN AND FREQUENT YOUR CREWS HAVE TO GO OUT AND COLLECT THOSE AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF THEM.

DUMP SITES AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST TO MANAGE THE CUSTOMER WORK ORDERS, BILLING AND CONTRACT.

SO 80% OF WHAT THE CUSTOMER PAYS GOES TOWARDS WASTE MANAGEMENT.

THERE'S A 20% THAT GOES TOWARDS ALL THESE OTHER SERVICES, AND I KNOW MY CONSTITUENTS APPRECIATE WHEN THEY HAVE A WASHING MACHINE THAT'S WENT DEAD AND THEY WERE ABLE TO PUT IT OUT BY THE CURB AND THE COUNTY COMES BY AND PICKS IT UP AND FREE OF CHARGE, AND THAT'S PART OF THE SANITATION FEE THAT THEY PAY.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE THAT 20% THAT THE CONSUMER PAYS.

THAT DOES NOT GO TO WASTE MANAGEMENT DOES NOT GO TO COLLECTION FEES, BUT GOES TO DIRECT SERVICES THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT, COUNTY EMPLOYEES PROVIDE.

I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE LOST IN THE EQUATION.

THANK YOU, AND I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. THANK YOU JUSTICE STOWERS.

JUSTICE DAVIS.

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR CORRESPONDING WITH ME.

MY VOTE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF THE DISTRICT I SERVE, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOMEWHAT OF AN INCREASE.

I JUST WILL NOT SUPPORT IT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, KATHY. NO OTHER QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE AMENDMENT IS BEING IT'S GOING UP TO 29.69, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CALL] TEN AYES, TWO NAYS AND ONE ABSTENTION.

GOT TO DO SOMETHING.

SO WE HAVE AMENDED.

SO AMENDED, RIGHT? YEAH. SO AS AMENDED.

JUSTICE LEWISON.

[00:30:01]

I SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS AS AMENDED.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 23-I-45 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED.

NO QUESTIONS? NO COMMENTS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CALL] TEN AYES AND THREE NAYS.

TEN AYES THREE NAYS.

WE WILL SEND 23-I-45 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT FOR A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED.

THANK YOU. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-I-46.

[23-1-46 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 (2023 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT. ]

AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 2023 ANNUAL BUDGET PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS TO RECOGNIZE AN APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FOR THE COURT-APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES DEPARTMENT.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN.

YES, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23-I-46 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN OR DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO.

THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE US BEFORE, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN HERE BEFORE, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE HERE, OUR COUNSELOR, WHO CAN BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT IT, BUT MEANWHILE WELL, I SEE WE DO HAVE A YOUNG LADY HERE WHO CAN SPEAK ABOUT IT.

IF YOU COME FORWARD AND SHE'S PREPARED, AND BEFORE YOU BEGIN, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.

LET ME SEE. THIS WILL BECOME GO INTO EFFECT AS OF IF IT IS PASSED.

WILL YOU BE SURE TO TELL US THAT WHEN IT WILL GO INTO EFFECT AND HOW THOSE HOURS WILL BE ARRANGED? OKAY. YES, MA'AM.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ON THE AGENDA TODAY, I AM XANTHOULA GROOM, THE OUTREACH COORDINATOR FOR PULASKI COUNTY CASA AND THE ADVOCATE TRAINER.

PULASKI COUNTY CASA IS A 35 YEAR OLD ORGANIZATION WITH PULASKI COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

WE TRAIN AND SUPPORT VOLUNTEERS WHO ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE IN FOSTER CARE.

WE COMMIT TO BEING THAT CONSISTENT ADULT IN THEIR LIVES SO THAT THEY DON'T FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS OF THE SYSTEM, AND WE ARE THEIR VOICE IN COURT AND IN EVERY ARENA IN LIFE. MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS YEARLY APPROPRIATION REQUEST.

SO EACH YEAR CASA RECEIVES STATE FUNDING THROUGH THE ARKANSAS CASA ASSOCIATION, AND SINCE THE STATE FISCAL YEAR RUNS JULY THROUGH JUNE, WE HAVE TO DO A MID-YEAR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS EACH YEAR IN ORDER TO CLEAN UP AN EMPLOYEE SALARY.

