By KENDALL OWENS
T-H Staff Writer
After months of discussion, St. Francis County Quorum Court Justices approved incentive bonuses for county employees and elected officials.
By a 7-to-3 margin, with justices Evans Seawood, Regan Hill and Donald Cagle voting against the measure, the court voted to approve the incentive which will pay full-time employees and elected officials $750 and part-time employees and quorum court justices $375. The vote came after a proposal from Hill, which would have paid $500 to full-time employees and elected officials and $250 to part-time employees and justices, died in a 5-to-5 tie. Justice Charles Jones did not attend Tuesday's meeting.
"I don't think that there was ever a question as to whether the justices wanted to give the employees an incentive bonus. There has always been a desire to give the bonus and everyone sees the need for a bonus. The only question was how much we could afford to give. I just don't want anyone to leave here feeling that we did not want to give a bonus because that's not true," Hill explained as he introduced his proposal.
Justice Leodis Williams questioned Hill as to where the ordinance came from due to a lack of discussion on a $500 figure during any talks over the incentive in recent months. According to Hill, the $500 figure was one that he felt safe in offering to the employees.
Justice Evans Seawood, who voted in favor of the $500 bonus, agreed with Williams but asked the court to table the matter until the full court could discuss it.
"I'm just going to tell you how I feel on this. We need to sit down as a court and discuss this because it's like Mr. Williams said, no committee has ever seen this $500 figure. The personnel committee met and suggested one thing and then the budget committee was supposed to take care of this, but there has been some throat cutting going on, and now we have this in front of us. We need to table this thing and come together as a full court so that we can get this settled," Seawood said.
During discussion of the $500 proposal, County Treasurer Ann Harbin introduced a package which used funding from several accounts to supplement funding for the incentive pay. According to Harbin, the elected officials worked together on the package which transferred funds from several accounts including automation accounts in the County Clerk's office, the Circuit Clerk's office, the Treasurer's office and the Collector's office, along with funding from a $5 fee attached to municipal court fines that is supposed to assist in maintenance at the St. Francis County Jail, and funding from the Northeast Arkansas Recycling Center. According to Harbin, the funding will provide $73,625 which will be combined with the $118,237.62 currently in the Workman's Compensation account which is used to fund incentive payments. Harbin told justices that budget talks had called for the need of $60,000 in carryover.
The funding from the Jail Maintenance Account and NEARCO came under question. St. Francis County Sheriff Dave Parkman told justices that he was willing to transfer the funding from the Jail Maintenance Account, but was unsure if the funding could be used in that manner, and he questioned County Attorney Fletcher Long regarding the matter. Long said this morning that he felt sure that the funding in the account could be used for that purpose.
"It's basically a case where you've got money in all these different county general accounts, but it's still basically county general money. I don't think there is a problem with doing this," Long said.
Questions about the NEARCO account were raised after County Judge Carl Cisco told justices that he had no problem using the funding other than the fact that the Solid Waste Account, which is also under his guidance, is currently in the red and the funds currently in the NEARCO account could be used to balance out Solid Waste at the end of the year. Harbin told justices that with one month remaining in the year, she felt that the Solid Waste account might be closer to being balanced by year's end.
Harbin told the court that she provided the figures at the request of Justice Henry Wilkinson as part of the 2005 budget process. Last month Justice Jack Crumbly suggested that elected officials work to find funding from different accounts which might be used to supplement a possible bonus.
"I don't like it, I don't like this one bit," said Seawood. "I don't know what is going on here, but every time we seem to be running out of money we find it from somewhere else. And me and the Sheriff go back a long way. He's a friend of mine and we go back 40 years to the Forrest City Police Department, but folks, the Sheriff was elected to run the Sheriff's Department, and we were elected by the people to run the business of this county, and we're not doing that," he added.
Parkman also responded to Seawood's comments. "Mr. Seawood, I was elected to run the Sheriff's Department, and that's exactly what I'm doing, but I was also elected to support the people in my office and the employees of this county."
