In 30 seconds
- Mayor Whitfield was absent. Council Member Don Etherly presided as mayor pro tem and kept his vote. All six members voted on the main items.
- The veto of the district court officer raise stands. The override motion failed 2-4. Joe St. Columbia and Adrian Messina voted to override; Dr. Kyle Miller, Monica Davis, Maxine Miller and Etherly voted no. On October 6 the raise had passed 4-2.
- Treasurer Derrick Turner proposed paying off the LOPFI pension debt early, about $264,748 after the November payment, using $270,000 to $330,000 the water department owes the general fund for sanitation fees. The state would then release $187,157.82 in withheld turnback and about $67,000 a month would free up. Etherly asked that the disputed water figure be settled first. No vote.
- The council waived competitive bidding for a five-year Cintas uniform agreement for 21 water employees, 6-0, with an emergency clause. The not-to-exceed amount, $56,789.20, was worked out at the table from $218.42 a week.
- Water base pay and a salary package were presented but not voted on. The package adds nine positions at $479,605 and raises current staff at a cost of $1,107,524, about $1.5 million in all for 2027. Members said they had received the handout that afternoon. It returns at a special meeting or the next regular meeting.
- The honorary street naming ordinance, number 19-2026, passed 6-0 after five years on the table: a $500 application fee, up to $250 for the sign, and a ten-year term for each designation.
- The November 3 regular meeting is cancelled because it falls on Election Day. The next regular meeting is November 17.
- Disclosure: Council Member Maxine Miller said Robert Cheek, whose campaign publishes Ridge & River, had shared information with members about the LOPFI payoff. He was not at the meeting.
Recap
The Meeting & Attendance
A regular meeting of the Helena-West Helena City Council. Mayor Joseph Whitfield was absent; Council Member Don Etherly presided as mayor pro tem . The roll call recorded four members present : Maxine Miller, Monica Davis, Etherly and Joe St. Columbia. Adrian Messina and Dr. Kyle Miller voted on every later item, so all six took part. City Clerk Sandi Ramsey called the votes. City Treasurer Derrick Turner, City Attorney Andre Valley, District Judge Jason Carter, Water Superintendent Saeed Rose and Dr. Xavier Hodo of the school district also spoke. Asked how a 3-3 tie would work with a council member in the chair, Valley said the pro tem keeps his own vote and does not get a second one; four votes are needed to override a veto .
Treasurer's Report: Paying Off LOPFI Early
Turner said he and the mayor want to pay off the LOPFI pension debt. The balance was a little over $330,000 after the October 10 payment and will be $264,748.08 after November's . The city pays about $67,000 a month under a plan entered last year . The state has been withholding the city's turnback money because of the arrears; it holds $187,157.82 and will release it once the plan is paid off . Turner asked for $270,000 to $330,000 from the money the water department owes the general fund for sanitation fees . Etherly said the amount water owes is disputed, 'whether it's actually $2 million or not,' and should be settled first ; he also wants a plan for the freed cash, with the IRS debt 'way up' the list . Valley called the payoff a good idea and said that after the November payment the held turnback nearly covers the rest, 'basically a wash' . Maxine Miller said she was excited about it, that Robert Cheek had shared some of this information with members, and that the $67,000 a month should go to the IRS next . Turner said his books through the 2024 water audit make him confident of the amount owed and agreed to resolve the dispute with Etherly . Later he added that the city has paid down $661,870 on LOPFI in 2026 . No vote.
Event Permit: Get Out the Vote at Waddell Simes Park
The permit is for a 'Get Out the Vote' event at Waddell Simes Park on Saturday, October 24, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with 100 people expected . Etherly said it reserves the park and closes no streets . Davis moved to approve and Maxine Miller seconded . The clerk began the roll call; the treasurer interrupted with an addition to his report, and no tally was announced before the chair moved on.
District Court Officer: The Veto Stands, 2-4
On October 6 the council voted 4-2 to raise the senior district court officer from $17.00 to $19.23 an hour. The mayor vetoed it the next day for five reasons, among them that the officer lacks the certification the junior officer holds and that the base pay ordinance makes no distinction between court officers . Judge Carter asked the council to override. The senior officer supervises the junior officer, who makes $19.23 as a full-time certified officer, while the senior officer's part-time certification puts him at $17 . No other supervisor at City Hall makes less than the person they supervise, he said . If the officer quits, a certified replacement would cost the same $19.23 with no court experience . He has been a court officer for 13 years and with the city 15 ; he is on the police roster but reports to the judge . St. Columbia moved to override and Messina seconded . Etherly restated his position: the year began with a $1.3 million budget surplus, most of it already committed to payments like LOPFI , and with police overtime and the garbage truck money the city is 'on track to end up at the same place we've always ended up with deficits' . Messina said the raise is $2.23 an hour while the water department asked to hire eight people ; Etherly answered that water money and the general fund cannot be mixed . The roll call: St. Columbia yes, Dr. Miller no, Davis no, Messina yes, Maxine Miller no, Etherly no . The motion failed 2-4 . Afterward Messina said the city has too many people working at City Hall . Valley said legislative audit was told the city had 140 employees, that it had 128 when Etherly became interim mayor, and that it has stayed under 100 since, about 96 to 98 now . Dr. Miller explained his no: law enforcement contacts told him after the last meeting that a part-time-certified officer technically cannot supervise a full-time one; he compared it to certified and uncertified teachers . Valley agreed that is the state training standard and said he hopes the officer stays .
School District: Thanks for Homecoming
Dr. Xavier Hodo thanked the council for the city's support of Homecoming Week: the parade, the first responders versus faculty game, and the police presence at the game . He added that the district is one of three in the state to receive a $615,000 technology grant and that the council's letter of support helped . Dr. Miller commended the district on the turnout .
Honorary Street Names: Ordinance 19-2026, 6-0
Valley presented the honorary street naming ordinance, tabled four or five years ago over the fee . It does not rename streets; it adds a black-and-gold honorary sign above or below the regular sign, limited to one to three blocks. Designations expire after ten years, including those already in place . The applicant pays all costs plus a non-refundable application fee . Etherly asked what the fee should be for a city with a tremendous amount of debt and later argued for more than $100, since the planning commission's 750-signature requirement means one fundraiser would cover $500 . Valley said the commission suggested $300 to $500 five years ago and left the amount to the council . The clerk said a plain street sign costs $26 . Dr. Miller proposed $500 for the application and $250 toward the sign ; the clerk asked who pays if a sign is stolen or run over, and the applicant's responsibility for repair was added . Valley restated the changes: Department of Public Works becomes Street Department, a $500 non-refundable application fee, a sign cost up to $250, and applicant responsibility for maintenance and repair . Maxine Miller moved and Davis seconded to place Ordinance 19-2026 on its third and final reading by title ; Davis moved and Maxine Miller seconded to adopt . The vote was 6-0 .
Water Base Pay and Salaries: No Vote
The water department items came as a loose handout laid on the desk that evening, not in the mayor's packet; Valley said he put Rose's spreadsheet numbers into a base pay ordinance that afternoon . Base pay creates a position and its minimum salary; funding is a separate step . The city has advertised a general manager at $100,000 without filling it; the draft sets $96,000 . Clerks move from $11 an hour ($22,880) to $13 ($27,040) ; three plant operators are listed at $33,280 . Valley re-added 13 laborers he had left out by mistake, at $14.42 an hour or $29,993.60 . Rose said the department pays contractors about $100,000 that could pay staff , is under two consent orders requiring it to be financially sufficient , and must avoid salary compression, where new hires would out-earn the supervisors training them . Five maintenance workers cover two water systems, a rural system and the sewer . The ordinance requires licensed water operators to be paid at least $50,000, and the handout includes a 3.5% cost-of-living increase, the first in almost four years . The department has 16 on staff and 19 funded positions; eight more would bring it to 25 to 27, against 30 to 35 at Forrest City, the closest comparable system . Rose said he is the first manager to run the department without multiple supervisors . The new positions would cost $479,605.09 in the 2027 budget and the adjustments for current staff $1,107,524.16 , about $1.5 million in all. Turner asked why a base pay ordinance carried a cost-of-living figure; Rose said base pay comes first and the adjustment after . Valley said Rose needs to move forward 'at some point, expeditiously' . Etherly said he received the package between 3 and 4 that afternoon, supports more water staff and competitive pay, but was not at a level of comfort to vote . St. Columbia said he was not ready to move forward . The item returns at a special meeting or the next regular meeting, and Turner asked Rose to come by his office the next day to review the numbers . Messina suggested showing the spreadsheets on the chamber television next time .
Uniforms: Bidding Waived, 6-0, With an Emergency Clause
On October 6 the council approved a five-year Cintas uniform contract for 21 water workers, to go to negotiation. The signed agreement is dated October 7 and runs 60 months from installation . Rose asked for a bidding-waiver ordinance covering 21 employees instead of 11; Cintas told him the city is charged only for uniforms actually issued . The earlier figure of $33,344.90 was for 11 employees . Cintas quoted $218.42 a week for 21 . Dr. Miller first multiplied to $114,000 for five years; the table corrected the arithmetic to 52 weeks , and Valley gave the five-year figure: $218.42 times 52 times 5 is $56,789.20 . Valley drafted the waiver ordinance at the table and asked for Cintas's Memphis address . With the rules suspended, Davis moved and Maxine Miller seconded to place the ordinance on final reading by title, in an amount not to exceed $56,789.20; the vote was six yes . Maxine Miller moved and Davis seconded to adopt; all yes . Davis moved and Maxine Miller seconded the emergency clause, which passed on a separate roll call, so the ordinance took effect at once .