THE PULASKI COUNTY FRIENDS OF CASA BOARD CONTRIBUTED A LITTLE OVER $10,000 FOR SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS TO SUPPLEMENT THE FUNDS FROM ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION FOR CASA EMPLOYEE.

SO THIS CHANGE JUST SIMPLIFIED ACCOUNTING FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY PAID THROUGH SEPARATE CHECKS FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES.

OUR REQUEST IS FOR CASA TO USE THE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE ARKANSAS CASA ASSOCIATION.

OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ANGIE JONES, WILL BE HERE AT THE QUORUM COURT MEETING LATER THIS MONTH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUST JUSTICE.

MCMULLEN DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? YES, SHE DID. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONTRACT MUST BE RENEWED ACCORDING TO THE PERIOD.

THE. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? I'M SORRY. GIVE ME THE WORD STATE.

FISCAL YEAR. THE FISCAL YEAR.

YES. THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED.

CASA, I THOUGHT WAS BASICALLY VOLUNTARY OR IT'S BOTH.

THERE ARE SOME VOLUNTARY MEMBERS.

ALL THOSE WHO ADVOCATE FOR THE CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE ARE VOLUNTEERS, BUT THEY HAVE SUPERVISORS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO ARE PAID STAFF.

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD.

YES, I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR.

OKAY. I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED ALSO.

JUSTICE. OKAY.

JUSTICE ELLIOTT.

JUSTICE KIRBY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. IT.

THERE SEEMS TO BE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON? 2346. MR. ELLIOTT? YES.

STOWERS? YES.

MR. MCCOY? YES, MR. ROBINSON. HI, MISS GREEN.

HI, MR. KEITH. YES. MISS CURRY?

[00:35:01]

13 EYES. WE WILL SEND 23 I'VE 46 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 2347 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2338 AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE ONE TIME SIGNING BONUSES FOR THE SHERIFF'S ENFORCEMENT AND

[23-1-47 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-38 (AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE ONE TIME SIGNING BONUSES FOR THE SHERIFF'S ENFORCEMENT AND DETENTION DEPARTMENTS) TO REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUND IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN GUIDELINES. ]

DETENTION DEPARTMENTS TO REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUND IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN GUIDELINES.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. SECOND, A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23 I'VE 47 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN? DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE THAT CAN EXPLAIN IT FOR YOU? WELL, I DID CALL IN ABOUT THIS TO REIMBURSE THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUND IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LIKE ME TO THERE. YES, GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD. PLEASE DO THAT.

IS THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY SENT A NOTICE OUT SAYING THAT THE PANDEMIC IS OVER? AND SO THEY REVISED FOR ABOUT THE SEVENTH, SIXTH, SIXTH TIME.

WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH THE MONEY AND PREMIUM PAY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWED ANYMORE , AND SIGN ON BONUS WOULD BE CONSIDERED PREMIUM PAY.

SO WE HAVE TO PAY THAT FUND BACK THAT MONEY.

NOW WHAT THIS DOES IS TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND PUTS IT INTO REIMBURSES THE ARPA FUND, BUT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THAT BUDGET.

SO THE GENERAL FUND PICKED UP THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THAT BUDGET.

OKAY. CAN I SPEAK NOW? SO JUST WANTING TO RE-EMPHASIZE THAT THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE COMING ON WILL STILL GET THOSE NEW EMPLOYEE BONUSES.

THE PROGRAM ENDED 6/30, I BELIEVE.

WELL, THEY THEY IN HINDSIGHT, THIS THIS WAS THE THIS WAS THE MONEY THAT WAS GOING TO BE DUE.

THOSE THAT CAME ON PREVIOUSLY THAT THEY DIDN'T CARRY THE MONEY OVER FOR THE 22.

IS THERE SOMEONE WHO'S EXPECTING THE MONEY AND WILL NOT GET IT? NO. OKAY.

DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. SO THEREFORE.

NO. [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS ALL FUND ACCOUNTING.

THAT'S ALL THIS IS. OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHTY.