The tie vote on the $500 bonus broke down to Hill, along with Seawood, Cagle, O.J. Gandy and B. McCollum, voting in favor of giving the bonus, and Williams, Crumbly and Wilkinson, being joined by Earlene Smith and Sam Armstrong, in voting against it. Hill's plan would have cost the county an estimated $49,500.
Following the failure of Hill's motion, Crumbly sponsored a motion changing the wording of Hill's proposal to $750 for full-time employees and $375 for part-time employees, with the total amount for bonuses being $74,250. Before justices could vote on the matter, County Assessor Craig Jones made a plea for the employees.
"I understand what you all are going through, but I hope that you remember that the employees of this county count on this money at Christmas time. I have three employees in my office right now who make less than $9 per hour and they depend on getting this money. You also need to remember that these are the people that put a good face forward to the public. There are times when they have to deal with irritable people, even though most folks are good to work with, but they are the faces that people see when they come to do business in this courthouse. They really do work hard and they deserve this bonus," Jones said.
In earlier discussions, Seawood told justices that he would not support a $1,000 incentive or a $750 incentive. Tuesday night he stood behind those statements. "I have fought hard for these employees, and I believe the taxpayers in this county expect us to do right by them. We're coming up with money we didn't have a month ago. I got angry with the judge last month, and judge if I owe you an apology, let me give you one right now, for what's been happening in the Road Department. But, we don't have money to fix the roads, and we've put him on a $70,000 monthly budget, but all of a sudden we're coming up with money to pay this bonus. I want to know if we're hiding money or have a secret vault that the elected officials can go to when things get tough."
St. Francis County Clerk Elizabeth Smith responded to Seawood's comments, "We give you all the information every month in your sheets (a list of county revenues, expenditures and accounts). We're not trying to hide anything."
Parkman also made a last plea to the justice's asking that the incentive plan be approved.
"Ya'll ought to see what these employees have to go through on a daily basis. I have someone out of work at the jail right now with injuries because they had to wrestle with one of those inmates and that's the type of thing they have to deal with on a daily basis. These employees deserve this. If they don't get this, some of the employees won't even have a Christmas. We came up with the money for the incentive as we were asked by a justice, and a lot of people have put in a lot of time and effort on this," said Parkman.
Justices McCollum and Gandy were the two changing votes which
granted the incentive.
By KENDALL OWENS
T-H Staff Writer
The St. Francis County Quorum Court approved a payment to the Forrest City Area Chamber of Commerce Tuesday which could help entice a California company to relocate to the former Rubatex building near Colt.
By a 10-0 vote, justices approved the ordinance which will pay the FCACC $200,000 for economic development to be specifically used as part of a package along with Cross County and the State of Arkansas to help bring a plastics company to the vacated building in Colt.
While justices agreed to the ordinance without question, St. Francis County Attorney Fletcher Long suggested that the court exercise caution on the matter. According to Long, unless changes have been made to state laws, counties are not permitted to give or lend money to any private enterprise.
"I have some doubts about this because of a similar situation that happened in Helena/West Helena a few years ago. The law may have changed, but the Arkansas Supreme Court did not allow a similar instance to go through," said Long.
Long told the court that the ordinance was written up giving the funding to the Chamber as economic development funding.
"All we're doing is contracting with the Chamber of Commerce to provide the funding as economic development, which I think is allowable. I just want to caution the court because as the county's attorney, that's what I'm supposed to do," Long said.
The plant, which will make infant car seats, is expected to hire 170 employees in the first year and could increase to 300 employees by its third year in operation. The contract between the three governmental agencies and the company provide for the funding to be paid back if certain stipulations are not met. Cross County will match St. Francis County's $200,000 payment and the state will also help fund the venture.
Justices Jack Crumbly and Leodis Williams approached the court regarding possibly assisting the efforts of Ellis Bell with Bell's Travel Plaza. Bell appeared before the court last year in an effort to get taxes abated for the first 10 years of the existence of his business.
