176.1 The Washington County Quorum Court met in regular session on Thursday, June 11, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Judge Charles Johnson.

176.2 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessie Bryant, Kenley Haley, Ralph Hudson, Wilson Kimbrough, Darious Mullins, Rocky Parsons, David Ruff, Lyell Thompson, Wilbur Watson, Rod White, and Bill Yancey.

176.3 MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Russell and Ronald Woodruff.

176.4 OTHERS PRESENT: Charles Johnson, Roger Haney, and George Butler; Interested Citizens; and Members of the Press.

176.5 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: Judge Johnson asked Quorum Court members if there needed to be any items added to or deleted from the agenda.

176.6 R. Parsons stated that there were two appropriation ordinances recommended by the Finance Committee at their meeting this week.

176.7 W. Watson stated that Item #11, An ordinance dealing with the County purchasing property states that, "No real property shall be purchased by Washington County, Arkansas for more than five (5) times the assessed value as on the record with the Washington County Assessor." He stated that they discussed this for an hour in committee with all members of the Quorum Court present, except M. Russell, and he believes that it was the consensus that if this ordinance shall pass, the County would never be able to buy any property. He therefore suggested that they needed to postpone this Item.

177.1 Judge Johnson stated that the appropriate time to remove this item from the agenda would be now; however, he wasn't sure whether it could be removed from the agenda indefinitely.

177.2 County Attorney stated that since this ordinance received no recommendation in committee one way or another, he suggested that it would be best to take up at the time it is presented on the Agenda.

177.3 In response to W. Kimbrough's question, Judge Johnson stated that M. Russell was to present Agenda Item Nos. 8, 9, and 12, and in his absence, D. Mullins agreed to present these items.

177.4 D. Mullins made a motion to adopt the agenda as amended. W. Watson seconded. The motion passed unanimously by those present.

177.5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Judge Johnson asked for approval of the minutes of the May 14 regular Quorum Court meeting.

177.6 R. Parsons noted that his statement in 174.7 reads a little severe and it was said and meant in jest. He further apologized for the severity of his statement. 177.7 W. Kimbrough made a motion that the minutes of the May 11 Quorum Court meeting be approved as presented. J. Bryant seconded. The motion passed unanimously by those present.

177.8 TREASURER/FINANCE REPORT: R. Parsons reported that the Finance Committee met on Tuesday, June 9th and the County Treasurer reported that all departments are now operating in the black with positive balances. He reported that County Treasurer Joan Perry gave the monthly finance report for the period ending 5/31/98 which reflected that County General Fund had a balance of $2,122,611 with $5,000,000 invested; County Road Fund held a balance of $1,109,741, with $1,500,000 invested; Assessor's Fund held a balance of $87,885; Collector's Fund held a balance of $12,011; and the Treasurer's Fund a balance of $100,338. R. Parsons reported that the year-to-date summary reflected a beginning balance of $20,253,240; total receipts of $45,186,711; add-backs of $14,245; total warrants written of $44,526,060; for an ending balance of $20,928,135. Revenue projections are running at 38.63% for County General, and 47.68% in County Road. Projections should be running at 41.67% for the end of May. Revenues from current taxes in County General are running $309,219 ahead of revenues collected year-to-date compared to 1997, and $44,705 ahead in County Road. Delinquent taxes are running $6,310 behind collections year-to-date compared to 1997 in County General, and $848 behind in County Road. Sales tax revenues were received in May of $401,041 which is $17,166 behind collections in May, 1997, or 3.73% behind year-to-date. Special sales tax revenues were also received in May in the amount of $3,039 making a total of $7,160,627 received to-date.

178.1 R. Parsons further stated that it was reported by Assistant County Administrator Roger Haney that the County has received their 1997 Workers' Compensation Audit. He pointed out that capital expenditures in several departments are over what was budgeted slightly. In addition, Roger Haney reported that the ThoroughCare Grant Fund was finished for 1997-98 and a new contract was expected to be reviewed soon.

178.2 R. Parsons stated that the comparison requested on the 1998 Budgets for Class Six Counties was completed and after reviewing this information, it was agreed that there are so many differences in methods of accounting and in grouping those expenditures and collections, as well as differences in millage rates, it was hard to get a handle on how they stand with regard to other counties.