OF COURSE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT PROGRAM ENDED, THOUGH? NO, THE PROGRAM IS STILL THERE.

THEIR GUIDELINES CHANGED.

TELL US ABOUT THOSE GUIDELINES AGAIN.

THERE'S 122 PAGES OF THEM.

ARPA SAID THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY SAID THAT THE PANDEMIC IS OVER.

THAT'S RIGHT, AND YOU CAN NO LONGER USE ARPA MONEY FOR PREMIUM PAY.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST FIXED.

THAT'S IT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL NOT OCCUR.

WELL NOT WITH ARPA MONEY.

RIGHT THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

NOW, WE HAD ALREADY DISPENSED SOME MONEY.

NO, THIS IS THE MONEY THAT YOU.

OKAY. THE MONEY YOU PUT IN THAT BUDGET.

WE'RE JUST TALKING. WE'RE JUST TALKING BUDGET NOW.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT IF ANYBODY GOT A CHECK OR ANYTHING ELSE, OKAY? TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUNDS.

OKAY. WE'RE TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND THAT WAS PUT THERE FROM ARPA AND WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK IN THE ARPA FUND IS ALL WE'RE DOING; THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENCE.

SHERIFF'S OFFICE ISN'T GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENCE, AND SO THIS IS FOR OUR ACCOUNTING, AND WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING IS FOR EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYEES IN THE FUTURE.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE ARE TO HIRE SOME MORE EMPLOYEES, THIS HAS NOTHING COMING EMPLOYEES.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PROGRAM, THAT PROGRAM.

HE STOPPED THAT PROGRAM.

[MUMBLING] THIS IS JUST ACCOUNTING SO WE PASS AUDIT.

OKAY. I WAS MISINFORMED.

I CALLED AND SPOKE TO SOMEONE ABOUT THAT.

UNLESS YOU TALK TO ME, THEN YOU TALK TO THE WRONG PERSON.

I'M SORRY, BUT YOU DID.

I'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND.

HUTCH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

[INAUDIBLE] OKAY.

JUSTICE ROBINSON.

YEAH HUTCH SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE HERE BECAUSE DURING THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE EXTRA DEPUTIES AND, AND HAVING THE SIGNING BONUSES BECAUSE SOME WERE FULL, SOME WEREN'T FULL.

IF WE'RE FULL, DO WE REALLY NEED THEM? DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

I KNOW IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

SO BUT MY QUESTION IS, IS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE STILL GIVING SIGNING BONUSES?

[00:40:07]

WHATEVER THE ELIGIBILITY PERIOD IS, WHAT THEY CAN DO.

YOU DID THIS. HOLD UP, Y'ALL ARE, HANG ON.

FORGET ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

THIS MONEY WAS PUT THERE BECAUSE YOU GAVE THEM MONEY LAST YEAR AND THEY FAILED TO CARRY IT OVER INTO THIS YEAR, AND YOU HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE HIRED LAST YEAR THAT WAS GOING TO BE DUE.

THE MONEY A YEAR WOULD HAVE BEEN UP, I THINK END OF JUNE, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.

SO NOBODY ELSE IS GETTING PAID ANYTHING, BUT THE FEDS DON'T CARE THAT YOU PROMISED THIS STUFF A YEAR AGO OR WHENEVER.

THEY'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT NOW.

SO YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT MONEY BACK IN THAT FUND.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

JUSTICE STOWERS.

[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. BEST I CAN REMEMBER FROM MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS BODY PASSED AN ORDINANCE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT EXTENDED THE SHERIFF'S ABILITY TO OFFER THESE BONUSES THROUGH JUNE 30TH OF 2023.

I EVEN REMEMBER THERE BEING DEBATE TO THAT RELATED TO THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

SO TO ANSWER SOMEBODY'S QUESTION MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PROGRAM.

EXPIRED OR WAS THROUGH 06/30/23 AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT HUTCH IS SAYING IS THAT THESE MONIES WERE EXPENDED AFTER THE MONEY WAS CLAWED BACK.

THEREFORE, WE'VE GOT TO COVER THIS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE ARPA FUNDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO BE USED.