"Ellis Bell had requested a tax abatement from this court for a 10-year period at one of our meetings. Could we not, at a future meeting, through an ordinance similar to this one, give the Chamber funding which could be equal to his annual tax payment. He's certainly not asking for a lump sum payment like we're dealing with here, and since we're helping one private enterprise, I would certainly like to see this court entertain a similar motion for a second entity," said Crumbly.
According to Long, he has made telephone calls to the Association of Arkansas Counties and the Property Appraisers office to check into the legality of such a move. He told justices that he would continue to research the matter and report back to the court at a later date. Long was contacted by Williams on the matter.
By DAVID NICHOL
T-H Staff Writer
A controversial curfew ordinance was left swinging in the wind Tuesday night, as no one would move to adopt it after its third reading.
However, that doesn't mean the curfew issue is dead.
The proposed ordinance would have required children ages 13 and younger to be off the streets after 6:30 p.m., and required those ages 14 to 18 to be off the streets at 9 p.m. The curfew would have been in effect seven days a week.
The city's current curfew is 9 p.m. for those 14 and younger on Sunday through Thursday, and 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday (earlier reported as 10 p.m.). For ages 15-18 the curfew is 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday.
Opponents have said the new proposal was too stringent. Others have said the current curfew would be effective if it was enforced more strictly. Supporters said the proposed times were not necessarily set in stone, and also have said the requirement for three warnings in the current law hamstrings police.
Several citizens spoke on the ordinance.
Robert Barlow said he disagreed with both the times and the fines. "A $50 fine," he said. "A person working at McDonald's or Burger King -- how long do you think it will take to pay a $50 fine or a $500 fine? How long is it going to take a parent to pay a $500 fine when the rent is due? A parent out here, just getting off work at 6:30, doesn't know where his kids are because y'all have locked them up. What kind of sense does a 6:30 curfew make? What's wrong with the curfew that's already on the books. All it's going to hurt are the poor blacks and the poor whites of the city of Forrest City."
He suggested that the question be put to a vote of the people.
Alderman Roy Hancock said that some people have approached him about the ordinance, but added, "I can understand folks complaining about it. But anything you bring up, somebody's going to complain about it. I can understand the time frame, but many times when you adopt an ordinance, it's not to hurt somebody, it's to protect somebody."
He continued, "Most parents, if they are good parents, they know where their kids are...But we need a curfew...But somebody might be out there and get in a fight and start shooting, and a little kid's out there walking the streets and parents don't know where they're at. That's what this ordinance is for. It's not for the parents who tell their kids when to be in...Right now, with as much stuff as is going on, you don't need little kids out walking around at 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock."
Rylan Nimocks, a 16-year-old, also spoke for several young people who attended the meeting.
"In the fall, we practice football until 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock sometimes. And what are we going to do? I've got plenty of friends who walk home," he said. Mayor Larry Bryant answered, "That has nothing to do with this," and said there are provisions for school and church activities.
"Well, how do you know if a kid is coming home from a church activity or not?" Nimocks asked.
Bryant answered that the policeman is supposed to find out something like that.
Bryant then talked about the curfew.
"The whole purpose of it -- and it seems to have brought out a fire storm -- is the basic concept of parents being responsible for their offspring," he said. "If you have children who are 13 or below, and you have no control over them, you shouldn't expect the school board or the police department to be parents for kids walking the street all times of the night. Whatever the body wants to do, is all right with me. I feel good about what I've presented. The time frames, I said earlier, can be adjusted...And I'm not crazy like as was stated in the newspaper (in a letter to the editor)."
Hancock suggested that the ordinance be amended, to state that kids 13 and younger be in at 7 p.m. and not out before 6 a.m. (The current curfew and the proposed curfew use 5 a.m. for all ages).
It was also suggested that the current ordinance simply be amended to remove the three-warning provision.
After some more discussion, Hancock's motion on the times died for lack of a second.
Bryant then asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to adopt the proposed curfew law and no one did.