Before Adjourning: No Meeting on Election Day
The next regular meeting would fall on Tuesday, November 3, Election Day. Etherly said he would not be there and expected no quorum . On a motion by Davis, seconded by Maxine Miller, the council cancelled that meeting, 6-0; the next regular meeting is the third Tuesday, November 17, unless a special meeting is called. Etherly closed with 'good luck to all of you' and the meeting adjourned .
The documents
Everything the council had in front of it, summarized. Page stamps open that page in the document desk.
October 20, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda
Agenda for the regular meeting: call to order, prayer and pledge, roll call, the treasurer's report, and five items of new business. The items are an event proposal (Get Out the Vote, Raymond Simes and Charles Price), examination of the mayor's veto of the district court officer raise, a letter of appreciation from the Helena-West Helena School District, review of an updated name change ordinance for city streets, and two water department items: an amended base pay ordinance with new water department salaries, and a new uniform invoice.
| New business items | 5 | |
| Water department items | 2 |
Text document — see the agenda link below.
Event Permit Application: Get Out the Vote, Waddell Simes Park
City event permit application received October 9, 2026 for a 'Get Out the Vote' event at Waddell Simes Park on Saturday, October 24, 2026, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Event producers Mark Price and Raymond Simes. Checked as not-for-profit and public, with elevated noise levels and tents; no street closing, no alcohol. Expected attendance 100, peak at noon. Site preparation from 8 a.m., clean-up by 2 p.m. Signed October 9, 2026. The applicant's contact details and signature are not reproduced.
| Event date | Oct 24, 2026, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. | |
| Expected attendance | 100 |
Mayor's Veto of the District Court Officer Raise (October 7, 2026)
One-page letter from Mayor Whitfield to the city clerk vetoing the raise the council approved on October 6. Five reasons: the officer does not meet the certifications of the other officer who received a raise; the base pay ordinance draws no distinction or hierarchy between district court officers; the city has previously issued raises and bonuses without a formal system; several departments fall short of livable wages, mostly funded by the general fund; and the city will implement livable wages once on firmer financial footing. The mayor writes that the decision is not a reflection of the employees' value and that he is open to revisiting the issue at a more appropriate time.
| Reasons listed | 5 | |
| Dated | October 7, 2026 |
School District Letter of Appreciation (October 12, 2026)
Letter from Xavier M. Hodo, Sr., Ed.D., on behalf of the Helena-West Helena School District, thanking the city for its support during Homecoming Week: the parade, tailgating and the game, and the first responders who played in the Faculty vs. First Responders game at Central High School on Friday, October 9, 2026. The letter asks that it be presented at the next council meeting for formal acceptance.
| Faculty vs. First Responders game | October 9, 2026 |
Base Pay Ordinance (first page of the amended draft)
First page of the four-page draft 'Base Pay Ordinance' (number blank, 2026), an ordinance to fix the number and base pay of full-time city employees and elected officials. Article 1 lists positions by department with the number of each and the base pay. On this page: mayor $60,000; HR director $32,000; chief of staff $55,000; executive secretary, janitors and security officer $22,880; city clerk $42,000; treasurer $22,200; city attorney $42,000; six council members $9,600 each; chief court clerk $36,000; three deputy court clerks $31,200; two district court officers $26,312. The water department pages of the amended draft were distributed as a loose handout and are not reproduced here; the two spreadsheets that accompanied them follow.
| Mayor | $60,000 | |
| Council members (6) | $9,600 each | |
| District court officers (2) | $26,312 |
Water Department: Proposed Base Pay for Nine Positions
Spreadsheet of nine proposed water department positions with an hourly base pay, a 3.5% cost-of-living addition, gross pay per period, employer taxes and benefits, workers' compensation, annual salary and total cost per employee. Field dispatch/tech $19.23 an hour ($41,398 a year); meter reader $14.42 ($31,043); meter/service tech $15.38 ($33,110); service/maintenance I $14.42 and II $16.35; equipment operator I $17.31 and II $18.75; team lead $20.19 ($43,465); wastewater supervisor $23.08 ($49,687). Total annual salary for the nine positions $342,575.06; total cost with benefits $479,605.09.
| Positions | 9 | |
| Total annual salary | $342,575.06 | |
| Total cost with benefits | $479,605.09 |
Water Department: Current Staff and Proposed Pay
Spreadsheet of the water department's current pay and the proposed pay for 19 lines: ten field employees, five clerks, the superintendent, and three unfilled positions (general manager and two water operators). Columns show the current hourly rate, a pending rate, a 3.5% cost-of-living addition, employer taxes and benefits, annual salary and total cost. Current hourly rates run from $11.50 to $28.84; most field rates move to $14.42 or higher. The general manager is listed at $48.08 an hour ($103,506.62 a year) and each water operator at $24.04 ($51,753.31). Total annual salary $791,088.69; total cost with benefits $1,107,524.16. Employee names are not reproduced.
| Lines | 19 (3 unfilled) | |
| Total annual salary | $791,088.69 | |
| Total cost with benefits | $1,107,524.16 |
Cintas Rental Service Agreement (October 7, 2026)
Seven-page Cintas uniform rental agreement for Helena-West Helena Water, 702 Cherry Street, dated October 7, 2026, for a term of 60 months from the date of installation. Garments: men's cargo pants at $0.76 per garment per week and shirts at $0.59, six of each per wearer, plus uniform, emblem, premium and prep programs at $0.08 to $0.16 per garment per week. Emblem, preparation, special-cut and size-change charges are listed, as are facility items such as lockers and a shop towel container. The terms allow Cintas to raise prices on notice, with the customer able to reject within ten days, after which Cintas may terminate; late invoices carry interest up to 18% a year. The pages do not state the number of employees or a weekly total; the $218.42 a week for 21 employees was given at the meeting. Signed for the city by Mayor Joseph Whitfield; the sales representative's name is not reproduced.
| Term | 60 months | |
| Pants, per garment per week | $0.76 | |
| Shirts, per garment per week | $0.59 | |
| Late interest | up to 18% a year |
Transcript
Auto-generated from the meeting video's audio and lightly cleaned for readability — wording is kept as spoken, not corrected, except that machine-garbled names of city officials are normalized against the roster. Speaker names follow the attribution work in our governance record; a ° marks a name our reviewers have not yet verified. Every timestamp plays the city's video from that moment. Watch the full meeting ↗
0:00
Unidentified .
0:30
Roll call Roll call (attendance) — present: Maxine Miller, Joe St. Columbia, Don Etherly, Monica Davis. Not recorded present: Dr. Kyle Miller, Adrian Messina (captions incomplete; attendance unverified).
0:48
Council Member Don Etherly All right, we do have a quorum. For all of those who are tuning in, Mayor Whitfield will not be here tonight. I will sit in as pro tem and preside over this meeting. You should have your agendas placed in front of you. And the first item on the agenda is going to be the treasurer's report.
1:08
City Treasurer Derrick Turner Okay, thank you, Mr. Etherly. I'm just going to keep this brief. The mayor and I have been discussing for probably the last few weeks about paying off the lot fee balance that we owe as of what's this October as of September well as of October actually because we made a payment October 10th so we owe lot fee on that agreement $330,000 a little over $330,000 and that's as of the October payment as of the November payment we would owe them $264,000, a little over $264,000. So what we want to do is go on and pay them off and try to get the, well, not try, and once we pay them off, they will release the state turn back arrears to us in full. And, but that may take a month or so. But once we pay that agreement off, we can start, we will get the arrears and then they will start the current payment on the state turn back. And we want to use the money, some of the money that the water department owes us on sanitation fees. So asking for approximately between 270 and 330,000 to pay this off so we can start with the, start receiving the turn back funds, get this out of the way, start with, start receiving the turn back funds and so we kind of want to know how you guys felt about it I guess I guess for background information the the payment
3:01
Council Member Don Etherly plan on life fee we entered into last year 60 60 sell approximately 67 thousand dollars per month the state had been withholding our turn back money because of the deficiency with laughing and but what they did is they withheld turnback money but it's not dispersed or credited towards the debt at the time that the debt is paid off then they will release the turnback money so it accrues every month but they're holding it and then once the uh once the lot fee payment plan is completed they'll release that turnback money to us in bulk and then we would free up about 67 000 per month in cash flow that's the background Any comments, thoughts?
3:48
Unidentified I have a few.
3:50
Unidentified Okay.
3:53
Council Member Don Etherly Well, the first thing I would want is to have the issue as to what the actual debt to, I've alluded to this a couple of times here at this table, but just so I say alluded to, I haven't addressed it head on. the precise amount that may be owed to the general fund for water, I know that it's disputed as to whether it's actually $2 million or not. And so I would want that resolved first before we start doing this. And that's not something that should take a long, long time, but I think we should address that first so that we know precisely what's owed to water. I mean, the number is disputed. That's internal. It's disputed, and I would want that resolved first. As far as it goes, I mean, it makes sense. I had this thought last year. We talked about it last year in the Treasurer. It makes sense. The only thing I would say is that coming into that added cash flow, I would want us to have a plan as to what we do going forward as far as addressing the other debt. We have a tendency in this city to, you know, Once we get a little cash in our hand, we start thinking of all kinds of things that we can do. But I maintain, as I have, if we don't get our debt taken care of, this ship ain't going very far. And so I think that ought to be priority for us to take care of this. So I would want us to have a plan as to what we do after that in terms of what we attack and how we attack it. IRS is out there way up. There's some other strategic things that I think we should target to pay off. But those are my thoughts.
5:32
Unidentified Good. Good.
5:38
City Attorney Andre Valley My thoughts on it is, I think it's a good idea. I think the $6,000, $7,000 needs to go to retiring some of the other payment plans that you have so that we can begin to pay off some things and then have some breathing room. But you all may have other thoughts on that. You all are in charge of the finances. But so that we can get clear up to $67,000 received. Do you know the precise amount that they're holding at this point? When I say the price of that holding, I mean precise amount of turn back
6:08
City Treasurer Derrick Turner that's been held by the state because the city was in arrears and locking. It's $187,157.82.