NOW I GET TO MY ORIGINAL CONCERN.

THIS IS A PRETTY BIG HICKEY ON THE GENERAL FUND.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR SHEET THERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AT $636,000, ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF A MILLION.

WE HAD A TORNADO HERE IN PULASKI COUNTY BACK IN APRIL THAT WIPED OUT 300 HOUSEHOLDS, 300 ROOFTOPS, SOME OF THOSE APARTMENT HOUSES, SOME OF THOSE HOMES, YOU KNOW.

ARE YOU FINISHED OR. NO, NO, I WAS INTERRUPTED.

WHO INTERRUPTED YOU? I'M SORRY. [INAUDIBLE] OH, OKAY. I MISSED SOMETHING.

I'M SORRY. OUR INCOME IN 2024 IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BECAUSE OF THAT , AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR THE COMPTROLLER.

HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE LEFT IN OUR UNENCUMBERED GENERAL FUND? BECAUSE I REMEMBERED US ONLY LEAVING SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF 250, 300,000 WHEN WE DIVVY IT OUT, AS WE DO ANNUALLY IN THE SPRING, THAT THE CARRYOVER INTO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO IF WE'RE DECREASING $636,000 RIGHT NOW, THE GENERAL FUND, HOW MUCH IS LEFT UNENCUMBERED IN THE GENERAL FUND? WELL, THAT'S A TWOFOLD ANSWER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE [INAUDIBLE], BUT IT'S GOING TO SOUND LIKE IT.

YOU'RE RIGHT, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT IN 24.

YOU DIDN'T SPEND ALL THIS MONEY, SO IT'S NOT A TRUE.

WELL, WE HAVE TO PUT.

ON PAPER. THE SIX WAS THAT TOTAL WHATEVER THAT WAS BACK.

YOU PUT IT THERE FROM ARPA.

OKAY, AND THEN YOU DIDN'T SPEND IT ALL BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FILL ALL THE POSITIONS AND ALL THE PEOPLE DIDN'T COME ALL THE WAY AND STAY ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT EXPENDITURE IN FRONT OF ME.

I DIDN'T LOOK IT UP BEFORE I CAME DOWN HERE, BUT HE DIDN'T SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY.

OKAY. BECAUSE THEY DON'T STAY A YEAR.

SO I SEE THE DECREASE OF 636,000.

ARE YOU SAYING IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT MUCH? NO, IT WON'T BE THAT MUCH.

OKAY. WE HAVE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THAT'S WHAT THIS BODY DID ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AND IT'LL SHOW THAT YOU TOOK 600 AND WHATEVER THOUSAND OUT OF ARPA AND PUT IT INTO COUNTY GENERAL.

ANY IDEA, BALLPARK, MR. HUTCHINS HOW MUCH WE HAVE IN THE UNENCUMBERED GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT AT THIS TIME? AT THIS TIME, I'D HAVE TO LOOK BECAUSE AS THE YEAR GOES ON, WHEN I GIVE YOU THAT STATEMENT, IT GOES, OH, YOU GOT 300,000 LEFT UNENCUMBERED OR WHATEVER.

YOU HAVE REVENUES THAT COME THROUGH THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.

SO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT WHOLE AMOUNT, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY.

[00:45:03]

MAYBE IT JUST HASN'T MADE MY PACKET OR MADE THE ONLINE PACKET THAT I GET, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT SHEET THAT WE USED TO GET IN, IT SEEMS MAYBE MAKE SURE YOU GET IT A LITTLE WHILE.

SO YEAH, IF WE COULD GET THAT ON A MONTHLY BASIS IT'D HELP US TO TRACK WHAT'S IN THE EMERGENCY RESERVE FUNDS AS WELL AS.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE SURE IT GETS IN THE PACKET, BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE AT.

THANK YOU, I YIELD.

OKAY, AND I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION, HUTCH IS WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE IN DOING THIS.

THIS HAS TO BE DONE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT AT SOME POINT.

