[00:00:04]
>> [BACKGROUND] I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO OUR FINAL AGENDA MEETING FOR 2024.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
WE'RE GOING TO OPEN OUR MEETING WITH AN INVOCATION BY JUSTICE DOUGAN, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY JUSTICE CAPPS.IF YOU CAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND.
>> DEARLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU NOW AND WE GIVE YOU THANKS AND PRAISE FOR THIS DAY.
FATHER, THE SUN CAME OUT, AND IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL.
GOD, I THANK YOU THAT YOU'VE ALLOWED US TO BE HERE.
I THANK YOU THAT WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND THAT WE HAVE LAWS AND RULES AND THINGS TO DO.
I ASK THAT YOU TO STAND RIGHT BESIDE US.
HOLD OUR HANDS AND LEAD, GUIDE, AND DIRECT US AS WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS, FATHER, FOR THE BEST OF YOUR PEOPLE.
GOD, WATCH OVER US AND BLESS AND, KEEP US AND BRING US ALL BACK TOGETHER NEXT WEEK.
IN JESUS NAME, I THANK YOU AND I PRAISE YOU. AMEN.
>> THANK EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR OPENING, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO OUR AGENDA.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YOUR MICROPHONES ARE NOT ON.
HOLD ON. THEY'RE NOT AT THIS POINT.
[LAUGHTER] AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
MR. KEITH? MS. GREEN IS ABSENT. MS. DOUGAN?
>> MS. MEDLOCK? YOU HAVE 12 PRESENT.
>> TWELVE PRESENT, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
WE CAN DO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTY.
JUST REMINDER, I AM GOING TO LEAVE YOUR MICROPHONES ON, SO I WILL BE PAYING ATTENTION.
I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO GET YOU IN THE ORDER THAT I SEE YOUR HAND GO UP, AND I ASK YOU TO JUST PLEASE BEAR WITH ME TONIGHT.
ITEM 5, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION?
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE APPROVE OUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
OUR MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
WE WILL JUMP RIGHT INTO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
[24-I-60 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A COUNTY-WIDE LAND USE STUDY AND PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. ]
AMY, UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 24I60.>> ADOPTING A COUNTY-WIDE LAND USE STUDY AND PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
>> YES. I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 24I60 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DO PASS.
JUSTICE MASSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN OR DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN FOR YOU?
>> I'M SURE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE THAT CAN GIVE A LOT MORE EXPLANATION AND DETAILED EXPLANATION.
>> STOOD IN FRONT OF YOU. VERY NICE TO BE HERE.
I HAVE BEEN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNTY SINCE LATE AUGUST OF 2023, AND IT'S NICE TO MEET YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS IS THE PRODUCT, THE LAND USE STUDY AND PLAN OF A TWO-YEAR PROCESS LED BY GARVER CONSULTANTS THROUGH OUR PLANNING OFFICES THAT HAVE GONE OUT AND HAD PLENTY OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS.
IT WORKS OUT THAT WE ARE PRIMARILY DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTORS, A WESTERN, A NORTHERN, AND SOUTHEASTERN SECTOR.
THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS, AS YOU KNOW, BUT OUR PLAN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, RECOGNIZES THAT, AND PRESENTS A STUDY OF WHAT LAND USES ARE BOTH THERE AND WHAT SHOULD BE PERHAPS THERE BASED ON CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.
THERE IS NOTHING ATTACHED TO THIS PLAN STUDY THAT PROVIDES ANY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ANYTHING AT ALL.
THIS IS JUST THE RESULTS OF A STUDY THAT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DIRECTED TO YOU TO ACCEPT.
[00:05:04]
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>> DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL FOR THIS?
>> RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UNANIMOUS.
>> REMEMBER, I TELL YOU ALL YOUR LIGHTS ARE ON, SO I NEED YOU TO RAISE YOUR HANDS TO MAKE ME AWARE. JUSTICE STOWERS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. KEITH. THANK YOU, MR. TOWNSELL, FOR BEING HERE IN THAT THOROUGH EXPLANATION.
>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THOROUGH OR NOT, BUT IT'S A START AT LEAST.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS LAND USE PLAN WITHIN ITSELF DOES NOT HAVE TEETH, DOES NOT HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WITH IT.
>> HOWEVER, AS WE KNOW, THAT LAND USE PLAN IS SIMPLY A PREREQUISITE TO ZONING.
ZONING IS THE ENFORCEMENT THEN THAT IF THIS LAND USE PLAN PASSES THIS EVENING, REST ASSURED THAT A ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY WILL BE COMING TO A QUORUM COURT NEAR YOU IN 2025.
WOULD THAT BE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S PROBABLY NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT BASED ON TIMING.
THIS IS JUST A STUDY AND PLAN.
THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR AS COMPLICATED AND AS WROUGHT WITH LEGAL PROBLEMS THAN DECIDING ZONING ACROSS THE COUNTY.
I WOULD SAY IT WOULD TAKE A LOT LONGER PROCESS BECAUSE EACH OF THE THREE SECTORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY, AND YOU'D HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU WANT TO CONSIDER WALL-TO-WALL ORDINANCE OR LOOK AT MORE TARGETED AREAS, WHICH IS LEGAL UNDER STATE LAW, INVOLVING COUNTY PLANNING.
IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A LOT LONGER THAN JUST ONE YEAR.
IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A MORE EXTENSIVE STUDY, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH HERE, THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THROUGH THE QUORUM COURT TO EVER BE PUT INTO ACTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MR. TOWNSELL, YOU STATED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND I REINSTATED IT, THAT THERE'S NO TEETH, THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN THIS LAND USE PLAN.
>> THERE'S NO PUNISHMENT FOR DISOBEYING THE LAND USE PLAN.
UNLESS ZONING IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL HERE, WHICH I HAVE A HUNCH THAT IT IS, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE ULTIMATELY GOING, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
THIS IS TO GET THE BALL ROLLING TO GET TO THE NEXT STEP, AND THAT'S THE CONCERNS OF MY CONSTITUENTS.
>> WHAT THIS DOES DO IS IT GETS A PRELIMINARY OUT OF THE WAY THAT IF THE COUNTY EVER CHOOSES TO OR NEEDS TO, AND NEEDING IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH MORE AND MORE OFTEN, IF THE NEED IS EVER THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DELAY AND GO THROUGH THIS STUDY.
YOU CAN JUMP RIGHT STRAIGHT TO WHAT COULD BE BECAUSE A PARTIAL ZONING APPLICATION INSIDE THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY IS LEGAL.
YOU CAN MAKE A VERY TARGETED EFFORT BECAUSE THIS IS ALREADY DONE.
IT SHORTENS THE TIME YOU CAN RESPOND TO WHAT IS A REAL THREAT TO PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PROPERTY VALUES FOR YOUR CITIZENS WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A VERY OBNOXIOUS USE RIGHT BESIDE YOU.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO PROTECTIONS TO ANYBODY ON WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS CAN DO.
>> THAT'S GREAT. I YIELD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT JUSTICE CURRY AND JUSTICE MEDLOCK HAVE ARRIVED.
>> YES. PHIL TOUCHED ON A LOT OF WHAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON.
I'M GOING TO LET A LOT OF THE CONSTITUENTS DO SPEAKING FOR ME WHO HAVE COME TONIGHT.
BUT I DID READ THROUGH THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, AND THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE ZONING.
I KNOW THAT THIS PIECE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T HAVE ANY TEETH IN IT, BUT THAT IS THE GOAL, AND WE ARE AGAINST THAT IN THE UNINCORPORATED.
I YIELD AND JUST MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.. JUSTICE ROBINSON.
>> THANK YOU. MR. FOGLEMAN, IF YOU DON'T MIND, SINCE MR. TOWNSELL HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT STATE LAW AND SOME TIMES, AND I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF MY CONSTITUENTS AS WELL AS WHERE THIS MIGHT LEAD.
I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AS THE ZONING AND ALSO WITH THE PERMING PROCESS THAT'S TOUCHED IN IT.
[00:10:01]
BUT CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE AND THE LEGALITY OF WHAT HE ALLUDED TO?>> SURE. I'M PULLING UP THE CODE RIGHT NOW JUST SO I SPEAK WITH A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
THE ARKANSAS LAW DOES AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
IT AUTHORIZES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TOOLS LIKE THIS.
IT'S A RESOURCE MAP, SO TO SPEAK, THAT IN ADDITION TO A POTENTIAL EVENTUAL ZONING MAP, IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR RESOURCE PLANNING FOR DRAINAGE AND ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT PROVIDES THE COUNTY AND CITIZENS WITH INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED THAT MAY BENEFIT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN, LET'S SAY, THE BEST WAY.
IS ZONING A POSSIBILITY? THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE DECISION OF THIS BODY, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY USE OF A COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN ORDER FOR ZONING TO COME ABOUT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS.
ONE, A PROPERTY OWNER COULD COME TO THIS BODY AND SAY, PLEASE ZONE MY PROPERTY.
IF A DEVELOPER CAME IN AND SAID, I'VE GOT 600 ACRES THAT I WANT TO DEVELOP IN A CERTAIN WAY AND I WANT TO ENSURE THE FUTURE USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH MY VISION, THAT PROPERTY OWNER COULD SELF-IMPOSE ZONING OR REQUEST THAT YOU ALL IMPOSE ZONING UPON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN.
THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. ANOTHER WAY IS THROUGH AREA PLANNING, AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN ALL OF WEST PULASKI OR ALL OF NORTH PULASKI.
THAT COULD BE A SMALL AREA PLAN.
THE WATERSHED IS A LAND USE CONTROL THAT IS IN AREA PLAN, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO ENSURE HEALTHY SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR CENTRAL ARKANSAS INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
PROBABLY THE BEST EXAMPLE WITHIN PULASKI COUNTY OF HOW LONG IT TAKES TO IMPLEMENT A ZONING SCHEME IS HOW LONG IT TOOK TO IMPLEMENT THE WATERSHEDS REGULATORY STRUCTURE, WHICH I THINK IT TOOK TWO OR THREE YEARS OF STUDIES AND PLANS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED BY THIS BODY.
>> SPEAKING OF ROADS AND STUDIES.
AS A COUNTY, IF THERE WAS 1,000 LOT SUBDIVISION GOING IN SOMEWHERE, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IN PLACE, AS THE COUNTY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR WHOEVER COULD STILL ASK THAT A TRAFFIC STUDY BE DONE ON A ROAD.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS PLAN IN ORDER TO REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY, DO YOU?
>> NO. THERE ARE SOME PRETTY GOOD EXAMPLES THAT HAVE COME UP RECENTLY IN UNINCORPORATED PULASKI COUNTY, BUT WITHIN MUNICIPAL EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING JURISDICTIONS.
IF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE, IF THESE DEVELOPMENTS MOVE FORWARD, COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE IMPACTED.
WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE A CITY WHO IS PREPARING FOR GROWTH AND IS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY APPROVING THE DEVICE FOR GROWTH, WHICH IS A SUBDIVISION.
ULTIMATELY LOOKS BACK TO THE COUNTY AND SAYS, IF THEY BUILD IT, WILL YOU IMPROVE THE EXISTING CONNECTING ROAD? IT PUTS THE DEVELOPER AND THE MUNICIPALITY OFTEN IN A POSITION TO LOOK BACK TO THE COUNTY AND SAY, WE THINK IT'S BEST THAT YOU DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S YOUR ROAD.
BUT IT'S THE CITIZENS, NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE COUNTY, THAT CREATED THE CIRCUMSTANCE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> KNOW SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THERE'S A ROAD THAT'S WIDE, THEN IT GOES BACK DOWN WHERE BARELY TWO CARS CAN PASS, THEN IT WIDENS, AND IT GOES BACK DOWN.
IT'S A TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT OF MAYBE THE NEXT PERSON WILL DEVELOP AND THEY'LL IMPROVE IT.
USUALLY, THE CITIES IN THE COUNTIES WASH THEIR HANDS OF EVER ENLARGING OR IMPROVING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ZONING.
[00:15:04]
IN INCORPORATED AREAS IN THE CITY, WHENEVER THERE'S A ZONE, AND YOU ALLUDED TO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY, IT'LL GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TYPICALLY FIRST, AND THEY EITHER RECOMMEND IN THE CITIES AS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.IN THE COUNTY, IT WOULD BE TO THE QUORUM COURT, AND THE CITY COUNCIL/QUORUM COURT ULTIMATELY HAS THE FINAL DECISION OF WHETHER SOMETHING GETS ZONED OR REZONED.
I'M ASSUMING WHAT YOU QUOTED THERE IS THE SAME EXAMPLE BUT COMING BEFORE US.
TECHNICALLY, IT'D GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST AND THEY WOULD DEFER TO US.
>> YOU ASKED EARLIER WHAT THE TIMELINE OF THE PROCESS IS.
THE PROCESS ITSELF, FIRST YOU BEGIN WITH THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ZONES.