6:21
Unidentified 187 15782. And then. What will be the balance in November?
6:32
Unidentified Um, after we make the November payment?
6:36
Unidentified Yes sir.
6:37
City Treasurer Derrick Turner Um, $264,748.08.
6:44
Unidentified So roughly what you're saying is, it's basically a wash.
6:51
City Attorney Andre Valley Yeah.
6:51
City Attorney Andre Valley So you pay the November payment, and then between the term back and what's, you also paid, you're only talking about an extra $5,000 or $10,000.
7:07
Unidentified Any comments, thoughts, anybody want to share?
7:11
Council Member Maxine Miller We have any questions for the treasurer? Well, I'm excited about it.
7:14
Unidentified I know you brought this to the table once before and I also want to say that I'm glad I know that Mr. Cheek had shared some of this information with us as well so I think it's a good thing that we are going to go ahead and move forward with it again I do I my concern is that we stay on task about what I think is most important well you know we discussed the last City Council meeting once we pay this off, use the 67, roughly $67,000 that we're paying towards life and start knocking off the IRS. So I assume between now and the next meeting, maybe there'll be some proposals brought to us or some more information.
8:05
City Treasurer Derrick Turner Now, okay, so I can, the audit, from what I have on my books at 24 because that's when we did the last water audit I'm on off a couple thousand dollars so I I feel confident that the amount that's owed to the general fund is accurate but I can I don't not exactly the way it was it's been told to me so i i i do want that resolved i think there's a need to have that resolved uh internally so that we know where we are and we can move forward cleanly and so yeah well get get with me yes sir yes sir and let me know what i you know what you would be comfortable with and i can start working on it or where your doubts are you can yes sir yes okay i'll do that
9:02
Unidentified Any other thoughts or comments?
9:06
Unidentified Okay.
9:07
Council Member Don Etherly Next item on the agenda is going to be an event proposal. It's in your packet on the first page. Get out the vote. Wardell Simes Park produces our primary contact is Mark Price and Raymond Simes and this event is scheduled for October 24th. I was looking for the date, October 24th. I was looking to see if all the signatures were obtained. I don't see any at all, but this is not, This event permit is not I don't think it's to block off any streets is to use the part So I guess this is just to make sure that they had it reserved for whatever purposes Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. I just got this today as well motion by Davis to approve the event permit is there a second second second by Miss Miller any discussion madam Clark you will please call the roll yes yes
10:44
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey° Mr. St. Columbia?
10:45
Council Member Joe St. Columbia° Yeah.
10:46
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey° Ms. Davis?
10:47
Council Member Monica Davis° Yes.
10:49
Unidentified And Mr. Ether, can I ask something before you move on?
10:52
Unidentified Yes, sir.
10:53
City Treasurer Derrick Turner I think I neglected to state that for the year 2026, we've paid down $661,870 on lot fee. So we've made a, took out a big chunk of it. And I want to listen in public to know that that's something that we've been working on.
11:16
Unidentified Yes, sir. Yeah.
11:17
Council Member Don Etherly Of course, at $67,000 a month, we couldn't help but pay it down. They would default us on it.
11:23
Unidentified Yes, sir. That's good to know.
11:24
Unidentified It's coming down. It'll be a relief to have it gone because it frees up so much cash.
11:34
Unidentified I'm sorry, say that. Superintendent.
11:36
Council Member Don Etherly Oh, yeah. The next item on the agenda is going to be the district court officer Ray's veto. It's going to come right behind the event permit. And you'll see the veto that was issued by Mayor Whitfield dated October the 7th, 2026. And for purposes of formalizing this veto, you can consider this presented to you on this evening. and Judge Carter is here. I believe he wants to address the body. Regarding the veto, Judge Carter, you can come up.
12:15
District Judge Jason Carter Thank you, Mr. Etherly. Good evening, Council. Yeah, I'm here again. I was here two weeks ago, and you voted to do a salary adjustment for the senior court officer who is the supervisor of the junior court officer. The junior court officer making what a full-time certified officer makes 1923 an hour. The senior court officer has a part time certification. So according to the, I guess the ordinance that you all passed regarding the police department, he's only entitled to be paid $17 an hour. Two weeks ago, you all voted to increase the supervisors paid in 1923, which is what the subordinate is making. I would ask that you all consider overturning the mayor's veto. I understand that you know when it comes to the city's finances you have to consider things very carefully but you have to look at each situation individually. You can't just look at all of them the same. Do the clerks in my office deserve a raise? Absolutely. Do the other people at City Hall deserve a raise? Absolutely. Are there any other supervisors at City Hall making less than the person they're supervising? No. There's one and that's the senior court officer. My worry is that if you don't overturn the veto he may decide that he doesn't feel that I mean I know how I would feel if I was having to supervise somebody and they were making more money than me and my worry is that he's gonna leave and if he does I have to go find a new court officer and if I find one that's full-time certified you know what the city's gonna pay exactly what I'm asking for right now the 1923 an hour but I could go get somebody fresh out of the Academy with no experience in being a court officer, but they have a full-time certification. And if I decide to hire that person, we're going to pay him 19.23 an hour. Why not just keep the person that's been here for 15 years, who is the supervisor, and pay him 19.23 an hour? Financially, if he leaves, it's financially the same. Basically, you're You're gambling that he's going to stay and just accept this lower payment. You're telling a supervisor that it's okay for the person with less responsibilities to make more money than he does. That's why this situation is not like all the other situations. You know, I do understand Mr. Etherly's point that, you know, we're not in the financial situation to just be giving out raises. But like I say, if he quits and I hire a full-time certified officer, you're going to be paying exactly what I'm asking for anyway. But we're going to have a less qualified person in the position. I respectfully ask that you consider overturning the mayor's veto. I'm happy to answer any questions you've got.
15:38
Unidentified Anybody has a clue if you have any questions for Judge Carter?
15:42
Council Member Maxine Miller I did want to ask something. And so whenever you came once before, the only thing that sort of made you hesitate was the fact that, you know, his supervision capability, you know, supervising the other officer. And, you know, there was some conversation that I heard later that technically he can't really supervise because of his classification. Can you help me? I mean, and that may not have been true. I mean, can you clear that up a little bit for me?
16:17
District Judge Jason Carter If that's the case, that's news to me because he is supervising the other officer.
16:22
Unidentified He has more responsibilities. He is the person that I delegate that he says who's going to serve subpoenas, who's going to serve the warrants. He is the chief person responsible for the security of me and all the people in the courtroom. The other officer does not have that same responsibility. You know, when you've got, we haven't had one, thankfully, since I've been the judge, but if you have an emergency situation, you have to have one person in charge. You can't have two people in charge. He's the one that's going to make decisions on what's going to happen if somebody comes in that courtroom and something happens. That's his responsibility. He has the experience, he has the training, and that's his job. How long has this individual been with the doctor?
17:11
District Judge Jason Carter I believe he's been a court officer for 13 years.
17:14
Unidentified Before that, he was an officer with the city for two years, I think. So he's been with the city for 15 years.
17:20
Unidentified He's been with the city for 15 years.
17:23
Unidentified And the person that he's supervising has...
17:26
Unidentified Good employees are hard to find, and I totally agree.
17:33
Unidentified Yes, sir.
17:34
Unidentified Is he going to teach directly on the E?
17:36
Unidentified Yes, sir.
17:37
District Judge Jason Carter He is. He's on the police roster, and so it's kind of a strange situation where he's on the police roster, but he reports to me as the judge.
17:53
Council Member Adrian Messina We're just talking about $2.35 an hour difference.
17:57
Unidentified $2.23, I believe.
17:59
Unidentified $2.23. Yes, sir.
18:01
Unidentified And like I say, if he decides that he wants to quit because he doesn't feel that, you know, he wants to supervise somebody making more than him,
18:10
Unidentified and I find somebody else that's a full-time certified officer, you're going to pay them the 1923 that I'm asking for. And it, you know, it might, I've kind of had a policy where I don't try to hire officers who are already working for the city, but there might be an officer that already works for the city that decides that they want to come be a court officer, and then you're going to have one less full-time officer. Any other questions?
18:49
Council Member Joe St. Columbia Comments? So the veto has been presented to you. At this point, Ms. Carter's addressed. Anyone desires to take action, this is your time. I make a motion that we override the Mayor's veto.
19:09
Council Member Adrian Messina I second.
19:11
Unidentified Motion has been made by Mr. St. Columbia to override the Mayor's veto.
19:16
Unidentified Second has been made by Mr. Messina. Is there any additional discussion? Can I ask a question?
19:25
City Treasurer Derrick Turner Yes, sir.
19:25
City Treasurer Derrick Turner So the mayor is now here.
19:27
Unidentified You're serving as the mayor pro tem, right? Yes, sir.
19:30
Unidentified If you get 3-3 vote, how does that work?
19:36
City Attorney Andre Valley He still can vote if he so soon as the mayor can choose.
19:39
Unidentified He doesn't leave his council designation because he's sitting as mayor pro tem because he's not the mayor. So he can make two votes?
19:48
Unidentified No, no, no, no.
19:49
Unidentified He wouldn't make two votes. His vote only counts as himself. Okay.
19:53
Unidentified So if it was 3-3. Right, this is going around the table, okay.
19:56
Unidentified So if it was 3-3. 3-3 is at the end of it.
19:59
City Attorney Andre Valley It takes four votes to override. Okay.