YOU DO IT NOW OR YOU CAN DO IT LATER? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WHEN THE AUDIT COMES THROUGH AND THEY LOOK AT IT AND ALL YOU'RE DOING IS TAKING THE MONEY AND PUTTING IT BACK WHERE IT WAS, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY [INAUDIBLE] JUSTICE MASSEY. DID YOU? WELL, SOMEONE ASKED ME A QUESTION, SO I'M GOING TO ASK.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION.

SO I KNOW WE'RE HAVING TO PUT THAT MONEY BACK, BUT IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE ALLOTTED FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO THESE EMPLOYEES OR JUST A PORTION? WHAT? OH, SO, OKAY, THIS IS THE MONEY THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO; HE DID NOT ENCUMBER.

OKAY. THAT Y'ALL HAD TO MAKE UP.

OKAY. YEAH. SO THAT WAS.

THAT'S OKAY, AND DID YOU GET IT? NO, NO, NO. OKAY.

JUSTICE MCMULLEN. YES.

YES. LET ME JUST GO BACK AND REITERATE WHAT YOU SAID FOR SOME CLARITY.

ALL RIGHT, AND THIS IS JUST FYI, FOR THOSE WHO AND MYSELF, THEREFORE, THE RULES WERE CHANGED PROBABLY FOR 2023.

AM I CORRECT? THE RULES WERE CHANGED AS OF APRIL 1ST, BUT THEY DIDN'T NOTIFY US UNTIL A FEW WEEKS AGO.

THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO.

THEY WERE CHANGED FOR AROUND APRIL 1ST.

FOR ONGOING, ONGOING BEYOND APRIL 1ST, AND THEY DID NOT NOTIFY US UNTIL WHEN? A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. DID YOU GIVE THEM A COPY? OKAY. JULY. SO THAT MEANS A COPY OF THE LETTER IN YOUR PACKET? UH HUH, SURE, SURE.

WE GET A LOT OF THINGS TO READ AND WE LOVE READING.

OH, I DON'T, BUT, I MEAN, IT'S IN THERE.

OKAY, THEN. WELL, ANYWAY, UM, IF YOU HAD BEEN IN MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER'S ROOM, YOU WOULD.

I READ ALL THE TIME.

EVERY NIGHT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO READ THIS.

YEAH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND THAT.

WE KNOW YOU'RE SHARP.

ALL RIGHT, THEN, BUT WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING IS THAT.

SO ANYTHING THAT WE DISPERSED, ANYONE WHO WE HIRED AND GAVE THAT BONUS AFTER APRIL WOULD NEED TO BE REIMBURSED BY US.

THE RULES CHANGED IN APRIL.

FORGET ABOUT THAT. YES, MA'AM, BUT LISTEN, LISTEN, YOU'RE MISSING A KEY PART OF THIS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO.

THIS IS NOT AFFECTING AN EMPLOYEE OUT THERE.

NO, I KNOW THAT.

I KNOW THAT, AND THEN THE PROGRAM.

Y'ALL GAVE THIS MONEY A FEW MONTHS AGO.

NOT FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR AND ALL THAT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING UP ON THE YEAR ANNIVERSARY THAT WE'RE DUE THE MONEY.

OKAY. YOU SAID THE YEAR ANNIVERSARY.

THERE'S A THE MONEY WAS PART OF THE MONEY IS PAID AT SIX MONTHS AND PART OF THE MONEY IS PAID AT A YEAR.

YOU GOT TO BE HERE A YEAR.

OKAY.

THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FAILED TO ENCUMBER THE MONEY AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

I'M TELLING YOU ALL THIS ISN'T THAT [INAUDIBLE] ENCUMBER THE MONEY AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

SO Y'ALL STEPPED IN, WHAT MONTH WAS THAT? FEW MONTHS AGO AND FILLED IN THE GAP WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET MEETINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS EXPLAINING TO MR. STOWERS WAS THAT'S WHY ALL THE MONEY'S NOT GOING TO BE SPENT AND WASN'T SPENT WAS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAKE IT TO THAT EARMARK.

WE ONLY HAD TO GO BACK AND GET MONEY FROM LIKE TWO PEOPLE OUT OF ALL THIS THAT RECEIVED IT AND THEN QUIT.

YOU KNOW THAT KIND OF DEAL. MHM.