THAT TAKES HASHING OUT, SOMETIMES WITH FAIRLY GREAT NUANCE, WHAT THE INTENSITY OF USE IN A PARTICULAR AREA IS AND WHETHER IT'S INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
THEN THAT GETS CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE PANNING BOARD AFTER A NUMBER OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THEN IT COMES TO THIS BODY.
YOU ALL ARE THE GOVERNING BODY OF PULASKI COUNTY, AND YOU ALL ARE THE DECISION-MAKING BODY WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER TO ADOPT A ZONING SCHEME.
>> MR. ROBINSON, YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE FURTHER ON THAT.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, DIRECTLY TO YOUR QUESTION YOU ASKED, BASICALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE HELD OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING.
THEY WOULD HOLD THAT, THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION, A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION WOULD COME UP TO YOU THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY LISTEN TO AND ADOPT BY, OR YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO THE OTHER WAY AND DENY IT OR WHICHEVER WAY IT IS.
THAT'S HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD WORK.
>> HOW MANY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS LIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS THAT ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS?
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.
>> I DON'T KNOW. IT USED TO NOT BE ZERO.
WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING, I KNOW A LOT OF THESE THINGS.
I KNOW IT USED TO NOT BE ZERO, BUT SOME OF THEM THAT USED TO BE ON IT ARE NO LONGER ON THERE, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IT IS NOW.
MY HUNCH IS IT MIGHT BE ONE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S MANY THAT LIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS.
>> I YIELD. THANK YOU. JUSTICE MASSEY.
>> THANK YOU. MY QUESTION I'VE SEEN ON THE NEWS THAT I CAN'T THINK OF THE COUNTY THAT IS REALLY HAVING SOME ISSUES WITH CRYPTO MINING, BUSINESSES COMING INTO PLAY.
COULD THAT POSSIBLY HAPPEN IN PULASKI COUNTY AND HOW WOULD WE AVOID THAT?
CRYPTO MINING IS A LAND USE, IT'S VERY UNPLEASANT LAND USE.
THAT COULD HAPPEN IN PULASKI COUNTY, AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS THERE ARE THREE ACTIVE SITES IN THE SOUTHEAST SECTOR OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE MOVING.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO IN WITH A LOT OF POWER.
SOMETIMES THEY'RE BUYING ENOUGH LAND TO PUT IN THE SOLAR ARRAYS TO POWER THEIR OPERATIONS, BUT THEY ARE OBNOXIOUS, THEY'RE POPPING UP EVERYWHERE, AND WE'RE NOT IMMUNE TO THAT, WE HAVE NO DEFENSE OF THAT RIGHT NOW.
EVEN IF WE PASS THIS ON TONIGHT AND PASS IT ULTIMATELY, WE STILL DON'T HAVE A DEFENSE UNLESS WE TAKE OTHER STEPS.
>> BUT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN ORDER TO DO ANYTHING.
>> THIS IS THE MANDATORY FIRST STEP BEFORE WE START, WE CAN'T PASS THE IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCES UNTIL WE PASS THIS FIRST STEP, AS ADAM SAID.
>> THANK YOU. I VISITED WITH MR. TOWNSELL ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
AND I WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME JUST TO CLARIFY AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE FIRST STEP.
IF THERE WAS TO BE ANY ZONING DONE, THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN ANY LARGE OR SMALL TOTALITY OR TINY SEGMENT OF THE COUNTY.
IF THERE WAS A POPULATION OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE LARGELY AGAINST ZONING IN THEIR AREA, THAT THAT COULD BE CARVED IN OR OUT WITH THEIR FEEDBACK AT THAT TIME, IS THAT CORRECT?
[00:20:02]
THERE ARE LEGAL LIMITATIONS TO THAT.YOU CAN'T SAY ZONE MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND KEEP IN BUT LEAVE ME ALONE.
THERE'S A LOGICAL LIMIT TO THAT.
BUT YES, THAT SIZE CAN VARY DRAMATICALLY.
>> CAN YOU SPEAKING TO YOUR MIKE, PLEASE?
I WANT TO SIMPLY POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE MANY REASONS THAT I WOULD BE RELUCTANT ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A ZONING AREA HAS COME BEFORE US.
A ZONING PETITION HAS COME BEFORE US.
WE'VE SEEN IT WITH THE WATERSHED AND AFTER IT WAS PASSED, OF COURSE, THERE WERE THINGS THAT WE HAD BEEN BLINDSIDED ABOUT IN THE ZONING.
NOW, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THAT.
>> NO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ON THAT TONIGHT, AND OUR MEMORIES CAN BE SHORT.
NEVERTHELESS, I WILL SAY THAT BASED UPON SOME OF THE INFORMATION OR SOME OF THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, SHOWING US CONCERN ABOUT THIS.
I CAN CERTAINLY RELATE TO THAT, SUCH AS UNPOLLUTED WATER TABLES, DRINKING WATER.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS TONIGHT.
THEN THE EFFECT ON THE ROADWAYS, INCREASED TRAFFIC, FUTURE CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY REZONING TENDS TO PUT THE WATER SOURCES PERHAPS AT A RISK.
I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE THOSE WHO USE THE WHALES RATHER OUT THERE, AND THEY DON'T WANT THAT TO BE POLLUTED.
THE TYPES OF RISKS THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WOULD IMPACT, OF COURSE, THEIR HEALTH AND PERHAPS ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SMALL FARMING AREAS THAT ARE THERE.
THE GROUND WATER THERE, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO PRESERVE THAT.
I WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT THE URBAN SPRAWL IT'S GOING TO BRING ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WE KNOW THAT. IT'S GOING TO BRING ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT'S GOING TO BE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND MORE STRESS ON THE WATER RESOURCES.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THESE TYPES OF THINGS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE QUORUM COURT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T SIT HERE AND PROPOSE TO KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS, WE FIND OUT LATER ON THAT PERHAPS THE REASON FOR IT WAS BECAUSE SOME LARGE CORPORATION HAD SOME MONETARY INTEREST IN IT OR WHATEVER.
NOW, I WANT TO SIMPLY SAY, AND FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE URBAN SPRAWL.
HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? THE SUBURBAN SPRAWL ISSUES THAT WE HAVE? THE IMPACT ON THE ANIMALS.
>> WE CAN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL.
>> YOU CAN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL.
DO YOU KNOW THE OTHER DAY WHERE I LIVE, I SAW A DEER IN MY BACKYARD? I WAS SO SHOCKED, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO.
>> BEARS SHOW UP IN PLACES YOU WOULD NEVER EXPECT THEM TO.
>> THIS IS TRUE AND I THINK THAT WE KNOW WHY.
I'M LOOKING AT THE URBAN SPRAWL ON THIS AND THOSE PEOPLE OUT THERE IN FERNDALE, I THINK THEY HAVE SOMETHING REALLY EXEMPLARY GOING FOR THEM.
>> COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT.
ALL THOSE CHANGES THAT ARE NEGATIVE THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT WON'T HAPPEN WITH ZONING, THAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE CHANGE IN LAND USE THAT SPRAWL BRINGS.
WE'VE HAD DRAMATIC SPRAWL SINCE 1950, WHICH WAS REFERENCED IN YOUR STUDY THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE COUNTY IS MORE THAN DOUBLED IN SIZE.
THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK HAS DOUBLED IN SIZE, BUT HAS GROWN FIVE TIMES IN AREA.
WHICH RESTRICTS DRAMATICALLY, AS THEY GROW, WE SHRINK.
BUT THE POPULATION, EVEN THOUGH NOT ONLY HAS LITTLE ROCK GROWN, SHERWOOD'S GONE FROM 717 PEOPLE TO OVER 32,000.
JACKSONVILLE WENT FROM 2,500 PEOPLE TO OVER 30,000.
ALL THIS OTHER AREA HAS BEEN TAKEN UP IN CITY LIMITS, YET WE STILL HAVE A LARGER POPULATION THAN WE DID IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN 1950.
[00:25:03]
IN A SHRINKING AMOUNT OF AREA, WE'VE GOT AN INCREASING AMOUNT OF PEOPLE AND THAT'S ONLY GOING TO ACCELERATE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.IF WE WANT TO PROTECT THOSE ENVIRONMENTS, WE CAN'T DO IT WITH NO TOOLS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE STARTING THIS LAND USE PLAN TO TALK ABOUT LET'S IDENTIFY WHERE THOSE RESOURCES ARE THAT WE DO WANT TO RESPECT, THAT WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP.
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T PROTECT THEM AND IF WE DON'T KEEP THEM, THEY WILL BE TAKEN AWAY.
EVERY DITCH, EVERY CREEK, EVERY FIELD, EVERY GROVE OF TREES THAT I'VE PLAYED IN AS A KID ARE GONE.
THAT'S COMING TO PLACES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS?
>> BASICALLY, ARE YOU SUGGESTING MAYBE THAT THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT THIS MAY BE MISINFORMED?
>> I WOULDN'T SAY THEY'RE MISINFORMED, I UNDERSTAND.
THE CONCERN CHANGE CONCERNS PEOPLE I GET THAT.
BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO TURN AND LOOK THE OTHER WAY, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT'S COMING THAT THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER, AT LEAST THIS.
WE'LL START A PROCESS OF REPRESENTING THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF YOU AFFECTING CHANGE, BEGINNING TO CONTROL CHAINS WITH TOOLS THAT YOU COULD IMPLEMENT.
IT GIVES THEM A PROCESS IN WHICH THEY CAN ALSO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS OTHER THAN JUST HAVING TO SIT BACK ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND WATCH SOME DEVASTATION HAPPEN ON THE NEXT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
YES, THIS GIVES THEM MORE TOOLS AS A PROPERTY OWNER.
IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE ABLE TO SAY, PLEASE STOP HIM FROM DOING THAT, SO YES.
>> WHAT ADVERSE EFFECT WOULD IT HAVE UPON THEIR CONCERNS? I KNOW THERE HAS TO BE IF YOU'VE RULED OUT EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE PREVIOUSLY STATED.
>> THEIR CONCERNS, THEY'LL BE A LIMITATION ON WHAT THEY CAN DO ON THEIR LAND AND I GET THAT.
NO ONE WANTS TO BE TOLD WHAT NOT TO DO ON THEIR LAND, WHERE THE NEXT STEPS COME FOR ALL THESE IMPLEMENTATION CODES IS WHEN THE THREAT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ON YOUR LAND BECOMES SMALLER THAN THE THREAT OF WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO DO ON HIS LAND.
WE IN CITIES, AND I'VE LIVED IN A CITY ALL MY LIFE, I'M A CITY BOY.
WE DIDN'T GIVE UP PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT WE VESTED OUR FAITH IN A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY PROTECTS AND GUARANTEES TO ME THAT THE LAND BESIDE ME IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A PROCESS THAT I CAN PARTICIPATE IN.
THERE'S RULES AND REGULATIONS BEFORE IT CAN CHANGE.
NOT THAT IT CAN ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE IN A BLINK OF AN EYE WHEN THEY START TEARING DOWN WHAT I TREASURED RIGHT BESIDE.
THAT'S THE IMPETUS FOR US, THIS INCREASING DENSITIES, THE MORE CITY FYING OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT, AND ALL THOSE PLACES WE CHERISH LOSING THOSE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT.
THE ONLY WAY TO REGULATE IT IS TO COME UNDER THESE PLANNING CODES THAT ADAM READ TO YOU RIGHT THERE.
IF WE COME UNDER THEM, THEN WE CAN'T BE CHALLENGED AS COURTS.
>> THANK YOU SIR. I'M GOING TO YIELD SO THAT OTHERS WILL BE ABLE TO TALK, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION, AND THAT IS, WE WILL WE BE ALLOWED TO HEAR GOOD? THANK YOU. MY QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED.
I THINK HE KNEW WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE CITIZENS.
>> I'LL STAFF HERE ONLY AS LONG AS YOU WANT ME TO, AND THEN I'LL YIELD TO WHOEVER'S BEHIND ME.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STUDY DIRECT A TOWN CELL, WHAT ADVERSE EFFECT WOULD THIS STUDY HAVE ON LAND USES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AT THIS TIME?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STUDY. JUSTICE DOUGAN.
YES, I LIVE IN THE SOUTHEAST PART OF THE COUNTY, A FARM AND RANCH.
EVERY ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY AGAINST THIS.
NOW LET'S SEE, I'M PRESIDENT PULASKI LONE OAK FARM SERVICE AGENCY, WHICH IS FEDERAL.
I'M PRESIDENT PULASKI COUNTY FARM BUREAU, BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
I'M ON THE NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
WE'RE THE PEOPLE THAT WATCH THE WATER AND THE MUD AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
I'M INVOLVED IN DIRT AND WATER AND AIR.
[00:30:01]
EVERYBODY IN HERE KNOWS, BUT NOW EVERYBODY OUT THERE KNOWS.
NOW, NONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS EVEN KNEW ABOUT THIS UNTIL I BROUGHT IT UP.
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE TABLED.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE OF A CHANCE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS STUFF.
BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE ME, WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE COWS, THAT PEOPLE DRIVE AND GO, OH, LOOK AT THE COWS.