Alderman Roger Breeding suggested that the curfew question could be addressed later.
By ALAN SMITH
T-H Staff Writer
A unanimous vote by the Forrest City Water Utility Commission on Tuesday will send proposed rate increases to the Forrest City City Council for approval.
In the group's October meeting, commissioners decided that the proposed increase of rates to pay for future projects should be discussed with members of the city council before an official decision was made. That meeting was held in late October, at which time utility manager Jim Beazley explained the increases and that the extra revenue would be used to complete several projects that could cost upwards of $1.7 million.
The projects Beazley has presented for consideration include: Pinch valves and meters for six wells at a cost of $60,000; 16-inch main from Martin Luther King to about Forrest and Garland streets at a cost of $750,000; a study to locate new potential well sites, $150,000; one new well near the prison, $125,000; three new wells at Water Plant 1 (near Sanyo) and one eight-inch main, $275,000.
Also, Beazley said it is hoped that a new water treatment plant will not be necessary until the present bonds are paid out, in 2012, but long-range plans need to be made, just in case the city is forced to go to a deeper aquifer, such as the Sparta Aquifer or the Memphis Sands Aquifer. According to Beazley, both aquifers have plenty of water, but both also contain iron, which may require the building of a new treatment plant. Cones of depression that are forming in the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer, which the utility currently gets its water from, could make this move necessary, according to Beazley.
The rates would increase as follows: The base customer charge for water would go from $5 to $10 a month. For commercial customers, the rate would go from $7 to $10 a month. The basic charge would also go from $5 to $10 a month for customers outside the city.
The per-unit charge, with one unit equaling 100 cubic feet (or about 750 gallons) would increase from $1 to $1.10 for both residential and commercial customers, and from $1.25 to $1.35 for customers outside of town. Sewer rates would also increase, from $1 to $1.25 per unit for residential. Commercial rates would be based on the amount of usage.
Deposits for water usage for new customers that are home owners and owners of commercial properties will remain at $35, but the deposits for renters would increase from $35 to $100. Beazley commented, "We are not trying to pick on renters," stated Beazley, "but they are the most likely to run out on bills. We are also increasing our delinquent account service charge from $15 to $25 to defer some of the loses we have because of people running out on bills. When people don't pay their bills, it costs the people who do pay more money to cover the loss."
Other increases included billing charges to districts from $1.30 to $2; water sales to districts from 77 cents to $1; a sewer charge to Palestine of $1 (there was no previous charge) and service charges to the district from $17 to $25.
At the meeting with the city council members, Beazley provided an example of how the increase would impact residential customers inside Forrest City. A household which uses 8 units in a month, which he said was about average, would see its water charges go from $21 to $28.80. A household which uses 30 units would see its water charges go from $65 to $80.50.
Beazley asked members to approve the rate increases so that the council could consider them.
"Tonight, I would like to go over what we would like to do again and try to have an ordinance drawn up for the next city council meeting," said Beazley. "I'm totally open for any ideas on this. If we can approve this tonight, maybe the council can have the first reading at its next meeting."
Commissioner Ricky Benson asked about a proposal he said he had heard was made by Mayor Larry Bryant to subsidize some funds to the water utility from the city's surplus. "I don't really agree with that," stated Beazley. "The utility is trying to be self-sufficient and operate like a business. When you start using tax money, that is a whole other issue. They are assuming that it is only the older folks who are using low amounts of water, but that is not always true."
Commission Chairman Jimmy King added, "Also, I didn't hear if we were going to get money each year or if it is just for one year."
Beazley reminded commissioners that the proposed increases would be reevaluated after three years to see if the increase was earning the estimated $270,723 a year needed over the next five years for the projects. The members voted unanimously to approve the rate increases and send it to the city council for approval.
Before adjourning, commissioners agreed unanimously to give bonuses to water department employees that are equal to the amount the city council decides to give employees of other departments.
By DAVID NICHOL
T-H Staff Writer
Faced with the possible threat of a lawsuit on one hand and a group of angry residents on the other, the city council tabled action Tuesday on the preliminary plat approval for the Meadowbrook Park subdivision.