20:02
Unidentified So as a promotion currently is, is for, to increase the salary by $4,600, votes in a
20:11
Council Member Don Etherly second, to override the mayor's veto of increasing the salary. That's what it is. So I won't spend a long time on this tonight, I'll just kind of reiterate my position on
20:25
Council Member Don Etherly this and the reason. We started this year with a huge surplus, probably the biggest surplus that we've had since I've been on the city council, at least in the budget, the surplus was 1.3 million. A million of that was already dedicated to payments, like lot fee, $67,000 a month. That's $600,000, $700,000 of your surplus. The other payments for things that came last year, I think the total payments were about a million dollars this year. Those are things that are not in the budget, but they come out of the surplus. So we started off the year with about $300,000 extra. You got payments that represent $1,040,000. No, I don't have a calculator in front of me. and we have a financial report. Financial reports show you what you brought in, what you paid it, and show you who you owe. We know, because we've been sitting here listening, we know we're over 100,000 police alone in overtime. That's $200,000. We know that we spent nearly $200,000 and didn't buy a garbage truck. That's $300,000. We're on track to end up at the same place we've always ended up with deficits unless there's something that i don't know about and that's buried in the financial number so for those reasons not anything substantive against the worker or anybody else any department uh that's why i've kind of stood in this position
22:08
Unidentified all year long and i'll continue to stand in this position so is any are there any other comments from the body and I understand that to be your I don't
22:43
Council Member Don Etherly understand what you're saying other than all we're talking about is $2.23 an hour. But it adds to the amount of money that has to be paid out. And we're still looking at...
22:56
Council Member Adrian Messina Well, we're looking at somebody came in here with a water company, wanted to hire eight employees. You can hire eight new employees and we can't pay $2.23 to somebody who works at the judge's office.
23:10
Council Member Don Etherly You do realize that the water money is separate from the general fund money. So you can't mix water with general fund.
23:20
Unidentified I understand that. Yeah.
23:21
Unidentified Those are apples and oranges. Total different pot of money.
23:26
Council Member Don Etherly I mean, I understand that that's your position, Mr. Messina. That's your position. And so I won't, I'm not going to debate it with you. I mean, I've said my piece on it. but perhaps you can convince two of your three of your colleagues here at the table and so he needs four votes to override the veto and so if you can convince yes sir and I'm going to call for for a vote here in just a second I want to make sure everybody gets their comments in I want to cut anybody off So are there any additional comments? Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?
24:16
Unidentified I'm sorry, I called the question.
24:21
Unidentified So it's a call of question, the vote is to override the mayor's veto. For the record, Mr. St. Columbia's motion is to override the mayor's veto. It's a second by Mr. Messina. That is the question to be dealt with. At this time, we can call for the questions.
24:39
Roll call Roll-call vote — Joe St. Columbia: yes; Dr. Kyle Miller: no; Monica Davis: no; Adrian Messina: yes; Maxine Miller: no; Don Etherly: no. Clerk's count: 2 yes, 4 no.
24:54
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey That's four no's and two yes's to override the mayor's detail. So that motion will fail.
25:05
Unidentified Mr. Senor, you said mistake.
25:18
Council Member Adrian Messina Well, you know what we got here? We got too many people working in this city. And we can get rid of them. We cut about three or four of them and have money to pay the people that work at the courthouse.
25:30
City Attorney Andre Valley Well, one thing I want to say about it, you all have already voted on it. y'all have set your principle from a practical standpoint you just gave him a 4,600 raise and you were about to give him another 4,600.
25:46
Unidentified You gave him 4,200 raise?
25:48
Unidentified Yeah he was raised $2 an hour he said that from 15 to 17 and now you want to go from 17 to 19. Those were the facts that was in it to you.
26:00
Unidentified He ain't gonna win that argument.
26:02
Unidentified What he said was he went from 15 to 17. And he felt like because the other officer went to 19, he should make at least 19. That's on the part-time officer increase.
26:14
Unidentified Right.
26:15
Unidentified His pay was increased when we voted to allow the police department to increase their pay for part-time officers. He's counted as a part-time officer. His pay was increased at that point in time, which would have been last month. And now he's asking for an additional $2.
26:29
Council Member Don Etherly It's not even for me. It's about the numbers that I read out, that I gave you from my head, not from any piece of paper. It's about the numbers. I think that at some point we have to address the thing that threatens us the most, which is that debt, which is still over $4 million unless somebody corrects me. That's got to be addressed at some point, Mr. Messina.
26:51
City Attorney Andre Valley This absolutely has to. Now, the thing I'm going to say is the facts are what the facts are. It's a anomaly in our ordinance. However, at the same time, he did receive $2 an hour raised from $15 to $17. If you multiply that, you keep saying $223, but multiply that times $2,008 hours, which represents 40 hours. 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is $2,008 hours. He received approximately $4,060 raised two weeks ago, a month ago. And so as you go forward, you may be able to approve these inconsistences, but we'll go forward with it. Also, I want to remind you too is that because there are police, the other number that you have, the people now are upset with Mr. Etherly and me regularly because they're saying, they get racist, why don't you advocate for us at the same time? They're in the same place. But one, two are in the police department, so they're treated as police. And the clerks didn't receive anything. and they are very salty about it, to say the least.
28:00
Unidentified I see where you're coming from.
28:02
Unidentified Yes, sir.
28:03
Council Member Adrian Messina But we are too top-heavy with people working in this city hall.
28:11
City Attorney Andre Valley Well, Mr. St. Columbia, one of the things that happened, when Mr. Turner testified at the audit, there was an allegation the city had 140 employees.
28:19
Unidentified Then what now?
28:20
Unidentified When Mr. Turner testified.
28:21
Unidentified Talk to the microphone. Talk to the microphone.
28:23
Unidentified well was the turner testified before legislative audit not this pre-sum but last year he was questioned and there was documentation that they said the city had 140 employees when mr. Etherly became the mayor he started up with 128 employees and then the city reduced the the dispatchers and the city has been below 100 employees since most ethnic became the interim mayor with Mayor Whitfield you've always been under 100 employees so according to Leslie's that audit you've lost over 40 employees and you're still looking at it now the issue is there are some departments that do not have that many people you say we're top-heavy but until you go through the process and determine what function everybody serves you don't know whether you're top-heavy and what is the sweet spot as to how many people employees they said that arbitrarily and what I mean is they just said that off the cuff they just say it maybe aside the city decides you only have eight employees but most you have about 96 to 98 it fluctuates between 96 to 98 they said almost every meeting but first they almost 96 to 98 but you have a lot of services other cities don't have you don't most cities don't have a landfill you have all these other departments that you have you got you got to have
29:47
Council Member Dr. Kyle Miller people you gotta strike the balance my reason my reason is I agree that the person you know from super supervisor standpoint should be given more money to make the finances equitable but however when I spoke to a couple law enforcement people who contacted me immediately after the meeting from a protocol standpoint they just told me you really can't that you have classifications of part-time officers and full-time officers and even if they're working in a full-time capacity they're still classified as part-time and so what I was playing to me by two officers is that a part-time officer can't supervise technically cannot supervise a full-time so that was my that would probably be my issue it would be to me it would be like if i applied it to my my profession and let's say you know you have a certified certified teacher an uncertified teacher and you said well she's doing the same thing she's supervising the other teachers she should get paid the same amount but according to arkansas department of education you can't and she's if she doesn't have that certification she's not supposed to get that paid so that's where i was i i welcome him to get whatever he needs to get and then we can we can bump it bump him up or he he can become a full-time officer with our police force. Guy knows we need police officers.
31:15
Unidentified Yes, sir.
31:16
City Attorney Andre Valley That is another anomaly, Dr. Miller.
31:19
Unidentified An Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy and the Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training was the leader in class. They had full-time certified people, typically supervise part-time certified people, typically. So that is an honest and the situation that he's actually he actually is functioning as a supervisor but unfortunately from a protocol standpoint that's really not supposed to happen. I'm not trying to run him off. I hope he stays. I would really like to see him work for our force full time.
31:59
Dr. Xavier Hodo, Helena-West Helena School District All right. Any further comments? if there be none next item on the agenda is Helena was telling the school district has a letter of appreciation for the city support during homecoming weekend activity and you may come forward good evening Dr. Hodo thank you thank you I'm Xavier Hodo
32:22
Dr. Xavier Hodo, Helena-West Helena School District I'm in the schools for the Helena was telling the school district first of all it feels good be on this side of the um the table you know honestly the reason why I decided, except for the board, decided to actually come and give you guys these appreciations because, you know, as a city council, the work you do is very, very difficult. And no one really sees the long nights, the conversation, the dialogue. They see what happens on the screen. And that's important. But we want to make sure that most of the time people come here, they have issues. And I don't have an issue. Actually, I want to let you guys know that we really appreciate what you guys did for us during homecoming. First, we'll begin by you guys approved the parade, amazing parade. The law enforcement officers, the first responders, they did a great job with that. Also, they took part in our, on Friday, we had a first responder versus staff game. Amazing game, great fundraiser. Everybody enjoyed themselves there. Also, as it relates to our homecoming event, the actual game, the law enforcement was there, the police department, everybody was there, and they actually took part in the actual event. And so I want to let you guys know that we really appreciate you guys taking part in what we did for homecoming. And I just want to let you guys know we appreciate you because most of the times you guys don't get the thank you. And so from the Helena's Helena School District and our board of directors, we want to say thank you for that. And so thank you. And if I may, I do want to, it's hot off the press. You guys gave me a letter of support for our distant learning grant. We're one of, just so you guys know, it just became official not too long ago. We're one of three school districts in the state to receive $615,000 for technology grant for our district. So you guys did give us a letter of support. I want to let you guys know I really, really appreciate that. Thank you. And keep up the good work. And I will leave a letter as well. Any questions for me?