WE'RE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE GRASS AND THE WHEAT AND ALL OF THAT STUFF THAT CLEANS THE AIR.
I REPRESENT THOSE PEOPLE, AND WE ARE CONCERNED.
MOST OF US THAT LIVE OUT THERE HAVE SPENT GENERATIONS OWNING OUR FARMS AND OUR LAND.
THAT'S HARD TO DO NOWADAYS IT WAS HARD TO DO BACK WHEN WE WERE ALL STARTING, BUT IT'S HARD TO DO NOW.
I GOT A BUNCH OF CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE HOT AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE CALLING ME AFTER LIKE 9:00 AT NIGHT.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THAT'S A TOUGH ONE TO COME BEHIND MISS LIBBY.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, THANK YOU.
I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. TOWNSELL, TRYING TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS A STUDY.
>> BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD ALREADY, WE MIGHT NEED TO COME BACK TO SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT PEOPLE DID NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH WITH THE PLAN CONVERSATION TODAY.
BUT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINES IN PLACE, I DO TRAVEL THE SOUTHWEST PART OF I STAY IN SOUTHWEST, AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THINGS THERE.
WHEN YOU HAVE DISTRACTIONS THAT AFFECT A NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT AND THEY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THOSE THINGS.
WITHOUT SOME GUIDELINES, JUST WITH THAT ALONE, AND OF COURSE, THE WATER TABLE AND ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED ALONG THAT LEVEL, I'M JUST OF THE OPINION AT THIS POINT, MAYBE MORE CONSIDERATION NEED TO BE DONE WITH SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
>> THANK YOU JUSTICE CURRY. JUSTICE MASSEY.
>> THANK YOU. I AM SO CONFUSED, [LAUGHTER] AND I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M HEARING FROM MEMBERS HERE THAT ARE ECHOING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND AGREEING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, SAYING THAT, NO, WE DON'T NEED TO DO THIS.
WE NEED TO PROTECT, BUT NO, WE DON'T NEED TO DO THIS.
>> IT'S KIND OF WEIRD. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ANY TYPE OF GUIDELINES, YOU HAVE TO DO A STUDY.
IN ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IT IS NOT ABOUT CHANGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST STARTING THE PROCESS.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID, YOU WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE ALREADY SIGNED ON AS A SPONSOR TO DO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE MASSEY, JUSTICE DAVIS.
>> THAT I'M AGREEING WITH YOU TWO JUSTICE MASSEY, BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO SEPARATE ORDINANCES WE COULD ALSO DO WITHOUT A WIDE BREADTH OF THE LAND STUDY TO STILL PROTECT.
THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT IS THAT THIS IS A VERY WIDE PAINT BRUSH.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A NARROWER, THE FRACKING ISSUES.
THOSE ARE HUGE DEALS IN THAT COMMUNITY.
BUT THAT IN MY COMMUNITY, WE DON'T WANT ALL OF THAT BIG OVERARCHING GOVERNMENT.
I YIELD FOR THAT AND I WOULD LIKE THE CONSTITUENTS TO SPEAK IF THEY COULD.
>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO GIVE, I WAS GIVING EVERYBODY UP HERE, ALL THE JUSTICES THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST SPEAK ONCE.
AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE COMMENTS, JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, DID YOU HAVE?
>> HOLD ON. JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, THERE YOU GO.
>> BUT WHAT THE LAND USE STUDY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO DO, AND WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO IS IT WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE FRACKING ISSUES.
IF THIS IS WHAT IT IS SET UP TO DO.
SO THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO, FOR INSTANCE, I LIVE IN HILLCREST, AND WE HAVE VERY STRICT ZONING IN HILLCREST, SO THAT NO ONE CAN CHANGE THEIR HOUSES BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN KEEPING ALL OF OUR HOUSES HISTORICAL.
[00:35:01]
WE'RE VERY MUCH INTO NOT LETTING BIG HOUSES COME IN AND JUST DESTROY ALL THE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, THESE BIG MANSIONS PUT UP.WE HAVE HISTORICAL HOMES IN HILLCREST, AND SO WE HAVE ZONING ACCORDING TO THAT, AND WE'RE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THAT.
EACH LITTLE WHERE THE HEIGHTS DOES NOT DO THAT.
EACH AREA GETS TO DO ITS OWN LITTLE THING.
IT'S NOT LIKE EVERY AREA HAS THE SAME TYPE OF ZONING ISSUES.
WE ALL GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN OUR AREA.
THAT WAY WE ARE PROTECTED IN A WAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PIG FARM PUT RIGHT NEXT TO US.
IF WE DON'T WANT A PIG FARM AS OUR NEIGHBOR.
I DON'T WANT THAT PIG FARM TO BE IN MY NEIGHBOR, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY ZONING AND THERE'S NO PROTECTION, THAT PIG FARMER CAN COME RIGHT ON IN THERE AND JUST BUILD HIS OLD PIG FARM BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THERE TO SAY HE CAN'T.
THESE TYPE OF ISSUES OR IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO FRACK, THEY CAN COME ON IN AND THEY CAN JUST GO FRACK OVER THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO LAWS.
THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY HE CAN'T DO THAT.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTIONS SET UP FOR YOU, IF THERE'S NO PROTECTIONS FOR YOU, THEN CONSEQUENTLY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE VERY MUCH TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BURN BRUSH IN YOUR BACKYARD OR THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANYMORE.
THERE MAY BE SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU CAN'T, THEY MAY LIMIT YOU FROM DOING.
BUT THERE ARE, I DO FEEL THIS DOES HELP YOU.
IT IS A TOOL THAT YOU CAN USE AND WILL HELP YOU ALONG THE WAY SO THAT YOU CAN PROTECT YOURSELVES AND PROTECT YOUR WATER.
IT DEFINITELY PROTECTS YOUR WATER.
I'M VERY STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS HELPS YOU.
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'VE JUMPED FROM A STUDY TO ZONE AND WE'VE ACTUALLY PUT IN THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT ZONES AND IT'S A PROCESS.
WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING MOVING FORWARD WITH A STUDY, WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP TO IDENTIFY SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD, THE POTENTIAL NEED OR THE POSSIBILITY OF ZONING.
THAT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY SHOULD BE DISCUSSING, BUT HE HAD TO PUT IN PIG FARMS AND EVERYTHING.
BUT ANYWAY, [LAUGHTER] IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS UP HERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE JUSTIN, I GUESS, WAIT.
BILL, BEAT ME. JUSTICE STOWERS.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE TO COME BACK [INAUDIBLE] TO STAFF AS WELL AS MYSELF, AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATION.
I'VE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE FOLKS IN NORTH PULASKI COUNTY ON THIS.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN IN MEETINGS, PROBABLY MORE INTIMATELY THAN THE OTHER TWO REGIONS.
IT'S EVEN IN FACT, REFERENCED IN YOUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVE DOCUMENTS THAT THERE IS LITTLE DESIRE TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS IN THE NORTH PART OF THE COUNTY.
IN SPEAKING TO SOME FOLKS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS AND HAVE CONTACTED ME, PHONE, EMAIL, ET CETERA.
THEY'VE EXPRESSED THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET ON BOARD WITH THE PLAN THAT REIGNS IN AND REGULATES DEVELOPERS.
BUT IT DOES THAT WITHOUT IMPACTING SMALL LANDOWNERS, AND THAT WOULD BE A MUCH MORE PALATABLE CONCEPT TO THEM THAN THE BROAD BRUSH STROKE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US THIS EVENING.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE RAISED THE ISSUE OF, WELL, IF THIS WAS TO PASS, MAYBE YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO BURN LEAVES IN YOUR BACKYARD ANYMORE.
WELL, MY GRANDMA USED TO SEND ME OUT TO THE BIG OIL BARREL EVERY NIGHT AFTER DINNER, AND I PUT THE PLASTIC BAG FULL OF ALL THE DAY'S TRASH IN THERE AND LIT A FIRE IN THE BARREL, AND IT WENT UP.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CITY SLICKER LIKE YOURSELF, I'VE ALWAYS LIVED IN THE CITY, THESE REGULATIONS WOULD NOT BOTHER ME.
IN FACT, I'M APPRECIATIVE LIVING IN A CITY THAT SOMEONE CAN'T COME IN AND PUT UP A CERTAIN TYPE OF STRUCTURE NEXT TO ME BECAUSE OF RULES THAT WE HAVE.
I HAD A CALL FROM A LADY HERE A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT WAS VERY UPSET.
HER AND HER HUSBAND HAVE FIVE ACRES.
THEY BUILD A VERY BIG, NICE HOME ON THAT.
COME TO FIND OUT THAT THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE THREE OR FOUR ACRES NEXT TO THEM PLANS TO PUT IN A MINI MOBILE HOME PARK.
[00:40:05]
SHE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.I EXPLAINED TO HER THAT THE BEST THING ABOUT LIVING IN THE COUNTRY IS THAT YOU CAN DO PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING YOU WANT TO WITH YOUR PROPERTY.
THE WORST THING ABOUT LIVING IN THE COUNTRY IS SOAKING YOUR NEIGHBOR.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE STOWERS.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE JUSTICES, AND WE CAN CIRCLE BACK AFTER WE HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. DON'T RUN OFF. [LAUGHTER] WE MAY.
>> [NOISE] MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE FOUR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HERE IN PERSON TO, I SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, AND THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF EMAILS.
IF YOU WANT TO JUST GO IN ORDER OF HOW I HAVE THEM, I'LL READ THEM, THEY CAN COME UP.
>> FIRST WOULD BE THE HONORABLE SENATOR MARK JOHNSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN KEITH AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M STATE SENATOR OF DISTRICT 17.
THE PULASKI COUNTY PORTION OF DISTRICT 17 IS FAR WEST.
IT STARTS AT ABOUT WHERE YOU CUT OFF TO GO TO PINNACLE MOUNTAIN STATE PARK, AND IT GOES INCLUDES THE TRIANGLE WHERE THE BIG WALMART IS AND ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL, BUT IS MOSTLY THE UNINCORPORATED WESTERN PART OF PULASKI COUNTY.
I WAS INTERESTED TO HEAR THE OTHER COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY FROM JUSTICE DOUGAN AND JUSTICE STOWERS, THAT THE SOUTHEAST AND NORTH PART OF THE COUNTIES, THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS HAVE A SIMILAR VIEW OF THIS AS WE TEND TO.
LIKE YOU AS LEGISLATORS, MY PHONE RINGS, SOMETIMES MRS. DOUGAN, AFTER NINE O'CLOCK.
PLEASE DON'T CALL ME BEFORE 6:30 THOUGH IN THE MORNING. I HAVE.
ONLY ATTORNEY GENERAL GRIFFIN DOES THAT, BUT I'VE TRIED TO TRAIN HIM TO DO BETTER.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK MY FRIEND AND HE IS MAYOR TO ME, FORMER MAYOR COUNCIL, HE WAS MAYOR OF CONWAY FOR YEARS.
HE'S FRIENDS WITH MY YOUNGER BROTHERS AND DID A GREAT JOB AS OUR MAYOR IN CONWAY.
BUT THAT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMAL THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS.
I WANT TO JUST READ THE TITLE REAL QUICK TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A COUNTY WIDE LAND USE STUDY AND PLAN.
FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
NOW, IT DIDN'T SPECIFY THE SPECIFICS OF THE ZONING, THAT WOULD OF COURSE COME LATER.
BUT IN MY OPINION, PLANNING AND REVIEWING AND DOING THESE THINGS IS NOT PER SE A BAD THING.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS FRAUGHT WITH A LOT OF PROBLEMS. IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR TO THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE TO LEGISLATE IN THIS AREA THAT I SHARE WITH YOU THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY STARTING IN JANUARY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS, AND IT'S NOT JUST PULASKI COUNTY, IT'S THINGS GOING ON ALL OVER THE STATE.
BUT INDEED, THIS IS A BIG ISSUE STATEWIDE AND PROBABLY IN SOME WAYS, STRONGER IN THE SMALLER COUNTIES, EVEN THAN IT IS IN PULASKI, WASHINGTON, AND BENTON COUNTY, WHICH IS WHERE WE USUALLY GET THIS WHAT I CALL FRICTION WHEN THE CITIES AND COUNTIES BUMP UP AGAINST EACH OTHER.
THE IMPORTANT THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING OUT AND IT WAS BRIEFLY BROUGHT OUT, AND I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT MAYOR TOWNSELL AND MR. FOGLEMAN DIDN'T KNOW THIS.
A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.
NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS.
THE MAJORITY OF A BODY MAKING DECISIONS ON HOW WE OUT IN THE BOONES LIVE, DON'T LIVE UNDER THOSE SAME RULES.
THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE LITTLE ROCK OR NORTH LE ROCK, OR SHERWOOD OR JACKSONVILLE OR THE OTHER PLANNING COMMISSIONS IN THOSE CITIES, MALL, JUSTICE STOWERS AND ELLIOTT.