The subdivision, if built would be at Dr. Martin Luther King Drive and Ophelia Streets. A group of citizens from Ward I and some from Ward 4 have expressed opposition, claiming there are already more than enough subsidized housing units, and many units stand vacant.
The proposal was originally sent to the city council from the Planning Commission without a recommendation one way or the other. In early October, the council decided more discussions were needed, and the matter was sent back to the planning commission.
At Tuesday's meeting, the preliminary plat was back before the council. Mayor Larry Bryant asked City Attorney Alan Cline to give his opinion.
"My legal opinion is that if an applicant meets all the codes and requirements of the city, meets all of our ordinances...we really don't have a lot of discretion in approving or denying," he said. "I think we have to base our decision on whether they have met the requirements. And if they have, I think the council's discretion is very, very limited."
He said the implications could be that, "I'm certainly not suggesting that these folks have any intention of such, but a negative vote could subject the city to liability."
Some citizens spoke. Timothy Michael was against the subdivision. "I live in Ward 1," he said, and presented a petition which he said represented 65 percent of the people in that area.
"I don't have no objection to the houses being built," Michael said. "My problem is the conditions. He (J.D. Davis, one of the developers, who was present) said that he's going to help the people by building these houses. I don't see that...If he's going to help the people, why not let the people buy the houses from him at the beginning, instead of renting for 15 years?"
Alderman Louise Fields wanted it clarified that the city might actually be sued if the council denies the plat approval. "We set the rules," Cline said, "by our codes and all of our ordinances back some time ago. And if somebody meets those rules, we don't then have a lot of choice...Once somebody has met your rules, it's called discrimination if you don't abide by those rules.
Lola Chalmers, also a resident of the area affected, said she felt that if the council approved the plat, she and the other residents of Ward 1 would be the ones facing discrimination.
"I'm saying that this is a form of discrimination against us, too," she said. "We live in this area, so we should have some say-so about what comes into our area."
There was some more discussion, during which Section 8 housing was brought up. Davis reminded the council that Meadowbrook Park was not Section 8 housing.
However, it was pointed out that the housing was still subsidized.
Pastor Elbert Jones spoke and said that no one was denying that there was already subsidized housing in Ward 1, but that the citizens do not want any more.
At one point, everybody started taking at once, and Bryant called for order. Alderman John Gadberry said that since two council members were missing (Mary Jeffers and Cecil Twillie), that the council table the matter until the next meeting. On a voice vote, a motion to that effect passed. Hancock voted no.
On another matter, there was only one bid received for the catering position at the Forrest City Civic Center, from Christine Duckworth. Bryant said the bid would be studied.
On a related subject, Alderman Louise Fields said she had a list of items from the Civic Center Commission on improvements that need to be made at the facility. The proposals included cleaning and repairing of kitchen equipment and possible replacement of equipment.
On a different subject, Roger Breeding presented copies of a letter to Bryant, asking that action be taken on the building of a new animal shelter. He also presented a possible easement from the Forrest City bypass to the property which was donated for the shelter.
"The city has had this project up for discussion and in the budget for over two years," Breeding said in his letter.
Bryant said he would be contacting the Forrest City Area Humane Society. "I have not been the hold-up," he said.
Bids were also opened on demolishing several condemned structures. There were numerous bids which will be studied. The council agreed to give Willie B. Sparkman more time to work on his house at 508 Davidson Lane, because he had gotten a building permit.
Gadberry brought up the subject of employee bonuses, and was told that bonuses are generally discussed during the first meeting in December.
The Crowley's Ridge Technical Institute Board of Directors has scheduled its last quarterly meeting of 2004 for tomorrow night.
The board members will meet at 6 p.m. on the Crowley's Ridge campus in Forrest City. On the agenda is the financial report for the institution and a report on the 17th annual CRTI Barbecue, which was held in October. They will also set the date for the first meeting of the new year.