34:23
Council Member Dr. Kyle Miller I just wanted to commend you and the district and everything everyone's doing at the district.
34:29
Unidentified I drove by, called myself, going to get in, and the cars are all the way back past Hope Church. I said, well, I'm not ready to face the crowd today. But, I mean, I haven't seen a crowd like that since I was in school and that was some dark ages. So I just want to thank you all for everything. And all of the homecoming activities that went on, not just including the game, but everything that led up to that. I mean, just to see everybody coming back home. It was all over Facebook and social media, how everybody was just commending, how everybody was coming home for a good reason, for coming to celebrate. And I just want to thank you all for what you all were doing. Thank you.
35:08
Unidentified Thank you.
35:09
Unidentified Thank you, guys.
35:11
Unidentified Thank you.
35:11
Unidentified All right.
35:16
Unidentified Next item on the agenda is going to be a name change ordinance, and that is for changing names of city streets. Yes.
35:25
City Attorney Andre Valley You all have had this, and you tabled it almost four, five years ago. Everybody keeps asking about it. People keep wanting name change. You all tabled it and never came back to it. And part of the struggle that you all did, I know many of you all went on the council at that point, but the issue was the fees. And so we went back and forth because there was a non-refundable application fee and then there's an application fee. And you all at the time couldn't decide how much the fee should be. This made substantial changes in the street naming process. And I will read part of it so you can understand. It said, a street naming request, a street naming of the official, a street name on the official map of the city shall be submitted to the planning commission pursuant to the rules and procedures. dedication is hereby found determined that creation of honorary street name and dedication enables the city to commemorate individuals who made significant contributions to the community and humanity. This memorial celebrates those citizens without imposing substantial burdens associated with modification official street map of the city. These honorary street names are meant to commemorate the honorary and do not replace the official street name or requiring readdressing of the street. Honorary street dedication may also be applied to walkway trails, bicycle paths, and additional streets. The criteria, the planning commission and the city council should evaluate and approve all honorary street name dedication pursuant to the following criteria. The potential honoree must have a demonstrable and significant positive impact on the community or contributed to the cultural, economic, educational, intellectual, political, or scientific vitality of the community who have made an extraordinary contribution and service of of humanity. It must be a natural person and the City Council should consider the honorary street name dedication at a City Council meeting. The decision to adopt an honorary street name based on the criteria in this section shall be effectuated through adoption of an ordinance. The honorary street dedication signage in order to provide for the consistent name of the streets and promote safety in the community and all honorary street dedication signs must conform with the following criteria. One, honorary street sign dedication must be mounted in a way that distinguishes them and does not distract from the primary street sign. These honorary signs must therefore be mounted above or below the primary street sign. Any way that is otherwise clearly distinguished from the primary street sign, honorary street signs shall have a distinct design as determined by the city and be contrasted in color to distinguish them from primary street signs as approved by the city. This official design should be used for all honorary street signs. Honorary street dedication signs must be included with the word honorary. The color of the honorary street sign shall be black with gold letters. I think that was Dr. Miller. Restrictions on a segment of a street between one to three contiguous blocks may be proposed for honorary street dedication. In the case of walks, trails, or bike paths, the designation shall apply to the entire length of the way. honorary dedication signs are valid only for a period of 10 years. All previous enacted honorary street dedications are hereby declared and deemed to aspire 10 years from the enactment of the ordinance creating the honorary designation. Signs can be removed at any point as deemed necessary by the city council adoption for order to repealing the honorary designation. Cost. Applications are, applicants are responsible for, for all costs associated with fabrication, installation, maintenance, honorary street signs and signs. The Department of Public Works will evaluate the cost of the sign, labor and associated parts, and equipment for honorary street dedication sign. The cost will be fully the responsibility of the applicant. In addition, the cost is determined by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall remit a fee, that's the amount that you all disagree about, application fee at the time of submission. Said application is non-refundable. Application process is proven. Application for honorary street dedication can be submitted to the Department of Public Berks by filing it with the City Clerk's Office or by City Council motion. If the application is accomplished by City Council motion, there must be a payment of the application fee and all the costs. In addition, there must be a written application filed with City Clerk. The application should include the following information. Name and contact information of the person, group requesting the street name change, location of the proposed honorary dedication, including the total length of the street to be affected and the bounding streets, other boundaries subject to limitations. Proposed honorary dedication name, which must comply with the ordinance, a biography of the person to be honored, a description of the organization, object, or event to be honored, whichever is applicable. an accompanying petition signed by at least 750 qualified electors. An explanation of the reason for the honorary dedication, including the person's relevance to the location being proposed, an applicant shall remit a fee and a certain amount of application fee in order to cover the cause associated with administrative abuse. So there were two fees. one's application fee that's non-reformable, and that's one for the review, and et cetera. C. On submission of the completed application, the Department of Public Works shall produce a statement of cost for the installation of maintenance of signs, an impact statement to ensure that the proposed signage will not be confusing to the public. Those documents, along with the completed application, shall be forwarded to the city clerk within 45 days of receipt. Upon the city clerk's receipt of the completed application, City Council research staff shall conduct a review for compliance with standards of the disordination and produce a statement of finding with the recommendation. The review shall be completed within 45 days. Upon time completion of City Council analysis, the application of the documentation will be submitted to the clerk for placement on the council agenda for council action. The council should have 60 days to make a determination of application. Upon expiration of 60 days, absent action by the council, the request is deemed denied. If any ordinance is passed to effectuate the dedication of the honorary designation, the petition is to deposit the funds for the cost of the signings with the public part of the prior to the placement of the street sign. Only upon the request of a receipt of the funds in full would the sign be created and installed by the public in accordance with this ordinance. Said costs are in addition to the application fee.
42:28
Unidentified I didn't hear it. Could you read it again?
42:36
Unidentified So there's the application fee. The question is what would be the application fee? Some of y'all have suggested $500 back there. Some of you said $100. Some of you said $200. Application fee because you all said it needs to be something significant. The planning commission at the time had discussed from $300 to $500. But they deferred to the city council. City council had to determine what the application fee is. The application fee is non-refundable. And then there's a fee for, the second fee is for they have to pay the actual cost. The city pays nothing. We haven't done it since we've done the ordinance. The ordinance went to the Planning Commission. And so the cost would be whatever it is. I don't know how much the street sign costs off the top of my head. This is a grammatical change, but every place where you see Department of Public Works.
43:36
Unidentified Uh-huh.
43:37
Unidentified Public Works. Public Works was.
43:39
Unidentified Yeah, it was in existence at the time. It was in existence. So it's the same ordinance that was not.
43:44
Unidentified I'm assuming that'll be Street Department. Street Department.
43:51
Unidentified Well, the ordinance hasn't been repealed, though.
43:53
Unidentified But we're saying that the street department and the staff of the city council is a typo.
44:07
City Attorney Andre Valley So is this something you all want to act on? You all want to determine the application fee or you all want to take this under consideration for another consideration for five years?
44:17
Unidentified We have a couple people who've been warned to get streets named, but they want city council to take some action.
44:25
Unidentified I don't think we should go and do it. I don't think we should keep putting it off.
44:31
Council Member Don Etherly How much is the application fee for a city that has a tremendous amount of debt?
44:41
Unidentified Somewhere around the world I missed the name of the streets that we were taking off and where we had.
44:47
Unidentified You're not going to change the name. They'll get the street name and thing. It'll be black and gold. It's over the top of the red sign. It's like when you go to Memphis, they have a street up here, but then they have a black and gold sign below it that says this honorary street, this portion of the street. That's how we're doing.
45:09
Unidentified Yes.
45:10
Unidentified That's what you're doing. You're not changing. Because the confusion is there's one on Plaza that has a green sign that looks just like it. there's one right here beside City Hall that's a green sign that looks just like a street sign there's no distinction between the two sets of signs and in fact you would think that if you're driving down you would think that Cherry Street right here beside City Hall is a different name because of how the sign is but we didn't have this process in place back then right do you think that we should provide to whoever was an example of what it should look like so it's not David maybe black and gold but it may be this city under the uniformity that's only the street department this is type of sign of quiet that's what it's gonna cost I
46:01
Council Member Don Etherly mean all I'm saying is this should be more than $100 I mean I don't think that 500 is unreasonable if they've got to have 750 qualified electors I mean that's less than a dollar a person like if you did a fundraiser I would think for naming a street after a person that you would think that would be an honor regarding you know I'm saying I would think one fundraiser and you'd have the
46:28
City Attorney Andre Valley $500 you know for it correct well the issue is when the plan commission puts
46:32
Unidentified seven for qualified electives the issue that they were trying to get to is this it needs to be substantial community support behind it. That's the issue that they were trying to address. Not just, oh, we think this person should get a street name, et cetera. And that's not to say anything about anybody that has a street name now. I'm just talking about the legislative history. That's all I'm saying.
46:57
Unidentified Yeah.
46:58
Unidentified And that suggestion was 300 to 500. That's what that suggestion was back then. Five years ago.
47:07
Unidentified Say what?
47:08
Unidentified I said five years ago.
47:09
Unidentified She said $300 to $500, and I said five years ago. The planning commission.
47:12
Unidentified Yes, ma'am.
47:13
Unidentified Yes, ma'am.
47:13
City Attorney Andre Valley We were talking about the planning commission. They thought it was going to be something different between $300 to $500. They thought, like what Edlin said, that $100 was not sufficient. But it's up to you all. You all are the body. They said that's just what they said. They left it blank for the city council to determine, one, if you want to adopt the ordinance, two, if you want the application fee to be a particular amount. If you want to do $100, that's fine. If you want to do $500, I'll have to buy it. Whatever it is that the city council so chooses. The application fee is non-reformable.