THAT'S FINE. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
BUT BACK 250 YEARS AGO, WE TALKED ABOUT TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
WE ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT AND BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY AND PASS JUDGMENT ON THE DECISIONS FOR THAT AREA, WHETHER IT'S JUST THIS LAND USE STUDY OR THE ACTUAL ZONING THAT MIGHT COME LATER.
BE SUBJECT TO THOSE REGULATIONS.
I DON'T THINK THOSE OF YOU THAT LIVE IN THE HEIGHTS AND HILLCREST WOULD WANT THE FOLKS IN PARK HILL TELLING YOU HOW TO SET UP YOUR ZONING FOR YOUR AREA, WE FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT IT IN WEST PULASKI COUNTY.
I VENTURE TO SAY, OTHER FOLKS LIKE MRS. DOUGAN
[00:45:03]
AND THE OTHER UNINCORPORATED AREAS, FEEL THE SAME WAY.NOW, THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT CAN BE FIXED AND PERHAPS WE FIX IT WITH STATE STATUTES.
BUT FOR TONIGHT, I WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THIS PLAN BY SIMPLY SAYING, IT'S NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
IT HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER BY THIS BOARD THAT CAN BE CHARITABLE AND SAY UNDER REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE THAT IT WILL REGULATE.
I COULD SAY IT DOESN'T RE REPRESENT THEM, BUT IT'S FAIR TO SAY, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS.
I HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO IS ON THAT BOARD, A GREAT FELLOW.
HE'S MY NEIGHBOR. HE LIVES IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, AGAIN, THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD DOESN'T.
I ASK ALL TO CONSIDER, I'M NOT SAYING, JUST THROW THIS OUT, NEVER LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
THE COUNTY IS BIG ENOUGH THAT IT HAS TO HAVE SOME PLAN, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SLOWER, IT NEEDS TO BE MORE DELIBERATE, THE ENTITIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY WITHOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND I WON'T EVEN GO INTO SOME POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT I SEE IN THIS PLAN AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED.
BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION OF THOSE WHOM IT AFFECTS.
IF YOU WOULD LISTEN TO THEM, AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DO SO.
AT LEAST TABLE THIS, POSTPONE IT, TO A TIME CERTAIN, PERHAPS EVEN SIX MONTHS OR SO TO ALLOW THOSE OF US THAT GO UP TO THE CAPITOL AND HOPEFULLY MAKE YOUR LIFE BETTER, BUT SOMETIMES I KNOW WE MAY COMPLICATE THINGS FOR COUNTIES AND CITIES TO OPERATE.
BUT WE TRY TO DO OUR BEST AND I BELIEVE ME.
I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ME TONIGHT AND MY PHONE, AND MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN WHEN ANY OF YOU HAVE ISSUES THAT WE IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN HELP YOU WITH.
BUT I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SLOW THIS PROCESS DOWN.
LET'S DO IT IN A MANNER THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE INPUTS ON IT.
LET'S ESPECIALLY CLARIFY HOW THESE ZONING THINGS COULD HAPPEN OR NOT HAPPEN, AND SO THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT IS CLEARLY NOT AS INFORMED AS THEY'D LIKE TO BE ON IT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT AND I CERTAINLY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF JUSTICES HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR JOHNSON.
WE MAY COME BACK AROUND AND SEE IF [OVERLAPPING] THERE ARE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> JUSTIN. NEXT UP I WOULD HAVE KRISTY EANES.
>> MY NAME IS KRISTY EANES, AND I'M FROM UNINCORPORATED LITTLE ITALY.
I'M A FORMER COMMISSIONER ON THE PULASKI COUNTY PLANNING BOARD.
DURING MY TIME AS A COMMISSIONER, I WAS APPOINTED CHAIR OF A COMMITTEE SOLELY FOCUSED ON CONDUCTING A STUDY ON WAYS TO PRESERVE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY.
MY INTENT WAS TO MODIFY EXISTING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO CONTROL THE DENSITY.
I AGREE WITH THE SENATOR THAT THIS IS JUST NOT READY TO BE PASSED.
OUR AREA IS THREATENED BY LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, WHICH WILL PLACE A HUGE BURDEN ON THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND THREATEN OUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WELLS DRINKING WATER WELLS.
PROTECTIONS CAN BE ADDED NOW TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR STORMWATER FLOODING.
I'M JUST NOT SURE VAN IS OPEN TO THAT.
I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM.
SOON AFTER I WAS APPOINTED CHAIR, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, VAN MCLNTEN, SENT OUR COMMITTEE A RESOLUTION WHICH GREATLY BROADENED THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND SCOPE OF OUR STUDY TO COUNTY WIDE.
THIS WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE JPS IN 2022 AS PART OF AN APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE ALLOCATING 500,000.
I WAS TOLD 500, BUT FOR HIRING A CONSULTANT.
I WAS NOT AGAINST A FOCUS STUDY MODIFYING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
ZONING IS NOT NECESSARY AS OTHER COUNTY AND CITIES CAN ATTEST.
BUT THIS COUNTY WIDE STUDY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE OVERREACHING AND THE COMMUNITIES NEED ANSWERS BEFORE THIS IS APPROVED, AND I BEG THIS BODY TO ASK THE QUESTIONS OF COUNTY PLANNING.
[00:50:01]
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS PASSAGE UNTIL YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWERS.I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN BEFORE YOU PASS IT.
AS IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, THE LAND USE STUDY HAS THREE COMPONENTS.
THE STUDY ITSELF, THE MASTER ROAD PLAN, WHICH YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN YET, I DON'T THINK, AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WHICH I DON'T THINK YOU'VE SEEN THAT EITHER.
NONE OF THESE COMPONENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE STUDY.
THE $300,000 STUDY IS TOOTHLESS WITHOUT ORDINANCES THAT INVOLVE EITHER ZONING OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OR OTHER PLANNING ENFORCEMENT TOOLS.
WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE THOSE ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU PASS THIS? IT'S USELESS WITHOUT THOSE.
WHAT ORDINANCES ARE PLANNED? HAVE YOU SEEN ANY? I HAVE NOT.
WILL THE COUNTY PUSH FOR UNNECESSARY COUNTY WIDE ZONING? I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN SAY THAT FOR SURE.
WILL STAFF EMPLOY PLANNING TOOLS OTHER THAN ZONING TO ENFORCE THE LAND USE PLAN? IS ZONING ALL THEY ARE WILLING TO DO? IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH VAN, I THINK THAT THAT IS THE CASE.
THAT ZONING IS THE WAY IT'S HEADED.
HOW CAN THEY BE ASSURED THAT THAT WON'T HAPPEN FOR THEM? SOME AREAS WOULD BE AMENABLE TO ZONING TO CONTROL DENSITY? BUT WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? WE HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED TONIGHT.
HOW WILL THE COUNTY ADDRESS LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENTS INTO RURAL AREAS, AND WILL THEY? HOW WILL THE COUNTY ADDRESS CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER FLOODING THE ROLAND AREA? IT'S A BIG PROBLEM FOR US.
WHY ARE THESE THREE COMPONENTS PRESENTED PIECEMEAL? I THINK ALL THREE COMPONENTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE QUORUM COURT AT ONCE TO HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE GETTING WITH THE LAND USE STUDY.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE ASK TO SEE IT ALL FIRST BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE.
THEN I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE LAND USE STUDY.
THE STUDY INCLUDES A COLLECTOR ROAD THROUGH A DEVELOPER PROPERTY IN ROLAND, LABELED AS AGRICULTURE OPEN SPACE FOREST BECAUSE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
THIS IS NO MORE THAN A SHAMELESS PRIVATE INTEREST PROMOTION IN MY OPINION.
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE CHANGING IT AFTER THE LAND USE COMPONENTS BECOME LAW WOULD REQUIRE MUCH MORE EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER AND RISK.
THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO APPLY FOR TWO APPLICATIONS, ONE THAT WOULD INCLUDE A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN.
THE SECOND COMPLAINT IS, HOW CAN THIS COMMUNITY EXPECT THE COUNTY STAFF TO ENFORCE LAND USE ORDINANCES WHEN THEY DON'T PROACTIVELY ENFORCE EXISTING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND LAKE MAMA WATERSHED ZONING ORDINANCE NOW.
I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE ISSUES SINCE 2018, AND I CAN ATTEST TO THIS STATEMENT.
>> YES, SORRY. GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR STATE.
>> PLEASE TABLE THIS VOTE UNTIL YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION.
WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT ALL OF IT, INCLUDING ANY PLANS FOR ZONING BEFORE YOU PASS ANY PART OF IT.
ALSO, PLEASE HAVE THEM REMOVE THAT COLLECTOR ROLAND, BEFORE YOU PASS IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. JUSTIN, I'M SORRY, JUSTIN, I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION SO I WILL PAY ATTENTION.
>> SOME PEOPLE SAY I NEED TO BUY A VOW.
>> IS IN THE BALLPARK. I'M A NATIVE TO PULASKI COUNTY.
SIX YEARS AGO, I BUILT A HOUSE OUT IN THE ROLAND AREA.
I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO BUY 23 ACRE LOT.
THAT COLLECTOR ROAD THAT KRISTIE JUST SPOKE OF IS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN LABELED AS A COLLECTOR ROAD, BUT IT GOES THROUGH 6,000 ACRES OF A DEVELOPER'S LAND RIGHT BEHIND MY PROPERTY.
JUST AS A STAKEHOLDER AND A TAXPAYER, I'M JUST WONDERING, WHY IS THAT?
>> YOU HAD MENTIONED CORPORATIONS AND YOU WERE BLINDSIDED BEFORE.
ANYWAY, THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME.
[00:55:01]
I BUILT A HOUSE OUT THERE SO I COULD ENJOY THE STARS AND HAD NO IDEA THAT I WOULD BE STANDING IN FRONT OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, BUT PLEASE KICK IT TO THE SIDE.
LET'S DO SOME MORE STUDIES AND DO IT RIGHT. THANKS.
>> THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH FOR ME TO SAY BECAUSE SENATOR JOHNSON AND MISS YOUNG MAN JUST LEFT HERE SAID IT ALL.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU GUYS NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE.
WE NEED TO HAVE MORE MEETINGS, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.
>> I'VE GOT THREE EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED ARE DESIGNATED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> FIRST ONE IS FROM JERRY SHIRE.
IT SEEMS THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK CONTINUES TO ENCROACH AND OVERREACH INTO PULASKI COUNTY WITH A DESIRE TO IMPLEMENT LAWS AND RULES THAT SPACKS OF AN IMMINENT ANNEXATION.
NEEDING THE BREAD BASKET OF UKRAINE.
OF COURSE, THERE IS NO ARMY TRUDGING OUT INTO THE COUNTY, BUT IT SEEMS THE CITY OR IS IT DELTIC REAL ESTATE THAT NEEDS TO SET FORTH RULES AND REGS THAT REALLY DO NOT MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER AS STATED IN YOUR PURPOSE.
LITTLE ROCK NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE POTHOLES ON CHENAL PARKWAY AND OTHER STREETS, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE INNER CITY BEFORE TRYING TO TELL US IN THE COUNTY WHAT WE NEED.
>> I'M GOING TO PROBABLY BUTCHER THIS LAST NAME.
THIS IS ON BEHALF OF WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE PINNACLE MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY COALITION.
THIS IS EXPRESSING, I GUESS, THEIR STANCE AS A WHOLE, AND IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO FOUR TOPICS.
TOPIC 1, THE LAND USE PLAN AND THE NEED FOR ENFORCEMENT OR ORDINANCES.
QC AUTHORIZED 300,000 FOR THE LAND USE PLAN THAT ADDRESSES THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF PULASKI COUNTY.
THE PLAN IS NOW READY TO BE IS NOW READY FOR PRESENTATION TO THE QC.
BUT THE 300,000 INVESTMENT WILL ACCOMPLISH LITTLE IF IT IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE OR ORDINANCES.
THE PMCC URGES THE QUORUM COURT TO DELAY APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN UNTIL THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING THE RESOURCES REQUIRED CAN BE WRITTEN.
IN THIS WAY, THE PLAN AND ITS ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCES CAN BE APPROVED BY THE QC AT THE SAME TIME, THUS ASSURING THAT THE EXPECTED BENEFITS OF THE $300,000 INVESTMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED.
TOPIC 2. ORDINANCES NEED TO BAN LEAP FROG HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF THE LAND USE PLAN. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME?
>> SORRY. I FEEL LIKE I'M A LONG WAY FROM MIKE.
>> RURAL AREAS OF PLASTIC DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF ROAD AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.
HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH RURAL AREAS AND WOULD CREATE UNSAFE, OVERCROWDED ROADWAYS AND POTENTIAL IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO STREAMS, AQUIFERS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEWAGE FACILITIES THAT ARE NOTORIOUSLY INEFFECTIVE AND MISMANAGED.
DEVELOPERS ARE INCREASINGLY SEEKING TO LEAP FROG OVER AREAS WITH APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFLICT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN RURAL AREAS.
A PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE PROPOSED PARADISE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT NEAR ROLAND.
PMCC URGES THAT THE QUORUM COURT, ONE, DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE TO ACCOMPANY THE LAND USE PLAN THAT DEFINES LEAP FROG AND HIGH DENSITY.