178.3 Judge Johnson stated that Sheriff McKee has distributed information on monies received by the County Treasurer from various sources for the jail. He further noted that the County will be entering into a contract shortly with Justice Benefits, Inc., for them to possibly generate some additional revenues.

178.4 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF $98,000 TO THE REGIONAL JAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BUDGET FOR 1998: R. Parsons introduced An Ordinance Appropriating The Amount of $98,000 To The Regional Jail Construction Project Budget For 1998, and County Attorney, George Butler read the ordinance. He explained that this would pay for architectural costs submitted by Richard Alderman of Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, Inc., Architectural Firm for regional jail project costs. The Finance Committee voted to approve this based on receiving additional information with a break-down of these costs, which is set out in Agenda Item #5.2-A.

179.1 Architect Richard Alderman addressed the Quorum Court explaining that they have an overall general contract for jail design which contains two parts; one for the jail basement renovation, and the other for a regional jail facility. He reported that they have stayed within the contract for the basement and it appears that they may have some $50,000 in savings. Mr. Alderman stated that approximately 1½ years ago, they started off with a regional jail issue, and then changed over to the basement renovation, and now have returned to the regional jail to produce plans and more detailed information on the same. He stated that there are basically five parts to an architectural contract: design, design development, working drawings, bidding of project, and building the project. He had proposed to the Assistant County Administrator that they take the design phases, 20% of the overall fee, and estimated that they would probably only need to use half of that between now and the time that they would make a decision about this project. He noted that this contract pays engineers and other employees of his Architectural Firm; however, it does not include Jail Consultant Lowell Kincaid.

179.2 Richard Alderman further stated that he will only bill the County for time actually spent at their hourly rate. He stated that this appropriation gives them an approximate amount of what they believe it will take to do it and if it turns out to be less, then they will only bill for hours actually spent.

179.3 D. Ruff asked where these funds would be coming from, to which D. Mullins explained that there is an $110,000 unappropriated balance in the General Fund.

179.4 R. Hudson made a motion to adopt the ordinance. B. Yancey seconded.

179.5 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion passed unanimously by those present. The ordinance was adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 98-16, BOOK NO. 4, PAGE NO. 464

180.1 AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 IN THE COUNTY HEALTH-HIV CLINIC FUND FOR 1998: R. Parsons introduced An Ordinance Recognizing And Appropriating Additional Revenues In The Amount Of $60,000 In The County Health-HIV Clinic Fund For 1998, and County Attorney, George Butler, read the ordinance. R. Parsons explained that this was a grant the HIV Clinic has received and would not come out of the County's budget. He reported that his was approved unanimously by members present at the Finance Committee.

180.2 R. Parsons made a motion to adopt the ordinance. D. Ruff seconded.

180.3 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion passed unanimously by those present. The ordinance was adopted.

ORDINANCE NO. 98-17, BOOK NO. 4, PAGE NO. 465

180.4 COUNTY JUDGE'S REPORT: Judge Johnson called attention to a Resolution appearing as Item #6.1 that was adopted by the County's Juvenile Justice Advisory Board and read the same which pertained to underage drinking.

180.5 D. Mullins suggested that there be a vote which would show the Quorum Court's stamp of approval on this resolution; to which R. Hudson objected stating that all resolutions should be treated the same and reviewed by a Committee before being sent to the Quorum Court with a recommendation.

180.6 Judge Johnson explained that this was not a resolution of the Quorum Court. He explained that D. Mullins was referring to an endorsement of the resolution.

180.7 D. Mullins made a motion to suspend the rules and place the Quorum Court's stamp of approval on this resolution. W. Kimbrough seconded.

181.1 R. Hudson stated that he would be voting against D. Mullins motion, not because he is against the resolution, but because he is opposed to what appears to be a hypocritical way of handling resolutions and ordinances.

181.2 B. Yancey concurred with R. Hudson on this matter, as this was discussed at length at their last meeting and even though this is not the Quorum Court's resolution, he believes that they should follow the same procedure.

181.3 D. Mullins stated that this is the proper procedure and the way that the Quorum Court has always handled such resolutions, and whenever a 2/3's vote is received, the same is considered.

181.4 R. Hudson stated that he may not have understood the end result of their debate last month. His understanding was that the entire issue surrounded a resolution that he brought to this court that did not go to a committee and it was made very clear by several members of this Court that this was inappropriate. He believes that whether they vote to suspend the rules or not, this should be considered as any other resolution.