47:50
Unidentified But I think as Ms. Miller has said, if you get 750 qualified electors in motion for something, it's likely going to be a fuller code. So that would be that being done.
48:06
Unidentified I think you often said it's also a review fee.
48:10
Unidentified The fee, I think they're over one and the same. The other fee is the cost of production of the sign.
48:22
Unidentified Can we just say the cost of the sign is being identified? Can we just say the cost of the sign is deemed by the street committee.
48:39
Unidentified I mean, because that might change the price.
48:44
Unidentified Right, it just says six. It wouldn't lock us in.
48:50
Unidentified Yes, but paragraph G says, in order to effectuate the honorary designation, the petition shall deposit funds for the cost of the signage with the Department of Works was everything with the science street department. Prior to placement on the street, the department will receive the funds, sign-up would be created and installed.
49:10
Unidentified I mean, what about, what would be, I mean, application fee would be typically what? 10% of something maybe? I mean, like, I mean, what does, in the past, typically, what has one of those signs cost?
49:27
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey $26.
49:33
Unidentified $26?
49:34
Unidentified For street name signs, just a plain green and white one. On both sides, it's $26.
49:40
Unidentified Oh, wow.
49:41
Unidentified That's with nothing fancy. That's the color of the price.
49:43
Unidentified So that's not bad at all. So, I mean, if it had been a cost of, like, you know, say $1,000 to do one of those signs, I could see that's a lot to ask, you know, and a large.
49:53
Unidentified It's not the post or anything.
49:55
Unidentified Yeah.
49:57
Council Member Don Etherly I think the question is why are we collecting an application fee and in my mind there's always to add something to the process this would be one of those you know going back to consolidation stores we had a lot of people who would come and ask for street names and this was added to make it something more significant than just somebody coming in and saying hey I want street names so You get a lot of community support. You make the burdens a little higher so that you know that this is somebody who has not only broad community support, but people are willing to invest in making it happen. And so you kind of turn it into more of a more prestigious maybe type of situation when you get the street name change.
50:47
Unidentified I can see both sides of the discussion. You know, some people won't have all of those people. Some people won't be known widely. And the people who come may want to have the street name on their behalf. But I think the issue is why are we taking an application fee since it's not refundable. It's just cost to do it. If we agree that it's to raise the bar, then the fee should be higher. If we're saying it's just because we have to deal with it, because people over in the street department will have to do something, and administratively we'll have to process some paperwork then perhaps as lower so I think that's the threshold question why
51:42
Council Member Dr. Kyle Miller somebody throws and throws the number out and see if anybody about about 750 so 500 for the actual registration fee and 250 for that's fine by me yeah 500 be number from the 250 towards the sun because this sign includes the pole
52:11
Unidentified sir no no I just think that it should be nice you know it should be nice I think yeah like Miss Sanders referring to a regular sign it should probably be a little bit nicer probably made out of a harder thicker metal comic you see in the bigger cities so it's more of a plate you know like like plated you know as opposed to just a regular metal sign.
52:38
Unidentified They probably should have a good fancy.
52:42
Unidentified Can I ask a question?
52:44
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey Yes.
52:44
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey Maybe I missed it, but did you cover potential damages to the sign? Who's going to be responsible for the replacement?
52:52
Unidentified Never possible for all replacement.
52:54
Unidentified Stole it or run over it?
52:56
Unidentified Mm-hmm.
52:57
Unidentified Okay.
53:06
Unidentified So $500 for the application and then $250 for the sign. Anybody want to?
53:18
Unidentified Well, you have an ordinance, so.
53:23
Unidentified Do you want to make the corrections or do you want to, I mean, do you want to do it beforehand? And or.
53:35
Unidentified You said $500 application fee. the my footer added on costs see six these that this is the spot for calls for a pair of make sure that this clearly spelled out and five hundred dollar application fee that will get to 250 so you want to limit in paragraphs G that the cost will be up to 250.
54:35
Unidentified At the very end right before several building.
54:37
Unidentified I think so.
54:38
Unidentified Yeah.
54:40
City Attorney Andre Valley Okay. So with those changes changing department works to street department adding a $500 application fee that's not unfundable. $250 cost. and
54:53
Unidentified paragraph D that they're responsible also for the cost of maintenance and repair. So
55:03
Council Member Don Etherly next question is are those the only changes that are requested and if those are the only changes is there any desire to move forward? and what what number with this ordinance this is ordinance number 19 26
55:32
Unidentified you can entertain a motion to place ordinance number 19 on his third and final reading reading title only
55:42
Unidentified motion by millisecond by Davis place ordinance number 19 on his third and final reading reading title you call roll
55:56
Unidentified yes yes
55:59
Unidentified yes
56:01
Council Member Don Etherly what is number 19 20 26 ordinance to establish process for the honorary name of street and or on a rare rename the streets in the city of home was on the provide approval criteria of application fees and requirements related that to the other way I provide respect that to you in a motion to adopt second motion by Davis to adopt second by Miss Miller to call the roll please yes yes
56:37
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey Mr. Messina? Yes. Ms. Gaines? Yes. Six yes? And that is adopted. Next item on the agenda. Water Department.
56:51
Unidentified Good evening, council.
57:21
City Attorney Andre Valley Okay, I think the first item we have here, try to get this set. In the loose information that you were given, Mr. Rose and I, the mayor, the Stensler today, there's a whole section, that's a base pay in the loose information you were given, not the staple package that the mayor gave it. But it's a base plate that was laid on the desk. It's not in the staple part, it's in the part that was given to you this evening.
58:16
Unidentified Are you looking at the mayor's packet?
58:19
Unidentified I did.
58:20
Unidentified That's some loose documents that were given to you that the clerk laid before you.
58:25
Unidentified Is it ordinance in, okay, base pay ordinance?
58:30
Unidentified Yeah, it's a base pay ordinance. This is what he's referring to. It's not in the state board.
58:35
Unidentified It's not in the state board.
58:37
Unidentified It's not in the state board.
58:39
City Attorney Andre Valley it's not a safe effect because what Mr. Rose submitted you have the two spreadsheets that he submitted and we went through those spreadsheets and I put those numbers into a base pay ordinance this afternoon with him and that's all in bold now again the purpose of the base pay I say this consistently. Base pay simply creates a position that does not fund in the positions. It creates a position and starts the minimum salary. The extensive conversation that we had today was if a person leaves, basically the old base pay had most of your positions at minimum wage. If a person leaves, then he would have to come back before you again and try to get a base pay taken care of. And so we began to address those issues in the base pay ordinance. going forward.
59:38
Unidentified Bless you.
59:41
City Attorney Andre Valley And so as we go forward, if you look at the base pay ordinance, we have been advertising for a while for a general manager at $100,000. And we have not been able to hire a general manager at $100,000. The base pay acts for $96,000. The financial officers, that's still the same as the old base pay. There are two in the base pay. It says $42,000. Executive assistant is one at $27,040. For your information that's about $13 an hour. The clerks is four. Your base pay previously said $11 an hour which is $22,800. This one is the same at $13 an hour, $27,040. The superintendent, the base pay, whose roles is currently currently serving in the superintendent's role the superintendent is 58,000 240 which is 28 thousand our assistant superintendent is one here is 33,000 to 80 with 15 dollar then you have a supervisor operational maintenance it's It's one of those to propose salary with 49,686.62. I don't remember the hour rate on that. I don't have any notes on that, Mr. Sayed, Mr. Rose. Plant operator, three of them at 33,280. Those are $13 an hour each. You have the field dispatch tech is one of those at 41,398.34. Meter readers at 31,000, 43,038. You currently have those. You have four of those in here. currently have them in your base pay at twenty two thousand eight hundred dollars which is 11 dollar minimum wage you have meter service tech thirty three thousand one hundred ten dollars and six cents for base pay the field dispatch take the thirty nine thousand nine hundred and ninety eight dollars and forty cents service maintenance it's one it's one employee there's thirty one thousand forty three dollars and thirty eight cent service maintenance two thirty 5,000 198 28 as one employee there equipment operator one employee there 37,264 97 equipment operators to this one employee there it's 40,365 and team lead is one employee there 43,465 and a waste, I mean wastewater supervisor $49,686. With that I would yield to Mr. Rose to explain the base pay and the request. There's a separate lengthy spreadsheet where he talks about the current salary of everyone and the proposed salary of everyone. But this is simply the base pay, the beginning salary for people.
1:02:37
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose Yeah, thank you Mr. Valley. And just as he broke down that base pay ordinance amendment that was put together with addressing the original base pay amendment that's currently in play and the addition of the proposed needed positions and that base pay as well. So with the documents I provided, it breaks down the proposed base pay at a competitive rate. and so just to kind of recap we have to have quality personnel at this water at the super park we have to struggle in infrastructure structure and for us to make it over the turtle which we are doing we have to continue to bring in personnel that we can contain So not to go off of this discussion on the face-paying ordinance, but I want to remind the council that we are paying $100,000 for contractors to help keep us up close. So we're paying this money out over and over again when we can actually have personnel in this department to do the work. That's going to be a process. but we're not getting rid of contracts anytime soon or we can start the process this evening by first addressing this base pay.
1:04:12
City Attorney Andre Valley There's one typographic error that I just noticed. I made a mistake and deleted the laborer. So 13 laborers already in your base pay. That minimum salary was $22,880. And Mr. Rose proposed, was it $31,200, right?
1:04:32
Unidentified Yes.
1:04:41
Unidentified 228?
1:04:44
Unidentified Yeah, 228 with the base pay is current. The laborers...
1:04:56
Unidentified Was it 31, 43, or 30?
1:04:59
Unidentified It should have been 31. The 13 laborers. The 13 laborers that you currently have.
1:05:20
Unidentified Okay, there it is. I got it.