TWO, MODIFY THE LAND USE PLAN AS NEEDED TO BAN LEAPFROG HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS DEFINED IN THE PLAN.
TOPIC 3. THE NEED TO APPLY CHAPTER 8 PROTECTIONS TO THE MILL BAYOU WATERSHED.
CHAPTER 8 CURRENTLY ONLY PROTECTS THE LAKE MA MEL WATERSHED.
CHAPTER 8, THE PULASKI COUNTY CODE DEFINES CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTIONS FOR LAKE MALL MEL WATERSHED, SINCE LAKE MALL MEL IS THE SOURCE FOR OVER 500,000 CUSTOMERS OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS WATER.
A SIMILAR SITUATION EXISTS ON A SMALLER SCALE WITH THE MILL BAYOU WATERSHED WHICH FLOWS NEAR AND THROUGH THE ROLAND AREA.
[01:00:02]
THE AQUIFER THAT LIES BENEATH MILL BAYOU IS RECHARGED BY SURFACE WATERS OF MILL BAYOU.THE AQUIFER IS THE SOURCE FOR MULTIPLE WELLS OPERATED BY MA MEL WATER CORPORATION, WHICH SERVES OVER 1,100 CUSTOMERS.PMCC URGES THE QUORUM COURT TO EXPAND THE PROTECTIONS OF CHAPTER 8 TO THE MILL BAYOU WATERSHED SO THAT CITIZENS THAT DEPEND ON CLEAN WATER FROM BOTH WATERSHEDS, MILL BAYOU AND THE LAKE MAMEL, ARE PROTECTED.
FINALLY, TOPIC 4, A FUTURE COLLECTOR ROAD, THAT WOULD ONLY BENEFIT A SINGLE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE LAND USE PLAN AND ROAD PLAN MAPS.
THE CURRENT MAPS FOR THE LAND AND ROAD PLANS INDICATE A FUTURE ROAD NORTH OF ROLAND AND SOUTH OF ROSS HOLLOW ROAD.
THIS FUTURE ROAD TRAVERSES LAND OWNED PRIMARILY BY A SINGLE DEVELOPER AND ONLY WOULD BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER.
COUNTY FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO BUILD A NEW ROAD THAT BENEFITS ONLY ONE DEVELOPER.
PMCC URGES THE QUORUM COURT TO REMOVE THE ROAD FROM BOTH THE LAND USE AND ROAD PLAN MAPS.
PMCC CAN PROVIDE A MAP SHOWING THE ROAD IN QUESTION, IF NECESSARY.
THERE'S SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ORGANIZATION, BUT I THINK YOU GET THE OF WHAT THEIR OPPOSITION IS.
FINALLY, WE HAVE JOHN KILLINGSWORTH.
MY NAME IS JOHN ALLEN KILLINGSWORTH.
I LIVE AT 2,500 ROLAND CUTOFF ROAD, ROLAND ARKANSAS.
MY PUBLIC COMMENT, I ASK THE QUORUM COURT NOT TO PUT THE LAND USE PLAN ON THE AGENDA.
THIS WILL ALLOW TIME FOR CITIZENS TO FULLY DISCUSS AND UNDERSTAND WITH OUR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, THE VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR THE LAND USE PLANS IMPLEMENTATION. THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR ADAM.
ARE WE DOING THIS OUT OF ORDER? I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT ORDINANCES OR SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE COME FIRST BEFORE THE STUDY.
IS THIS OUT OF ORDER? WHAT DO WE DO?
>> THE PLAN THE PLAN COMES FIRST.
THAT PAINTS THE PICTURE, THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION UPON WHICH I'M LOOKING AT THE OTHER STATUTES AND THE LAW.
YOU'VE GOT THE PLAN THAT PROVIDES THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT YOU USE TO DEVELOP OUT ADDITIONAL OR THE REGULATORY DEVICES, WHICH WOULD BE THE SUBDIVISION SET BACK IN ENTRY CONTROL ORDINANCES.
MASTER ROAD PLAN WOULD HAVE CONTEXT WHEN APPLIED TO THE PLAN ITSELF.
POTENTIALLY ZONING, EACH OF THOSE ARE GENERALLY REGARDED AS SEPARATE DEVICES THAT CAN BE USED.
BUT THIS IS THE STARTING POINT.
IT'S THE GATHERED INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND AND GENERALLY EXISTING LAND USES OR BROADER NETS THAT CAPTURE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
>> JUST MAKING SURE. I SEE SOME LIGHTS ON.
I HAD ONE MORE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUSTICE DAVIS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS AND SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO FINE TUNE IT.
I DO THINK 85% IS FANTASTIC, BUT THERE'S 15% THAT IS PRETTY QUESTIONABLE FOR TWO THIRDS.
>> TABLE AND WE DON'T HAVE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC JUST T.
>> WHEN YOU TABLE IT, YOU TABLE IT AND IT WILL REQUIRE A VOTE TO REMOVE IT FROM THEM.
>> JUST MAKING SURE. YOUR LIGHTS YOUR MICS ARE NOT ON AT THIS TIME, I TURN THEM OFF.
>>I'M SORRY. I WAS HUTCH WAS DISTRACTING ME.
THE MOTION IS TO T IS TO TABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING BACK TO PLANNING, IS THAT?
>> YES. WE GOT A SECOND. NON DEBATABLE.
A MOTION AND SECOND TO TABLE IT, TO SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> MS. MEDLOCK. I HAVE 11 AYES AND THREE NOS.
>> ELEVEN AYES. IT WILL GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
[01:05:02]
AND TELL US AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT BACK?>> RIGHT. WHEN THE ITEM COMES BACK UP, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT IF IT GOES TO THIS PROCESS, THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES TO IT, BUT YES, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE QUORUM COURT TO VOTE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE.
>> EVERYBODY'S AWARE. WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU.
I THINK IF THERE'S NO MORE UNFINISHED BUSINESS, WE'LL JUMP INTO NEW BUSINESS.
[24-I-64 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 (2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SPAY/NEUTER FUND INTO THE SPAY/NEUTER DEPARTMENT. ]
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-I-64?>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SPAY NEUTER FUND INTO THE SPAY NEUTER DEPARTMENT.
>> JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, CAN YOU DO THIS ONE?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24-I-64 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> I THINK THAT WE ARE JUST SENDING FUNDS OVER.
>> WE'VE DONE OVER 1,400 ANIMALS SO FAT THIS YEAR [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S REALLY GOOD. THAT'S AMAZING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS THE MONEY THAT'S COLLECTED FROM THE VOLUNTEER FUND?
>> NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-I-64.
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-I-64 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION. LET'S SEE.
>> YOU GOT ME. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-I-65?
[24-I-65 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 TO BE CHARGED TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR KEEPING PRISONERS OF MUNICIPALITIES IN THE PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 AS AMENDED. ]
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DAILY FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 TO BE CHARGED TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR KEEPING PRISONERS OF MUNICIPALITIES IN THE PULASKI COUNTY REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 14-OR-31 AS AMENDED.>> MOTION WE SEND THIS TO FULL QUORUM COURT WITH DO PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24-I-65 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE MCCOY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> YOUR LIGHTS ON. I TURN THEM ON.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, ANY COMMENTS.
>> I JUST HAD ONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK. I NOTICED THAT THE PRICING ON IT, HAS IT BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THE DOLLAR AMOUNT?
>> IT'S DETERMINED BY LEGISLATIVE AUDIT.
WE SUBMIT THEM BUDGET NUMBERS AND THEN THEY TELL US WHAT THE RATE'S GOING TO BE.
>> NO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-I-65?
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-I-65 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ONE OUT OF ORDER.
[24-I-71 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 (2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SANITATION FUND INTO THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT. ]
AMY, COULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-I-71.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE SANITATION FUND INTO THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT.
>> I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 24-I-71 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE MCCOY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> WE GOT AN EMAIL ON IT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR I'M SURE HUTCH CAN AS WELL.
>> WHEN SANITATION DID THEIR BUDGET A YEAR AGO, I BELIEVE THEY NEGLECTED TO PUT IN THE CONTRACT INCREASE WHICH WE CORRECTED THIS YEAR FOR THE UPCOMING BUDGET, BUT I BELIEVE THEY FORGOT TO DO IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT SHORT FOR THE END OF THE YEAR.
[01:10:02]
>> ANY QUESTIONS? THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, HUTCH. AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-I-71.
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-I-71 TO THE FULL OR COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
[24-I-66 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 (2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS AND REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. ]
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-I-66.>> I ALREADY SPONSORED THAT. WHAT'S GOING?
>> AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS AND REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND THE ITEM TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND AND WE SEND 24-I-66 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE STOWERS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> YES. THESE ARE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. IS ANDY HERE?
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> HI, MY NAME IS KATHERINE ARNOLD.
I'M ANDY'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
THESE FUNDS ARE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR OUR URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAM FOR EQUIPMENT THAT IS NEEDED FOR THAT.
ALSO, FUNDS FOR WHEN THEY WENT TO NEW MEXICO ON A DEPLOYMENT>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR ARNOLD.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-I-66.
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-I-66 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-I-68.
[24-I-68 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING ADDITIONAL SECTIONS IN PULASKI COUNTY AROUND THE NEW FIRE STATION AT 3006 BRUSH MOUNTAIN TRAIL IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS INTO THE WEST PULASKI FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #23 PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE 14-284-224(d). ]
>> AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING ADDITIONAL SECTIONS IN PULASKI COUNTY AROUND THE NEW FIRE STATION AT 3006 BRUSH MOUNTAIN TRAIL IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, INTO THE WEST PULASKI FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, NUMBER 23, PURSUANT TO ARKANSAS CODE 14-284-224D.
>> I MOVE TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SEND 24-I-68 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE DAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> YES. THIS IS JUST SIMPLY LAND ANNEXATION.
BOTH VOLUNTARY FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE ALREADY SIGNED OFF AND SUBMITTED THEIR INFORMATION, AND SO THIS IS JUST THE RED TAPE TO GET IT CLEARED.
THE CHIEF IS HERE WITH US TODAY.
>> CHIEF. [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW.
UNLESS YOU JUST HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, IT DOESN'T APPEAR, YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-I-68?
>> FOURTEEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-I-68 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
[24-I-69 AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. ]
>> AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
>> I MOVE TO SEND IT TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> MOTION WAS MADE WITH A SECOND THAT WE SENT 24-I-69 TO THE FULL QUORUM COURT WITH THE DO PASS RECOMMENDATION.
JUSTICE DAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN?
>> YES. MY THOUGHT BEHIND THIS WAS AFTER THE NETFLIX SPECIAL AIRED AND TAKE THAT AWAY FROM IT,
[01:15:01]
THE FIRST THING I GOT FROM MY CONSTITUENTS WAS HOW DID I NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS JUST NO COMMUNICATION.THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DOCUMENTARY OR THE SHERIFF.
IT'S JUST MORE OF COMMUNICATION.
I JUST WANTED THIS ACTUALLY WILL NOT PREVENT ANYTHING.
ANYONE COULD STILL DO THEIR VIDEOING OR WHATEVER.
BUT THERE IS NOW A PROCESS THAT WE WOULD AT LEAST BE MADE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> JUSTICE BLACKWOOD, I THINK YOU WERE FIRST UP.
>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ADAM SOME QUESTIONS.
ADAM, THIS SAYS THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO GO THROUGH THE COUNTY JUDGE, AM I CORRECT ON THIS?
>> ANY LEASE, I'M SORRY, ANY CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF A COUNTY PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, YES, WOULD BE AN INSTRUMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNTY JUDGE.
NOW, IF IT IMPACTS SOMEBODY THAT OCCUPIES THE SPACE, SO A COURT ROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT ROOMS ARE ASSIGNED BY THE COUNTY JUDGE TO THE CIRCUIT JUDGES, AND IF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OPERATION WOULD BE IMPACTED IN ANY WAY, THE CIRCUIT JUDGE WOULD BE A NECESSARY SIGNATURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT SPACE THAT'S ASSIGNED TO THEM IS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DETERMINE IF IT'S IMPACTED? WHO'S GOING TO DETERMINE THAT?
>> IF IT'S ASSIGNED TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THEN THE ASSESSOR KNOWS WHERE THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE IS.
THE CIRCUIT JUDGES KNOW WHERE THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OFFICES, AND CHAMBERS, AND COURT ROOMS ARE, SO IF A SPACE IS ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER ELECTED OFFICER, THEN THEY WOULD BE A NECESSARY PARTY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT SPACE HAS TO BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> LET'S SAY THAT CHANNEL 7 WANTS TO COME DOWN AND FILM.
>> CHANNEL 7, THEY'RE A MEDIA ORGANIZATION, THEY'RE FILMING, THEY'RE NOT TURNING AROUND AND SELLING THAT FILM.
THAT WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL FILMS.
>> IT'S ONLY SOMEBODY WHO'S SELLING IT?