181.5 Judge Johnson stated that it is the intent normally to follow the procedure discussed last month; however, if there is a matter which is of enough importance to suspend the rules and consider, then that is within the rules that they have always followed in the Robert's Rules of Order.

181.6 R. Parsons stated that he understands what R. Hudson is saying; however, the difference in his way of thinking is that this is not a resolution sponsored by a member of the Quorum Court and not requiring any action on the part of the Quorum Court, but rather something brought to them at the earliest convenience by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board and which everyone is in favor of. He stated that as he was not opposed to the way this resolution was presented; that he is in favor of it in principal; and would therefore vote in favor of the same.

181.7 W. Watson addressed Section 2 of the resolution, suggesting that the last portion which states, "...especially when underage individuals are involved", stating that this could be struck from the resolution as it indicates that they are only addressing underage individuals. 182.1 Judge Johnson responded stating that the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board would probably agree that all liquor laws should be strictly enforced, but they were focusing on the underage in this resolution. He further stated that it was not appropriate for the Quorum Court to strike a portion of this resolution; however, it could be left off if they drafted their own.

182.2 D. Mullins called for the question.

182.3 Judge Johnson called for a vote on the motion to suspend the rules.

182.4 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, J. Bryant, K. Haley, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. VOTING AGAINST: W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, and R. Hudson. The motion failed with seven members voting in favor and four members voting for the motion to suspend the rules.

182.5 Judge Johnson stated that June is the month when most terms end for County Boards and Commissions and new members begin serving their terms in July of each year. He stated that he would be sending out a list of the Boards and Commissions where there are terms which will be ending, indicating whether or not the person is eligible for reappointment, and then those seats can be filled. He stated that he would invite suggestions and recommendations from the Quorum Court members. He noted that there have been people's applications who have applied in the past, which would be reconsidered, as well as new applicants.

182.6 Judge Johnson reported that Saturday, June 13, at 9:30 a.m., the County auction would be held at the Road Department. He noted that there was a list posted which set forth the County surplus items, as well as some confiscated materials. He noted that proceeds from this auction would go into the General Fund, with the exception of some road items which would go into the Road Fund. He encouraged everyone with an interest to attend.

182.7 COMMITTEE REPORTS: There were no reports made by Committees.

182.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 92-34 TO DEFINE THE TERM "STRAY ANIMALS": D. Mullins introduced An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 92-34 To Define The Term "Stray Animals", and County Attorney George Butler read the ordinance. D. Mullins noted that this ordinance was on third and final reading at their last meeting; however, he moved that it be pulled from the agenda until additional information was provided. It is his understanding that the Animal Control Officer was taking care of this and there is no longer a need for a definition of a "stray" animal.

183.1 Les Howick, member of the Washington County Animal Concerns Advisory Board, addressed the Quorum Court stating that he had no more recent information on this issue.

183.2 County Attorney George Butler reported speaking with M. Russell a couple of days ago and reported what the Animal Control Officer had told him. He stated that M. Russell had indicated that it was fine with him if the ordinance was postponed indefinitely or with whatever the Court decided to do.

183.3 Judge Johnson stated that the ordinance could be brought back in the future if the need arises.

183.4 D. Mullins made a motion to postpone this ordinance indefinitely. B. Yancey seconded.

183.5 With no further comments, Judge Johnson called for a vote on the motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely.

183.6 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion to postpone indefinitely passed unanimously by those present.

183.7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 98-10: D. Mullins introduced An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 98-10, and County Attorney George Butler read the ordinance, which is on third and final reading and addresses clarifications to the County's land development regulations.

183.8 D. Mullins explained that this ordinance amends the regulations on shared easements. He noted that the amendments had been made to C.2 of the regulations and related drawings, which should satisfy everyone that this ordinance is doing what it was intended to do. 184.1 D. Mullins made a motion to adopt the ordinance. B. Yancey seconded.

184.2 CITIZEN COMMENTS: There were no citizen comments made.

184.3 With no further discussion, Judge Johnson called for a vote on the motion to adopt the ordinance.

184.4 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion passed unanimously by those present. The ordinance was adopted.

ORDINANCE NO. 98-18, BOOK NO. 4, PAGE NO. 466

184.5 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS GOVERNING ETHICS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT: R. Hudson introduced An Ordinance Establishing Standards Governing Ethics In Washington County Government. This ordinance was reviewed by the County Services Committee in April, but failed to receive a recommendation. It was presented to the Quorum Court last month; however, changes made at that time require it to again be placed on first reading.