1:05:32
Unidentified Yeah, we have put it at 31,200 for 13 laborers.
1:05:39
Unidentified Mr. Rose, I omitted the 13 laborers from the modified base pack.
1:05:47
Unidentified Yeah, I was having to get a copy of that. We had talked about, I looked at my notes 29,993,60, but then you admitted it at 31,200.
1:05:59
Unidentified Okay, so the laborers is not in this. It's not in this.
1:06:02
Unidentified I can add it to it.
1:06:03
Unidentified Understood. Okay.
1:06:04
Unidentified Okay. The 13 laborers that are currently are employees. And so that would be raising the 13 laborers to $14.42 an hour, which comes out to?
1:06:15
Unidentified $29,993.
1:06:17
Unidentified Exactly. Yes. Base pay.
1:06:25
Unidentified Thank you. I yield back to you.
1:06:28
Unidentified I'm sorry. I was looking at my notes and saw the .
1:06:30
Unidentified That is, now I can see how this looks in the actual ordinance.
1:06:37
Unidentified OK, so this is, well, I understand And with the base pay ordinance, this is to be able to hire, but we also have to get these positions funded, right?
1:07:04
Unidentified Correct.
1:07:05
Unidentified Okay. Okay.
1:07:07
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose So, with that being said, this is the first step to putting us in a position to be able to efficiently operate at capacity needed for this water and sewer system. That's just where we need to be. And just to kind of recap on what was mentioned by the city attorney, we are under two consent orders, one wastewater consent order and one water consent order to be financially efficient and sufficient to operate both systems.
1:07:42
Unidentified Okay.
1:07:43
Unidentified The base pay creates the position, creates the basic salary, but you still have to do an assembly appropriation and appropriation use access was the long spreadsheet that you have here to prove these salaries for the employees that are there.
1:08:04
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose Yeah, and so I wanted to just make sure we were clear on the base pay. Now what the other spreadsheet is of the current employees and what the base pay ordinance impact to affect them with the cost of living. Okay? And so I know this is a slightly separate discussion, but we have to avoid salary compression. Okay? The current staff here will be the ones training incoming staff. So we move forward with raising the base pay. We have to avoid supervisors, you know, being paid less than incoming employees, all right? I want to mention, because I have two of my strongest maintenance guys, it's only five maintenance personnel that is assisting with everything with water and sewer on two separate systems and a rural water system and sewer. These guys got a lot of work, a lot of pressure on this. With contractors, these contractors still need daily assistance from personnel to get the job that we are paying them healthy to do. And so I just want that to be clear that yes, we are heavily contracted right now, but the maintenance personnel that is existing, working hard every day, we got to take care of them as well. And so everything that is proposed is on a competitive rate, but also with the training and expertise and what was requested on the licensing aspect of it. So this pretty much covers everything we need to do to be working in the right direction to make sure that we're building adequate staffing and actually have an operational structure in the water department. Okay, so this is the second spreadsheet. This will be the one we're talking about. So this breaks down. I'm not going to basically go through each name and position, but this does reflect what's in the ordinance for general manager position and water operator, the two water operator positions. And so there's an increase basically for all positions, but most of all reflecting of what's in the ordinance that we have to pay our water operators at least $50,000 a year that's properly licensed. Okay, so this is all included in this handout, including of the cost of living at 3.5% which we have not had in the last three almost four years if I'm correct. Yeah I know you probably have a couple of copies of the same handout But there is, if you don't see it in your packet, there is an extra one in that vanilla folder that's right there in front of you.
1:11:29
Unidentified Yeah.
1:11:30
Unidentified And so you can just go.
1:11:35
Unidentified Okay. Okay.
1:11:37
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose But yes, once again, being able to move forward on all of this this evening, we'll address a multitude of issues. And like I say, open this up, because basically I did the numbers. We have currently staffed at 16 actually. We're currently staffed at 16. We're funded for 19 positions, but with the additional 8 positions that put us at 25, close to 27 employees, if we bring on a full additional 8 positions. But I want to make another reference point. We are at similar size infrastructure as Forest City. the closest system this size and population to us. Forest City is operating with 35 employees at all times. They may fluctuate between 30 and 35, but we've been operating way under that capacity for three years, and actually longer than three years. I just want to mention I'm the first manager to have to operate with not multiple supervisors. And so every manager before me had at least two supervisors and two crews operating under them with service tech personnel for meter reading and plant operators. Okay, so we've been doing this to the point to where my supervisor is not actually being paid to be a supervisor. He's just stepped into this role and started doing the work. Okay, and so we have to realize that we've been keeping the system not failing knock on wood saying that but we've we've been putting in the work to make sure we don't have two weeks without water we're catching these situations before they catch us all right same with the wastewater I know it was a lot of leaks still people are seeing there's meters that need to be worked on there's angle valves that need to be changed out but we won't get to that point until we take care of our current personnel and we add additional personnel to our roster And I want to say something Mr. Etherly mentioned last meeting, which was straight to the point. We need to be able to provide you all, the community, the service you all are paying for. That's it.
1:14:03
City Attorney Andre Valley So Mr. Rose, this spreadsheet shows all the employees that you currently have?
1:14:07
Unidentified Yes, this is everybody.
1:14:08
Unidentified So the general manager's position is not filled?
1:14:11
Unidentified No, not at all, yeah.
1:14:12
Unidentified And are either of these two ward operators field?
1:14:15
Unidentified No, they're not. They're not. And so this lists all funded positions, but who's currently on staff, including me, to bring us to 16 fully staffed now.
1:14:27
Unidentified Right. So for the sake of the public, what you're saying, you have 10 people in the field and five in the office and you.
1:14:36
Unidentified Yes, sir. And so, and just to kind of go through the ten in the field, yes, we have ten employees for the field right now, but three of those employees are water treatment plant operators, okay? Two of those employees are meter readers, service tech, so they're just working primarily office. And so, five employees are the maintenance team. service calls, working on pump stations, assisting with everything that's happening. And so this is really a reflection of the understaffing we've been operating on for quite some time.
1:15:20
City Attorney Andre Valley So with the change to the 13 laborers being put back into the base pay that I omitted by error, are you asking the city council to take action on the base pay?
1:15:31
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose Really, yes, not only the base pay, but salary adjustment as well. And so I didn't want to misquote the base pay amendment, but just for the salary adjustment for the new proposed positions, and this would be going to the proposed budget for 2027, it would be $479,605 with nine cents. And that's just for the new additional positions. for the current positions that have put us at $1,107,524.16 going into for the next year budget. So roughly a $1.5 million addition to the budget for us to be able to operate with adequate staffing.
1:16:28
Unidentified Any questions, comments?
1:16:30
Unidentified Yeah. So which column are you asking for to be in the base pay?
1:16:39
Unidentified The base pay column is going to be the first column and that is reflected on the actual handout of the ordinance amendment.
1:16:48
Unidentified Okay, so that's for specifically the base pay.
1:16:54
Unidentified Yeah.
1:17:24
Unidentified did you get your question answers this time on this one you have the field dispatch
1:17:41
Unidentified yeah yeah and that's all reflected on what mr valley just showed you as well so all those positions except the laborers that was addition you know that was already on the base pay ordinances listed on there in the annual now i have it on the spreadsheet is broken down hourly with benefits and annually so the small spreadsheet is the one that has all the additions the big spread streets has the current employees current police
1:18:17
Unidentified yes sir
1:18:21
Unidentified Okay.
1:18:22
Unidentified And so we're going to round. So when we do it, we're going to round the numbers. I'm just letting you. I'm letting you.
1:18:34
Unidentified No, I understand. Yeah.
1:18:36
Unidentified Yeah.
1:18:37
Unidentified That last, the total was just for you.
1:18:39
Unidentified Yes.
1:18:40
Unidentified Does anyone.
1:18:41
Unidentified So we have to add in the 13 laborers back into the.
1:18:44
Unidentified Mm-hmm.
1:18:45
Unidentified That's $29,993.60. That's an amendment to the base plan.
1:18:49
Unidentified based questions need time they break crazy they're not fine you have a separate document that he wants to approve for funding that is the longest risk they they say can affect currently in for yes it will affect currently
1:19:16
Unidentified I stand corrected.
1:19:18
Unidentified That's correct.
1:19:30
City Treasurer Derrick Turner I guess what I'm trying to figure out, why would you, okay, if you're establishing a base pay, I'm just looking at your ration and after coming over with the numbers. So how do you, if you were talking about a base pay, but you're using a cost of living increase?
1:19:53
Unidentified That is not, we're addressing the base pay first and then addressing the actual salary adjustment after we address the base pay. So but this is just everything is included. You got your cost of living here. Yeah, but the base pay is what we're talking about with the actual ordinance amendment.
1:20:12
Unidentified So this number here doesn't include this 3.5?
1:20:14
Unidentified No, it doesn't. The annual salary is a reflection of the base pay that's on the actual ordinance that's printed out, separate from that.
1:20:24
Unidentified So everything is just together on this. That doesn't reflect the 3.5 cost of living acre.
1:20:30
Unidentified No, not the original base pay, no. This is before any benefits of any stature.
1:20:37
Unidentified The number that's in this proposed base pay? Do they include cost of living?
1:20:46
Unidentified No, not not yeah, not initially no, okay Yeah, so when we're saying 1442 You know the hourly and annual that's presented no that's not including the cost of living
1:21:00
Unidentified Now this was emails everyone last week you're the target finances if you're the time to look at it say so
1:21:06
City Attorney Andre Valley I I don't think Mr. Rose is trying to hold a gun to your head, but he is trying to tell you that we need to move forward at some point, expeditiously. If the trustees need time to look at it, if you all need time to look at it, if you all are ready to vote on it, you're ready to vote on it.