>> YEAH, COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN TO ADVANCE THEIR PRIVATE COMMERCIAL OR ECONOMIC INTEREST.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO FILM AND SELL THE FILM TO MAKE A MOVIE, AND WE DO HAVE MOVIE SHOT IN THE COURTHOUSE, BY THE WAY, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL FILM, IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO SET UP A FOOD TRUCK IN THE COUNTY PARKING LOT. [OVERLAPPING] >. YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT, SETTING UP A FOOD TRUCK.
THAT WAS ONE OF MY NEXT QUESTIONS.
>> THAT JUST THE PARKING LOTS, THE COUNTY PROPERTY IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S RETAINED BY THE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES OR OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IF A FOOD TRUCK IS GOING TO PARK IN A COUNTY PARKING SPOT, EVEN IF IT'S A PUBLIC PARKING AREA, THAT PUBLIC PARKING AREA IS THERE SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS CONVENIENT ACCESS TO COUNTY SERVICES AND THE STATE SERVICES THROUGH THE COURTHOUSE, AND SO IF THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AT THE VERY LEAST, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME AUTHORIZATION FROM A COUNTY OFFICER.
>> EACH DEPARTMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, IT WILL ALL GO THROUGH THE COUNTY JUDGE?
>> THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOT FROM WHAT I'M READING ON THIS.
>> THE COUNTY JUDGES WHO SIGNS EACH AND EVERY CONTRACT IN THE COUNTY.
>> YEAH. ON THIS, IT SAYS THE COUNTY JUDGE WILL HAVE TO APPROVE EVERY SINGLE ONE.
>> BUT THAT'S ALREADY THE CASE.
THE COUNTY JUDGE'S WHO SIGNS EACH AND EVERY CONTRACT IN PULASKI COUNTY.
>> THEN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THE COUNTY JUDGE WILL HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON EVERY SINGLE THING THAT GOES THROUGH THIS WHILE MAKING THIS, SO NO DEPARTMENT HEADS WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN DEPARTMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A DEPARTMENT DECIDES THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME FOOD TRUCKS AND HAVE A PARTY FOR THEIR DEPARTMENT, THEN THEY CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS THEY GO THROUGH THE COUNTY JUDGE, AND CALL HIM, AND HE HAS TO APPROVE THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOME FOOD TRUCKS FOR THEIR DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A LITTLE PARTY?
>> THE COUNTY JUDGE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY THE CUSTODIAN, THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS CUSTODY OF ALL COUNTY PROPERTIES.
>> IF THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, FOR INSTANCE,
[01:20:01]
WANTED TO INVITE FOOD TRUCKS TO COME OPERATE OUT OF THE COUNTY'S PARKING LOT, THEN CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE GIVEN WHAT IMPACT THE USE OF THAT PARKING LOT FOR THAT PURPOSE WOULD HAVE ON EVERYBODY ELSE, AND THAT IS, IN FACT, THE PART OF THE ROLE OF THE COUNTY JUDGE IS TO BE THE CUSTODIAN OF THE COUNTY PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ADEQUATE FOR ITS INTENDED. [OVERLAPPING]>> IF THIS HAS BEEN THE LAW ALREADY, WHY ARE WE ENACTING IT AGAIN?
>> THIS SETS OUT A SPECIFIC PROCESS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE PROCESS IN PLACE TODAY TO RESTRICT OR TO GUIDE HOW COMMERCIAL USE OF COUNTY PROPERTY IS APPROVED OR CONSIDERED.
>> BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT HE IS THE CUSTODIAN OF ALL THE COUNTY PROPERTY, AND HE IS THE ONE WHO IS THE ONE WHO GIVES CONTROL OF ALL COUNTY PROPERTY, SO IF HE IS, THEN WHY IS HE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT NOW?
>> RIGHT NOW, THE COUNTY JUDGE COULD UNILATERALLY SIGN AN APPROVAL FOR SOMEBODY TO GO FILM AFTER-HOURS IN A COURTROOM.
I THINK THE CIRCUIT JUDGE WHO OCCUPIES THAT SPACE ON A REGULAR BASIS ON A DAILY BASIS WOULD HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT.
WHEN A SPACE IS ASSIGNED TO AN OFFICER, THEY OCCUPY IT, AND SO IF THE COUNTY JUDGE ISN'T GOING TO APPROVE A FILM CREW TO COME SET UP SHOP AND DISRUPT THE TREASURER'S OPERATION, FOR INSTANCE, IF TREASURER WOULD NECESSARILY NEED TO SAY, YES, I'M OKAY WITH THIS.
>> THAT'S PART OF WHAT THIS DOES.
>> I'M STILL SOMEWHAT CONFUSED.
>> IT LAYS THE RULES OF THE ROAD SO THAT THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE SO THAT THE COMMUNICATION CHANNELS ARE OPEN.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, WELL, HERE ARE THE STEPS THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE.
>> BUT SINCE HE ALREADY HAS THAT POWER, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HE NEEDS TO HAVE MORE EXECUTIVE POWER.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS GRANTS ANY ADDITIONAL EXECUTIVE POWER.
>> WELL, THEY'RE NOW SAYING IT CONSTITUTES A MISDEMEANOR.
>> FOR SOMEBODY WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION TO USE COUNTY PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THIS COULD CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR.
>> NOW, THEY ARE SAYING THAT, SO THAT IS GRANTING MORE POWER.
>> THAT DOESN'T GO TO THE COUNTY JUDGE.
THIS BODY GETS TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACT OF A PERSON IS A VIOLATION OR NOT.
>> THIS BODY DECIDES WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A MISDEMEANOR OR NOT.
>> THIS BODY GETS TO SAY WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T A MISDEMEANOR.
IT'S THE PROSECUTOR WHO THEN LOOKS AT THE ACTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED TO DETERMINE.
>> IT'S US THAT'S SAYING THIS CAN BE A MISDEMEANOR OR NOT?
>> WHAT THE VIOLATION IS AND HOW MUCH MONEY THE VIOLATION IS, AND ALL THAT.
THEN IT JUST GIVES THE COUNTY JUDGE THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO HAVE CONTROL OVER ANYBODY THAT COMES IN AND OUT OF ANY OFFICES.
>> I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERSTATEMENT.
BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN ONE OF THE ARTICLES, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE GIVEN.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T GIVE US ANY POWER AT ALL, SO IT TAKES AWAY ALL POWER FROM US IF WE WANTED TO DECIDE THAT IF ANYBODY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, WE HAVE NO POWER AT ALL IF WE PASS THIS.
>> YOU-ALL ARE THE LEGISLATURE, AND THIS IS HOW YOU EXERCISE THE POWER.
>> BUT IF WE PASS THIS, THEN WE LOSE ALL OUR POWER.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU HAVEN'T EXERCISED YOUR POWER, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS A POLICY MAKING BODY.
IT'S A RULES MAKING BODY, IT'S A LAW MAKING BODY.
THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T GET TO EXECUTE THE LAW,
[01:25:02]
THE LEGISLATURE GETS TO MAKE THE LAW.THEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS EXECUTE THE LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH INTERPRETS THE LAW AND THE RULES.
BOTH OF THE OTHER BRANCHES, WHETHER IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, AND WHAT THE LAW MEANS.
IN ARTICLE 3, I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FACTORS IS THAT ANY AGREEMENT THAT'S SIGNED AUTHORIZING THE USE, IT HAS TO STATE THE PUBLIC PURPOSE.
THAT'S TRUE FOR ANY CONTRACT WITH A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.
THERE HAS TO BE A PUBLIC PURPOSE.
WELL, HERE IT'S REQUIRED TO BE STATED IN THE AGREEMENT.
THEN IN ADDITION, THERE HAS TO BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN, AND THAT'S THE EXCHANGE.
THERE HAS TO BE THOUGHT AND INTENT GIVEN TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND THE CONVENIENCE OF PERSONS PRESENT IN THE SPACE OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT.
THE IMPACT THAT IT WOULD HAVE OR INCONVENIENCE ON THE PUBLIC OR PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY, THE CAPACITY OF PERSONS WHO ARE GOING TO BE IN THE SPACE TO ACTUALLY CONSENT TO APPEAR IN THE FILM.
IT PROTECTS COUNTY EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO APPEAR IN THE FILM EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.
IT PROTECTS THE NAME IDENTITY LIKENESS.
THAT'S THE THING THAT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS AND ON LEGISLATIVE TOPICS LATELY.
BUT THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT A PERSON WHO WORKS FOR THE COUNTY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WORK HERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE NECESSARILY THAT THE NAME, IDENTITY AND LIKENESS IS ALSO A FUNCTION THAT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY AND SUBJECT TO BEING CONTRACTED AWAY.
THERE ARE PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS FOR EMPLOYEES.
THERE ARE PROTECTIVE MECHANISMS FOR THE USE OF SPACE ASSIGNED BY OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS, AND THE CONTRACT HAS TO SAY WHAT THE PUBLIC PURPOSE BEING FULFILLED BY THE AGREEMENT IS.
>> [LAUGHTER] JUSTICE STOWERS.
>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE FOR THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
YOU-ALL WANT TO VOICE VOTE OR WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
>> AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COULD YOU RESTATE THAT?
>> COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND RESTATE THAT.
>> IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION, AND THERE WAS A SECOND.
AMY, COULD YOU CALL A ROLL ON THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION FOR 24 I 69?
>> YES. I LOVE BEING DIFFERENT.
>> NOW, WHAT DO WE GET AFTER THAT COUNT?
>> THE MOTION FAILS, AND IT WAS FIVE AYES AND EIGHT NAYS AND ONE ABSTENTION.
>> YOU GUYS ARE BACK TO WHERE YOU LEFT OFF.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM TWO OF OUR CITIZENS HERE.
>> JUSTICE LEWISON. PARDON ME.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT SAYS, AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND POLICIES FOR THE USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
I WANT TO JUST KNOW BECAUSE ALL THIS SHOWED UP, HOW MANY JUDGES IN THE WHOLE STATE DO THE EXACT SAME THING?
>> I DON'T KNOW OF AN ORDINANCE.
THERE MAY BE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES OUT THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER ONE IN THE STATE.
>> ALL COUNTY JUDGES DON'T FOLLOW THE SAME PROCEDURES?
>> IN STATE LAW, YES, BUT THIS IS A COUNTY ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PRESCRIBE A PROCEDURE FOR ENTERING
[01:30:02]
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SOME PRIVATE ACTOR WHO IS SEEKING TO USE A COUNTY FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.>> BUT THESE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, WHY DIDN'T WE EVEN KNOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I JUST HATE WALKING IN AND READING SOMETHING I HAD NO DISCUSSION ABOUT.
>> YOU RECEIVED THIS ON THURSDAY VIA EMAIL, DID YOU NOT?
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I JUST THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT JUST CAME OUT OF THE BLUE.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN ON, I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF THIS, SO I JUST WAS ASKING FOR MORE TIME.
>> YES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CAN ASK FOR MORE TIME TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS EMERGENCY ORDINANCE THAT JUST CAME ON THURSDAY.
>> IS THAT A MOTION TO TABLE OR IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE MOTION?
>> IF SHE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE OR POSTPONE, THAT IS HER DECISION.
>> PORTER, CAN YOU REMIND US THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TABLE?
>> POSTPONEMENT IS TO A SPECIFIC TIME AND DATE.
ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU WANT TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED AGENDA MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE IN JANUARY AT SOMETIME OR POSSIBLY FEBRUARY, ACTUALLY.
>> OR YOU CAN MOVE TO TABLE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A MAJORITY VOTE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE BEFORE IT COULD BE RECONSIDERED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE IT.
>> WELL, YOU SAID THE NEXT ONE WILL BE JANUARY 14, BUT YOU'RE TALKING FEBRUARY?
>> WELL, YOU GUYS WILL MEET FOR AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING, WHICH I WAS GOING TO ANNOUNCE LATER ON THE SEVENTH.
WITH THE FACT THAT COMMITTEES HAVE TO BE FORMED IN THAT ORDINANCE AND THEN POPULATED.
THEN ASSUMING YOU WANT TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, WE'LL REQUIRE A REQUEST TO HAVE A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR THE AGENDA, WHICH WILL ALSO REQUIRE CONSENT FROM THE COUNTY JUDGE TO ALLOW IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD MEET THE DEADLINE TO HAVE AN AGENDA MEETING IN JANUARY, SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY MEAN THE NEXT SCHEDULED AGENDA MEETING, WHICH WOULD ANTICIPATE BE FEBRUARY.
>> I WOULD SAY POSTPONE IT TO FEBRUARY.
>> MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE TABLE 24 I 69, POSTPONE UNTIL OUR FEBRUARY AGENDA MEETING.
I'VE JUST GOT ONE QUESTION, I KNOW THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION, AND WE WANTED TO DO THIS BEFORE WE ALLOWED THE COMMENTS BECAUSE AFTER, IF WE VOTE TO TABLE IT, IS IT ANY REASON TO HEAR THE COMMENTS?
>> THEY STILL CAN MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS AFTER THE FACT.
>> AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL TO POSTPONE UNTIL FEBRUARY 2025?