MHM. SO IT MAY NOT REALLY BE AS GRAY AS IT ORIGINALLY SOUNDED YOU KNOW THE WORDS. IT MAY BE MUCH LESS THAN WE THINK.

THE SIX HUNDRED AND WHATEVER THOUSAND THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS GOING BACK TO COUNTY GENERAL.

YOUR EXPENSE IS PROBABLY LESS THAN THAT.

THAT'S WHY I'M NOT SWEATING IT SO MUCH ON WHAT'S UNAPPROPRIATED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A COMMENT NOT A QUESTION.

YEAH. OH, GO AHEAD.

JUSTICE MASSEY. YOU EXPLAINED IT THIS LAST TIME AND FOR CLARITY, BUT I REALLY JUST I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

I REALLY DID NOT APPRECIATE HOW YOU RESPONDED TO ME WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU. I YOU KNOW WHAT?

[00:50:02]

I APOLOGIZE, BUT--BUT I HAVE IT NOW.

I GOT IT NOW. I GOT IT.

[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, LOOKS LIKE WE NEED TO PASS THIS.

OH, THAT'S ALL YOU'RE SAYING.

OKAY. JUSTICE ELLIOTT SAID WE NEED TO PASS IT, SO NO MORE QUESTIONS.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CALL] 13 AYES.

13 AYES. WE WILL SEND 23-I-47 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-I-49.

[23-1-49 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO ENTER INTO THE ATTACHED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF LITTLE ROCK AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK TO EXTEND THE EXPIRING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THOSE ENTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE JUNCTION STREET BRIDGE. ]

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO ENTER INTO THE ATTACHED INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES OF LITTLE ROCK AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK TO EXTEND THE EXPIRING INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THOSE ENTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE JUNCTION STREET BRIDGE.

JUSTICE GREEN.

I'M SORRY.

I SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. SECOND.

MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23-I-49 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

JUSTICE GREEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE EXPLAIN FOR YOU OR YOU? I'M HAPPY TO. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, ADAM.

THANK YOU, ADAM. WHAT'S HIS NAME? THERE'S SOMETHING BACK THERE. OKAY.

OKAY. SO 20 YEARS AGO, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED THAT THE CITIES OF PULASKI OR THE CITIES OF LITTLE ROCK NORTH, LITTLE ROCK AND PULASKI COUNTY AGREED TO SUPPORT THE PULASKI COUNTY.

IT'S ACTUALLY CALLED THE BRIDGES PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD.

SO JUSTICE MCMULLEN, THERE'S ANOTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD FOR YOU.

YES. THE BRIDGES PUBLIC FACILITIES BOARD, WHICH OPERATES THE JUNCTION BRIDGE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BRIDGES THAT CROSSES THE ARKANSAS RIVER, CONNECTING THE DOWNTOWNS OF LITTLE ROCK AND NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AND THIS AGREEMENT JUST EXTENDS THE STATUS QUO, IN EFFECT, FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS. OKAY.

NO QUESTIONS? THERE BEING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 23-I-49.

CALL] 13 AYES.

13 AYES. WE WILL SEND 23-I-49 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.

AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 23-I-50?

[23-1-50 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 (2023 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND FOR SHERIFF'S PACT PEER SPECIALIST FUND EXPENDITURES. ]

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 22-OR-45 2023 ANNUAL BUDGET PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND FOR SHERIFF'S PACT PEER SPECIALIST FUND EXPENDITURES. JUSTICE MASSEY.

I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS.

SECOND. A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 23-I-50 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS JUSTICE MASSEY.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN IF SOMEONE ELSE IS HERE THAT CAN EXPLAIN, I WILL YIELD IT TO THEM TO DO SO.

OKAY. YES.

HI, I'M KATIE HARGIS.

I'M THE GRANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COUNTY.

SO THIS IS A GRANT THAT WAS AWARDED TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN 2020.

IT'S A PEER SPECIALIST.

IT'S A SALARY, A POSITION FOR THEM FOR THEIR REENTRY PROGRAM.

IT WAS AWARDED FOR FEBRUARY OF 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF 2020.

THE QUORUM COURT APPROPRIATED THE FUNDS.