1:21:24
Council Member Don Etherly My comment was going to be at the next available time. I don't know about last week, I remember receiving this between 3 and 4 today and it being on the table. and I was hesitant already and then I see Mr. Turner asking questions as well as the treasurer. My comfort zone is that everybody understands what the impact is. I'll say this because I made the comment, Mr. Rose, I stand by that we need to add people in the water department. We need to have competitive pay in order to keep them in the making stay. But at the same time, I like to know what I'm doing when I do it. And I'm not at that level of comfort personally. I'm just one of them. I want him to understand, process what the numbers are as well. That's just me.
1:22:22
Unidentified So what are the wishes of the body? I guess what I'm asking is, is anybody ready to move forward on this tonight, or is there a desire to kind of have an opportunity to take a look at it?
1:22:37
Council Member Joe St. Columbia I'm not ready to move forward.
1:22:40
Unidentified OK. I see a lot of heads shaking and going, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'll take that as the temperature that this body wants to have a chance to look at this a little further so that everybody understands. Now, I do want the treasurer to see it as well so that he knows.
1:22:53
Unidentified I mean, we're going to use it in the budget. We need to kind of understand.
1:22:59
Unidentified Yes, sir.
1:23:00
Unidentified Yes, sir.
1:23:03
Council Member Don Etherly So we can take this up. If the need is there, we can take this up at a special call meeting. If the need is there. Otherwise, we can place it on the next agenda. Whichever. Mr. Rose, I'll leave you to express whether you need to have a special meeting.
1:23:26
Unidentified Well, my first question was, is there any more information and clarity I need to provide between now or suggest reviewing the numbers and actually, you know.
1:23:35
City Treasurer Derrick Turner I want to review the numbers, but you can come by my office when you get time tomorrow.
1:23:40
Unidentified No problem.
1:23:41
Unidentified Okay, I just want to make sure everything is laid out clearly so a sound decision can be made. Mr. Brown.
1:23:48
Unidentified Yes, sir.
1:23:49
Council Member Adrian Messina uh chance the longest information that we have on different papers if you put it on that screen and we can follow it on that tv screen you got it in the email oh yeah you have it on email
1:24:04
Unidentified i think it'd be easier to follow it on the screen than an email
1:24:10
Unidentified it'd be hard for them to see if you have to turn the chair i'm not so technologically inclined but we used it we used the tv at the amp meeting so it can be done i just i said i'm not so technologically inclined to be able to do it and make it work but we use that screen at the amp meeting and so it can be done where it's placed on that on that tv and yes it can be done
1:24:35
Unidentified for clarity what i was saying is if you print out your email surely you're going to read it before the next councilman is all i would say if i need to provide a more some cost breakdown of clarity i don't have no problem with doing that so you know i know it's a lot of numbers i'm putting in front of you all at once it's just a couple of questions that okay we can discuss it won't take much of your time understood
1:25:00
Unidentified okay so i i hear anybody object to that so what what i what i would suggest is that i said if there's a need to go forward before i don't know what your hiring situation is you can of course get with the man i understood the body's always willing to you know if need be there to me especially if not we can place it on the next agenda that gives you a chance to talk to mr turner okay is everybody else a chance to go through and look at it get to some level of comfort about what they're doing understood on a separate related note the next council reason is selection i i assume that i had i had that in the back of my mind at the end of the meeting we can discuss that uh he has one other proposal and it's the uniform proposal so you come back to that okay i think that's the last thing yes sir so i think y'all vote on that we just need
1:25:55
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose the ordinance yeah um with the wave competitive bidding ordinance and yes um what i wanted to present before you all today was the requested um adjustment to 21 employees instead of 11 to be fully uniform and so these numbers are move the total amount The competitive bidding waivers on your desk is separate from the package of Mayor Whitfield. The numbers that I was giving previously were $33,344.90.
1:26:39
Unidentified Okay, yeah.
1:26:40
Unidentified But Madam Kirk says it's gone up, and I'm trying to get the final number that you had.
1:26:45
Unidentified Yeah, I just have the actual rental service agreement, so I didn't have the final number on this rental service agreement.
1:26:52
Unidentified But noted when I talked to Synthesis about pretty much their process now, even if we are agreeing to a service agreement for 21 employees to cover future potential costs, we're only going to get charged for the uniforms that we purchase. Okay, so I only have 11 employees right now that's going to need uniforms. That's what we're going to get charged for. All right, so they made that very clear to me that we don't necessarily have to go into a 21-25 employee agreement. As we need, we can add on to that contract to make sure our employees are uniformed.
1:27:49
Unidentified So we have a competitive wave of competitive bid and ordinance and the amount in the 33,344.90 that was for 11 employees. Do you want us to increase the amount?
1:28:11
Water Superintendent Saeed Rose Yes. up to yeah so what I have here for that increase it was two hundred and eighteen dollars and 42 cents a week now they didn't give me a five-year breakdown I mean a five-year total but 218 42 a week
1:28:42
Unidentified In addition?
1:28:49
Unidentified No, that's with 21, you know. Yeah, 21 employees.
1:28:57
Unidentified That's weekly costs. Because they have it broke down weekly.
1:29:01
Unidentified Yeah, 218.42. That's for 21 employees, not 11.
1:29:12
Unidentified Thank you.
1:29:42
Council Member Dr. Kyle Miller I got 114,000 for 5 years. Yeah.
1:29:50
Unidentified That's just that's just yeah, it's just one year.
1:29:54
Unidentified Oh, you said times five.
1:29:55
Unidentified So you got two to 1842 times. 20.
1:30:00
Unidentified You know, that's not right. It should have been 52 weeks.
1:30:05
Unidentified Sorry.
1:30:12
Unidentified 218.14 right? 218.42.
1:30:19
Unidentified 218.42.
1:30:22
Unidentified 228.238 times 5. per year.
1:30:29
Unidentified 56.7.89.20.
1:30:33
Unidentified $56,789.
1:30:43
City Attorney Andre Valley 218 times 52 times 5 is $56,789.20.
1:30:52
City Attorney Andre Valley So the waiver of the prepared and bidding ordinance is to be ordinance number 20, 26. 26 as waiting for the bin for Centos
1:31:01
Unidentified I need an address for Centos. Yes I will get that to you.
1:31:06
Unidentified That's in Memphis and the Sea. $56,789.20
1:31:10
Unidentified Most suspended rules place. Ordinance number 20. 2026 on the 3rd and 5th.
1:31:22
Unidentified That's a perfect point.
1:31:26
Unidentified sir yes that's just total fall 21 employees but you kind of don't have
1:31:35
Council Member Don Etherly one motion by Davis on the floor to place for the final reading title yeah
1:31:46
Unidentified I'll second second by miss Miller the uniform contract uniform
1:31:53
Unidentified Uniform contract in amount not to exceed, yes sir. In amount not to exceed $56,789.20. Any discussion? Ms. Grant, we can call on the roll please.
1:32:09
Roll call Roll-call vote — Adrian Messina: yes; Monica Davis: yes; Don Etherly: yes; Maxine Miller: yes; Dr. Kyle Miller: yes. Clerk's count: 6 yes (1 further vote the captions did not attribute).
1:32:19
Unidentified Is there a motion to adopt?
1:32:21
Unidentified So I will.
1:32:23
Council Member Don Etherly Motion by Miller to adopt Ordinance number 21, second by Ms. Davis. Any further discussion? Call the roll please.
1:32:31
Roll call Roll-call vote — Dr. Kyle Miller: yes; Maxine Miller: yes; Monica Davis: yes; Joe St. Columbia: yes.
1:32:43
Unidentified Thank you all.
1:32:47
Unidentified Thank you. Thank you.
1:32:49
Council Member Don Etherly Is there any emergency call? Yes. Do you have a motion to adopt the emergency clause?
1:32:55
Unidentified Second.
1:32:56
Unidentified Motion by Davis, second by Ms. Miller, to adopt the emergency clause. Call the roll, please.
1:33:02
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey° Ms. Davis?
1:33:03
Council Member Monica Davis° Yes.
1:33:03
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey° Ms. Anthony?
1:33:04
Unidentified Yes.
1:33:05
City Clerk Sandi Ramsey° Ms. St. Phillips?
1:33:05
Roll call Roll-call vote — Dr. Kyle Miller: yes; Maxine Miller: yes; Monica Davis: yes.
1:33:09
Council Member Don Etherly Those are all the items that appear on the agenda. It was mentioned earlier. The next regular meeting is scheduled for first Tuesday in November, which is Election Day. I won't be here, and I'm assuming everybody else won't be available as well. I think Ms. Davis is the only person who will be sitting back while eating popcorn on their evening. Would it be safe to say we're going to cancel that meeting, and if meeting needs to be rescheduled we'll do so and if not then we'll meet at the on the regular day which will be the second meeting for the month of November. In other words not have that meeting at all? Yes sir yes sir we'll just skip the first meeting in first Tuesday November. Yes so we'll come back on a regular scheduling unless there's a special call meeting we'll come back on the third Tuesday of November we can have a motion on it to
1:34:34
Unidentified to cancel second motion by david second by miss miller
1:34:44
Unidentified yes yes
1:34:46
Unidentified Mr. St. Columbia? Yes. Mr. Messina? Yes. Dr. Villa? Yes ma'am. Six yes.
1:34:52
Council Member Don Etherly We would not have had a quorum on that night so we would have been no meeting. That being said, good luck to all of you. There's a motion to adjourn and we'll be adjourned.
1:35:16
Unidentified Thank you.
How this page was made: built from the city's own meeting video (YouTube ↗) and its posted meeting packet (Drive folder ↗). Dollar figures are quoted from the documents; nothing here is paraphrased from memory. Corrections: cheekforhelena@gmail.com.