>> THAT IS FIVE AYES AND EIGHT NAYS. MOTION FAILS.
>> YES. I DID. I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
I DID HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.
WHAT WOULD BE THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR ARTICLE 6, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE THE BODY THAT WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION ON IF THERE'S A PENALTY, OR WOULD IT BE THE JUDGE?
>> THIS BODY MAKES THE RULE, SO THIS IS THE RULE THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THIS BODY, ASSUMING THAT IT'S ADOPTED IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
NOT THE COUNTY JUDGE, A DISTRICT JUDGE WOULD BE THE LIKELY FIRST STEP.
IF A PROSECUTOR LOOKS AT THE FACTS THAT ARE BROUGHT IN BY SOMEBODY OR
[01:35:04]
SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND DECIDES THAT THEY AGREE THAT A A CRIMINAL ACT HAS OCCURRED, THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THIS ORDINANCE, THEN THE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING AN ACTION.THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
IF THE PERSON WHO WAS CONVICTED DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME, IF THEY DISAGREE, THEY WOULD APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT OF THE CIRCUIT, AND THEN IT WOULD GO FROM THERE.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY WHO WOULD BE TASKED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF A VIOLATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
>> DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? YOU HAVE TO LET ME KNOW.
I REMEMBER I TOLD YOU I'LL TURN YOUR MICS BACK ON TO YOU.
JUSTICE CAPPS AND THEN I'LL GET TO YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ABOUT ARTICLE 6.
CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME CLARITY ON THE RATIONALE FOR ADDING A CRIMINAL COMPONENT TO THIS ORDINANCE BY ADDING THE MISDEMEANOR PENALTY?
>> THAT'S THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
JUST HELP ME OUT, THERE IS A GENERAL ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES A CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR VIOLATING AN ORDINANCE ALREADY IN CODE.
THIS JUST SETS OUT THAT IT'S A MISDEMEANOR AND IT PRESCRIBES THE FINE.
THERE IS A FINE PENALTY OF $500 FOR EACH VIOLATION, WHICH IS THE DISINCENTIVE FOR SOMEBODY TO VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE.
>> THE GENERAL ORDINANCE, CAN YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT? I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
>> IT'S BASICALLY YOU CAN'T CAN'T DO A FELONY, IT'S GOT TO BE A MISDEMEANOR, AND YOU CAN PRESCRIBE A PENALTY UP TO $500.
THAT'S STANDARD ORDINANCE FOR ANY VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE.
>> I THINK IT MAY BE UP TO 1,000, BUT IT IT GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE THAT WHEN A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, WHEN SOMEBODY HAS EITHER DONE SOMETHING PROHIBITED BY ORDINANCE OR NOT DONE SOMETHING REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, THEN IT'S SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL CRIMINAL PROVISION IN THE COUNTY'S CODE, AND I THINK THE PENALTY MAXES OUT AT $1,000.
>> THAT IS ACTUALLY ALREADY IN PLACE, AND IT'S JUST REITERATED HERE.
>> THIS IS A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC IN THAT IT ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES THE MINIMUM FINE AMOUNT.
THE GENERAL PENALTY IS IN COUNTY CODE 1-9.
>> THAT'S OKAY. IT IS A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $500 OR DOUBLE SUCH SUM FOR EACH REPETITION THEREOF.
>> EACH DAY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A REPUTATION BY THIS ORDINANCE.
>> THIS IS ACTUALLY DIFFERENT IN THAT EACH DAY IS A SEPARATE VIOLATION, THE GENERAL PROVISION WHICH WOULD SEE TO THE SPECIFIC.
THE GENERAL SAYS IF THEY REPEAT, THEN IT DOUBLES. IT SET A $500,000.
>> WE GOT A FEW OTHER PEOPLE, SO I'LL TRY TO TAKE YOU IN ORDER THAT I SAW YOU.
>> YES. ADAM, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME THIS.
I REALIZED THAT I DON'T KNOW THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY STRONG LANGUAGE.
HAS ANYTHING SUCH AS THIS OCCURRED BEFORE WHEREAS SOMEONE ELSE SIGNED A CONTRACT AND AS OPPOSED TO THE JUDGE?
>> SINCE I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR DEFENDING THE COUNTY [LAUGHTER] I'D RATHER ANSWER THAT.
THERE HAS BEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE AN OFFICER, OTHER THAN THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS SIGNED WHAT PURPORTED TO BE A CONTRACT BINDING THE COUNTY.
PURPORTING. OKAY. WAS THAT IN 2024 OR 2023?
BUT YES, I WAS IN THE RECENT PAST.
>> BUT THAT'S BEEN ARGUED THAT THAT REALLY DIDN'T OCCUR.
THAT INSTEAD IT WAS ANOTHER THING.
COMMISION IOU, WHATEVER IT IS THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE AS OPPOSED TO A CONTRACT THAT WAS SIGNED.
NO, I KNOW YOU KNOW WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT.
[01:40:01]
>> THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
SO WHAT WAS SIGNED [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
THE THING THAT WAS SIGNED SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
WE ONLY HEARD WHAT ONE PERSON SAID AND WHAT ANOTHER PERSON SAID.
>> TO BE FAIR, THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT TO TO CAST JUDGMENT ON WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST.
THIS IS TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO GUARD AGAINST ANY CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE.
>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CAST A JUDGMENT.
MY POINT AGAIN IS THAT THERE'S SO MUCH THAT HAPPENS THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY FULLY AT LIBERTY TO KNOW ABOUT.
>> THIS DOES HAVE A PROVISION THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS TO BE USE OF A PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THAT THE COMM COURT HAS TO BE PROVIDED NOTICE.
>> THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS, IF A CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BEFORE, THEN THIS IS SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONTRACT SIGNED.
I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THERE HAS TO BE A CONTRACT SIGNED BY THE JUDGE IN ORDER FOR CERTAIN THINGS TO TAKE PLACE.
THAT IS TO ENTER THE PROPERTY EVEN.
>> NO. TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
>> TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE BEEN VOTED IN BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
THE CONSTITUENTS EXPECT THAT PERSON TO BE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR OFFICE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT AND HOW IN OTHER WORDS TO EXERCISE VARIOUS DUTIES, WHAT'S NEEDED IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE PERHAPS TO HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND DO SUCH AND SUCH A THING.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS MORE OR LESS OF AN OVERREACH INTO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS' DUTIES, IT TENDS TO LIMIT THEM FROM USING THEIR BEST JUDGMENT PERTAINING TO WHAT, AND I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING FROM HERE, IT IT DOES.
WE HINDSIGHT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
>> EACH COUNTY OFFICER BY STATE LAW IS ASSIGNED SPECIFIC DUTIES.
WHEN A OFFICER FULFILLS THEIR DUTIES, USING COUNTY SPACE, THEY'RE NOT USING THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THEY'RE USING IT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.
WHEN AN OFFICER IS ASSIGNED SPACE, OR EVEN WHEN THE COUNTY JUDGE IS APPROACHED BY A FILM CREW THAT WANTS TO USE THE COURTHOUSE, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT NUMBER 1, YOU'RE NOT INTERRUPTING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF THE THE OFFICERS USE.
>> WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO USE THE COURTHOUSE, YOU SAY?
>> MAYBE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
I CAN SEE WHERE AS SOMEONE WOULD NOT WANT THAT.
BUT THEN AGAIN, AS FAR AS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES GO, I THINK THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WOULD BE THAT WE VOTE THE YEAH OR NAY ON THIS.
>> ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROCESS HERE?
>> NO. WELL, WE ARE AT LIBERTY TO VOTE NO ON THIS, YES.
>> SURE, WE ARE. BUT THEN AT THE VERY SAME THING TIME, IT'S AN OVERREACH.
WE'RE GIVING TO BACK TO WHAT MS. LEWISON INDICATED.
THAT IS WHO CARES ABOUT THE POWER AND WHATEVER.
WE, IN EACH INSTANCE, SHOULD MAYBE BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN THINGS CAN TAKE COURSE.
[01:45:02]
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE COMM COURT IS WHO DECIDES HOW COUNTY PROPERTY IS USED?
>> WELL, NO, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
>> I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING IS THAT TO ME, THIS APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHAT OF AN OVERREACH IN TERMS OF GOING INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S.
COUNTY OFFICIALS ARE TRUSTED BY THEIR CONSTITUENCY.
THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AGREES WITH.
BUT THE ADMINISTRATOR AT THE VERY SAME TIME, I THINK, IF IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE DIPPING OFF INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S SPACE, THE OFFICIAL NEEDS THE AUTONOMY AND KNOW THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AUTONOMY THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS AND THEN NOT HAVE TO YIELD.
I WOULD EXPECT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO RESPECT THE FACT THAT PERHAPS THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE WHO KNOWS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE AREA THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED.
>> THERE'S NO COUNTY OFFICER THAT'S ELECTED TO ENGAGE COUNTY PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
IF THE ASSESSOR DOESN'T GET TO TURN AROUND AND SAY, HEY, BANK, COME USE MY PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY, IT'S ACTUALLY THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY, AND THE COUNTY JUDGE IS THE CUSTODIAN THAT ASSIGNS THE USE OF THAT SPACE TO EACH OFFICER AND TO EACH OFFICER THAT'S HOUSED IN A COUNTY FACILITY, AND TO EACH DEPARTMENT THAT'S OPERATED THAT'S AUTHORIZED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T WANT ONE COUNTY OFFICER INTERRUPTING THE OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS FULFILLMENT OF THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES?
>> SURE. BUT IT'S NOT WITHIN ANYBODY'S STATUTORY DUTY TO THEN TURN AROUND AND USE A SPACE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
THAT'S AN EXTRA CURRICULAR USE.
PROBABLY THE BAD USE OF THE TERM, BUT THAT'S AN EXTRA CURRICULAR USE OF THAT SPACE BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THAT SPACE IS TO FULFILL THE PUBLIC PURPOSE.
>> THERE MUST BE A CONTRACT SIGNED?
>> MY QUESTION WAS, WAS THERE ONE SIGNED?
>> [LAUGHTER] WELL, WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE, THAT IT ESTABLISHES A PROCESS SO THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE A COUNTY FACILITY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, IT ENSURES THAT THE PROPER PROCESSES ARE FOLLOWED.
IT ESTABLISHES THE PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW.
>> THANK YOU, JUSTICE MCMULLEN.
>> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IS YOU CAN'T MAKE MONEY OFF OF SOMETHING BEING DONE ON COUNTY PROPERTY.
YES, YOU HAVE AUTHORITY OVER WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN YOUR FACILITY, BUT IF THERE'S A VIDEO OR A FILM OR A MOVIE OUT AND WE NEVER EVEN KNEW THE MOVIE WAS BEING MADE AND WE HAVE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THINGS THAT HAPPENED WHILE THE MOVIE WAS BEING MADE, THAT THIS IS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF WILLIAM [OVERLLAPPING].
>> HOLD ON. THAT'S A QUESTION TO THE ATTORNEY.
>> IT'S IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT IF SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO FILM THAT IT DOESN'T INTERRUPT COUNTY OBLIGATIONS.
>> APPROVAL. SAY, WE WANT TO MAKE A MOVIE.
>> IT'S GOT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE FACILITY.
IT'S GOT TO PROTECT [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOMEONE TO STILL MAKE A MOVIE AS LONG AS IT WAS APPROVED, AND IT DOESN'T HARM OTHER THINGS WITHIN THAT FACILITY.
>> AIO, THANK YOU. I HAVE MY LIGHT ON.
>> YEAH. IT'S SEVERAL. I'LL GET TO YOU. JUSTICE MASSEY.
>> THANK YOU. I SUPPORT THIS. I THINK IT IS NEEDED.
HOWEVER, I DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 6.
I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IF THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE,
[01:50:02]
IS THERE SOME WAY TO REFLECT THAT THIS IS ALREADY IN PLACE?>> THAT IF THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TWEAKS TO THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE THIS MORE PALATABLE? MS. DAVIS, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT AGENDA MEETING, WE COULD COME UP WITH A COUPLE OF TWEAKS THAT MAY CLARIFY SOME THINGS FOR SOME FOLKS.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I MOVE TO POSTPONE TO TWEAK THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO CHEW.
A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND, POSTPONED 24I69 UNTIL FEBRUARY, UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED AGENDA MEETING JUST TO TWEAK, AS WE SAY.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> ELEVEN AYES. WE WILL POSTPONE 24I69, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET ON RECORD.
>> HAVE THE HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFIN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUSTICES, GOOD EVENING.
>> AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, 24I69 CAME TO MY ATTENTION BECAUSE I READ YOUR AGENDA.
I USED TO TEACH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION ADDED IN 1791 CALLED THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR, THIS ITEM CREATES A NEW CRIME.
IS IT BY AT LEAST $500, WHICH IS A C MISDEMEANOR.
THAT'S THE SAME SENTENCE THAT A JUDGE CAN GIVE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
NOW, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEM IS THIS THING IS SHOT THROUGH WITH IT.
WEDDINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN THE ROTUNDA.
>> THAT'S A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH A WEDDING IS PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IS INCLUDED TO ADVANCE THE PRIVATE INTERESTS.
DOES THE WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER, THEREFORE, WHO FILMS THE WEDDING, RUN THE RISK OF BEING CRIMINALIZED? DOES THE BRIDE AND GROOM GET CRIMINALIZED? DO THE PARENTS OF THE BRIDE AND GROOM CRIMINALIZED? ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ATTEND THE WEDDING ACCESSORIES TO A CRIME? I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP BECAUSE YOU DO WEDDINGS IN THE ROTUNDA.
THE COUNTY JUDGE ISN'T THE PERSON THAT'S ASKED, DO YOU GET THE WEDDING? THEY ASK THE CIRCUIT CLERK WHO HAS THE CUSTODY OF THE ROTUNDA.
UNTIL NOW, NO COUNTY JUDGE OF THIS COUNTY HAS, IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTY, EVER SAID THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY.
WE HAD SO MANY PEOPLE HAVING WEAPONS AND WAS SO MUCH DISRUPTIVE TO THE WORK OF THE CIRCUIT CLERKS, THAT WE HAD THREATENED PEOPLE WITH A CRIME.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE JAIL NOW.
REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE JAIL.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S NOT ABOUT NETFLIX.
BY THE WAY, THE COUNTY JUDGE IS NOT THE CUSTODIAN OF THE PERSONS AT THE COUNTY JAIL.
THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
A 10-TIME DOUBLE DOG DARE ANY LAWYER TO SHOW ME OTHERWISE.
[01:55:04]
TO SAY TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF THAT THE COUNTY SHERIFF CANNOT ADMIT PEOPLE TO THE JAIL TO FILM.THE COUNTY JUDGE MAY NOT LIKE IT, I MAY NOT LIKE IT.
BUT THE COUNTY SHERIFF, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER.
WE ARE EITHER A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS OR WE'RE NOT.
THIS IS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
IT'S ALSO SEPARATIONS OF POWER, THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL TERM.
NOW, THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.
LET ME SAY IT AGAIN IN CASE YOU MISSED IT.
THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM, BY CREATING A CRIME TO CRIMINALIZE BEHAVIOR THAT IS PROTECTED.
FIRST AMENDMENT'S CONDUCT HAS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.
SPEECH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTION, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL SPEECH.
IF I AS A LAWYER OFFER MY CARD TO SOMEONE IN THE CORRIDOR, I AM OFFERING MY SERVICES.
THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ACT UNDER THIS STATUTE.
IF I DON'T GET THE COUNTY JUDGE'S PERMISSION, EVERY TIME I OFFER MY CARD, I AM SUBJECT TO BEING CRIMINALIZED.
I DON'T KNOW A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WHO REALLY WANTS TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLKS WITH THAT BUSINESS.
WELL, LET ME HURRY AND GET IT DONE BECAUSE I COULD STORE ON, BUT I DON'T WANT TO.
SECONDLY, IT'S VAGUE AND OVERBROAD.
THOSE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS TOO FOR FIRST AMENDMENT LAW.
THE TERM IS OVER-INCLUSIVE. THAT'S THE LEGAL TERM.
IT INCLUDES CONDUCT THAT'S PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND CRIMINALIZES.
BECAUSE IT'S PROTECTED SPEECH, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTIONS CALLED STRICT SCRUTINY.
IT HAS TO BE, FIRST OF ALL, HAS TO ADVANCE A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.
I'M SURE WE WANT TO HAVE GOVERNMENT WORK WELL.
[NOISE] BUT IT'S THE SHERIFF'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WORK WELL, IT'S THE COUNTY CLERK'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE COUNTY CLERKS WORK WELL, AND SUCCESSORS JOB TO MAKE SURE SUCCESSORS WORK WELL, IT'S THE TREASURE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE TREASURER WORK WELL.
IT'S NOT THE COUNTY'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE DOESN'T HAVE AN OFFICE PARTY AND HIRE A CATERER, AND THEN HAVE THE CATERER VIDEOTAPED.
LASTLY, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE TIRED OF ME.
[LAUGHTER] ARTICLE 3 IS AMUSING.
ANY SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL STATE THE PUBLIC AND PURPOSE AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMPENSATION OR OTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF THE SPACE.
FOR CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, AND CONVENIENCE OF PERSONS PRESENT IN THE SPACE. I'D LIKE TO BE PRESENT.
ARTICLE 4 TALKS ABOUT REQUIRE THAT NO PERSON CAN BE REQUIRED TO CONFIRM.
I WAS AT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHERE COUNTY JUDGE HYDE APPEARED, WHERE LEGISLATOR COMPLAINED ABOUT THE UNLOCKED NETFLIX SERIES.
I WAS BORN AT NIGHT, BUT IT WASN'T LAST NIGHT.
WHEN THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT NOT ADEQUATE COMPENSATION, I FIND THAT AMUSING BECAUSE THE COUNTY JUDGE REJECTED $60,000 FOR THE UNLOCKED.
I SAID IT OUT LOUD, I DARE HIM TO DENY IT.
[BACKGROUND] WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ADEQUATE COMPENSATION, CONSIDERATION, LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES.
YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO CREATE A NEW CRIME BECAUSE THE COUNTY JUDGE WAS ANNOYED ABOUT THE UNLOCKED DEAL, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHERS AND VIDEOGRAPHERS AND PEOPLE WHO GET ADOPTIONS AND WANT TO HAVE A VIDEOGRAPHY OF THEIR ADOPTION.
[02:00:01]
I DID WEDDINGS IN MY CHAMBERS AS A JUDGE.PEOPLE CALL AND SAY, CAN YOU COME UP? I'M NOT GOING TO GET ON THE PHONE AND CALL THE COUNTY JUDGE, OR NONE OF THE JUDGES ARE GOING TO CALL THE COUNTY JUDGE AND SAY, LISTEN, CAN I HAVE A WEDDING? LASTLY, VIDEOTAPING.
THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS RULES ON WHAT YOU CAN DO.
WHY DOES THE COUNTY JUDGE HAVE TO DO THAT? NOT DO THAT.
BY THE WAY, WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE, MORE SPECIFIC.
IT'S CALLED DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
IF THERE WAS DISORDERLY CONDUCT GOING ON, DON'T YOU THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE DISORDERLY CONDUCT CHARGES BASED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE TREASURER'S OFFICE OR THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE? WHEN THIS THING COMES BACK UP, PLEASE VOTE IT DOWN.
SOME LAWS ARE SO BAD, THEY SHOULD ONLY BE SPOKEN OF WHEN YOU KILL THEM.
YOU SHOULD KILL THEM SO THEY DON'T COME BACK AGAIN.
BECAUSE AFTER YOU END UP AND PUT THIS IN, I PROMISE YOU, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO WRING IT BACK IN.
>> THANK YOU JUDGE GRIFFIN. I AGREE.
>> I'M SORRY. WE HAVE ONE MORE, I'M SORRY.
JUST VERY BRIEFLY, I AGREE 1,000% WITH JUDGE GRIFFIN, THAT'S WHY I LOVE THIS MAN.
HE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU VERY PLAINLY.
SECONDLY, WHERE IS THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE OF PULASKI COUNTY, OR ANY COUNTY JUDGE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ENGAGING IN THIS TYPE OF PRACTICE? WHERE'S THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT? IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO PURSUE THIS, YOU NEED TO DO SOME VETTING.
YOU NEED TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE JUST EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
LET ME SAY THIS, Y'ALL, THIS ISN'T ABOUT NETFLIX, IT IS ABOUT UNLOCKED.
IT IS ABOUT THE COUNTY, MR. CHAIRMAN, HAVING SHOWN TO THE WORLD, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT DID, THAT PULASKI COUNTY WAS WEAKENED SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF HOW IT DOES ITS PRISONERS HERE IN PULASKI COUNTY.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I AGREE WITH JUSTICE LEWISON THIS EVENING, POSTPONE FOR 30 DAYS. GOOD JOB.
>> MS. DAVIS, DID THE COUNTY JUDGE APPROACH YOU AND ASK YOU TO INTRODUCE THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION?
>> HE DID NOT, IT WAS COMPLETELY MY IDEA. [BACKGROUND]
>> WE'RE ALMOST THROUGH. [LAUGHTER] WE CAN JUST GET THROUGH THE LAST THREE.
I KNOW WE HAVE A LATE ITEM, BUT WE STILL HAVE, AMY,
[24-I-70 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR-47 (2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT. ]
COULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-R70? CAN Y'ALL BE MINDFUL THAT SOMETIMES THAT SIDE TALK CAN INTERRUPT?>> IT'S AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FOR THE CRISIS STABILIZATION UNIT.
>> I MOVE THAT WE SEND THIS TO THE FULL CORM COURT TO RECOMMENDED A DUE PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24 R-70 TO THE FULL CORM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN, JUSTICE MASSEY?
>> THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING I THINK WE DO QUARTERLY.
>> MONTHLY. IT'S JUST HOUSEKEEPING, MOVING MONEY FROM ONE PLACE TO THE OTHER.
AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON 24-R70? [NOISE]
>> ELEVEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-R70 TO THE FULL CORM COURT WITH A RECOMMENDED DUE PASS.
OH, NO, WE GOT 24-R71 OUT OF THE WAY.
[02:05:01]
IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO HEAR?>> THIS REQUIRES A MOTION AND THE SECOND TO HEAR.
>> MOTION AND SECOND WAS MADE, THAT WE HEAR THE 24-R72.
AMY, COULD YOU PLEASE READ 24-R72?
[Additional Item]
>> AMENDING ORDINANCE 23-OR47 2024 ANNUAL BUDGET, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND FOR QUALIFYING EXPENSES.
>> I MOVE THAT WE SEND IT TO THE FULL CORM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS.
>> A MOTION WAS MADE WITH THE SECOND THAT WE SEND 24-R72 TO THE FULL CORM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN, JUSTICE LEWISON?
>> I'M AWAKE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE FILING THIS CLEANS UP.
THE ARPA MONEY HAD TO BE SPENT OR APPROPRIATED TO THE PROPER PLACES BY THE END OF 2024.
TAKE CARE OF THE MAJORITY OF THAT.
IT'S STILL GOING TO COVER THE OBLIGATIONS YOU'VE MADE AS FAR AS WITH [NOISE] RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE, WOMEN AND CHILDREN SERVICES, HUNGER ALLIANCE FOR THE LAST YEAR.
AT YOUR NEXT AGENDA MEETING, THERE MIGHT BE A MUCH SMALLER ORDINANCE IN THIS CLEANING UP, IF MY MATH IS WRONG FOR THE END OF THE YEAR.
BUT THAT'LL WIPE THAT OUT AND THAT WOULD HELP ME BY NOT HAVING TO DO THESE REPORTS TO THE FEDS EVERY QUARTER.
>> IS THIS CONTINGENCY FUND MONEY OR NO?
>> JUSTICE CURRY, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF IT'S IN THE UNUSED MONEY THAT HADN'T BEEN IDENTIFIED TO A SPECIFIC [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN BUT YOU'RE GOING INTO THE NEXT CALENDAR YEAR, SO IT HAD TO BE LAID OUT THIS WAY BY PUTTING IT IN THE COUNTY GENERAL.
ALREADY HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET FOR WHAT YOU'VE SAID, AND THIS IS REIMBURSING NOW.
>> HUTCH, IS IT POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF THIS DOLLAR, TO GET AN ITEMIZED BEFORE THE FULL COURT VOTE?
>> WELL, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW WHAT IT IS.
THERE'S A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF COUNTY EXPENSES THAT CAN BE COSTED BACK TO ARPA.
THIS BODY IN, WHEN DID WE GET THIS MONEY? IN '21, THIS BODY DECIDED IT WANTED TO HELP CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HUNGER ALLIANCE, WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST, RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE, [NOISE] INNOVATION HUB. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.
>> YEAH. IT'S THE SAME ONE Y'ALL HAVE BEEN GETTING, I'LL JUST REPRINT IT.
>> WOULD YOU REPRINT IT FOR US?
>> NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AMY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> ELEVEN AYES. WE WILL SEND 24-R72 TO THE FULL CORM COURT WITH THE DUE PASS RECOMMENDATION.
>> WE ADJOURN. ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?
[Announcements ]
COUNSEL. WHAT ABOUT CHRISTMAS NEXT? OUR MEETING IS NEXT WEEK, RIGHT?>> YES. AS IT IS CHRISTMAS, YOU GUYS MEET ON THE THIRD TUESDAY INSTEAD OF THE FOURTH TUESDAY.
ALSO, TO GET IT ON YOUR RADAR, YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING WHERE WE SWEAR YOU IN FOR THE NEW TERMS WILL BE JANUARY 7, 6:00 PM.
WE WILL SEND OUT REMINDERS, BUT LET'S GET OUT AND GET IT ON YOUR RADAR.
>> NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I TAKE IT.
>> WE ARE FINISHED. [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.