184.6 R. Hudson explained that last month there had been some editorial changes made to the ordinance resulting in the ordinance being placed back on first reading.

184.7 R. Hudson made a motion to suspend the rules and read the ordinance by title only. R. White seconded.

184.8 VOTING FOR: R. White, B. Yancey, R. Hudson, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. VOTING AGAINST: L. Thompson, W. Watson, J. Bryant, K. Haley, W. Kimbrough, and D. Mullins. The motion failed with five members voting in favor and six members voting against the motion.

184.9 County Attorney George Butler read, An Ordinance Establishing Standards Governing Ethics In Washington County Government. 185.1 R. Hudson thanked George Butler for the work that he has done in helping him make sure that this ordinance was in line and he notes that the minor changes had been made to the ordinance. He reported that he has had many supportive comments from the public, as well as non-profit organizations.

185.2 L. Thompson made a motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely. W. Kimbrough seconded.

185.3 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, J. Bryant, K. Haley, W. Kimbrough, and D. Mullins. VOTING AGAINST: R. White, B. Yancey, R. Hudson, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion failed with six members voting in favor and five members voting against the motion.

185.4 Judge Johnson stated that the ordinance would be on second reading next month.

185.5 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY BY WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS: R. White introduced An Ordinance Providing For The Purchase Of Real Property By Washington County, and County Attorney George Butler read the ordinance. This ordinance was reviewed by the Public Works Committee and passed on to the Quorum Court with no recommendation.

185.6 R. White explained that this ordinance originated from questions presented to him regarding how the County should value property. He found it interesting that all Quorum Court members showed up for the Public Works Committee meeting at which he presented this ordinance and there was no support for the ordinance. He further stated that he was shocked at the bashing of the evaluations coming from the Assessor's Office.

185.7 W. Watson made a motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely. R. White seconded.

185.8 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. VOTING AGAINST: D. Mullins. The motion to postpone the ordinance indefinitely passed with ten members voting in favor and one member voting against the motion.

186.1 A RESOLUTION REGARDING MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA AFTER COMMITTEE ACTION: D. Mullins introduced A Resolution Regarding Matters To Be Included On The Agenda After Committee Action, and County Attorney, George Butler read the Resolution which is being recommended to the Quorum Court by the County Services Committee by a majority vote.

186.2 L. Thompson noted that this is more or less the way that they are currently operating; to which County Attorney George Butler responded that this is what they indicated they wanted to do last month. It was decided that it should be put in the form of a resolution to be put in the County Code because that was how they had set up previous procedures.

186.3 D. Mullins stated that even though he was sponsoring this resolution in place of M. Russell, he planned to vote against it. He stated that it was not needed and that as long as the Quorum Court operates under Roberts Rules of Order and everyone understands those rules, any person on the Quorum Court has the right to bring an ordinance to the Quorum Court; and likewise, it is perfectly within the right of the Quorum Court to postpone matters indefinitely or otherwise suspend the rules to hear something on short notice, if a 2/3's vote is received.

186.4 K. Haley concurred with D. Mullins that this is covered adequately under Roberts Rules of Order.

186.5 R. Hudson stated that the way they have been dealing with these matters in the past is that if they fail in committee, then it comes with no recommendation and placed on the agenda as an agenda item.

186.6 K. Haley stated that an example of this was the nightclub ordinance which did not come out of committee, and she had to request that it be placed on the agenda for the Full Quorum Court without committee recommendation, and is not an automatic action.

187.1 R. Hudson stated that he had misspoken and concurred with K. Haley that items come to the Quorum Court at the virtue of the sponsor.

187.2 Judge Johnson stated that in the future, if an ordinance has not been to a committee for consideration, and is simply a request to place an ordinance on the agenda, he will ask that the same be placed on the agenda by the Quorum Court, rather than one individual placing something on there. He noted that there may be important items which should be placed on the agenda; however, the Quorum Court should be the one to make this decision.

187.3 R. Hudson made a motion to strike this resolution from consideration and postpone indefinitely. R. White seconded.

187.4 VOTING FOR: L. Thompson, W. Watson, R. White, B. Yancey, J. Bryant, K. Haley, R. Hudson, W. Kimbrough, D. Mullins, R. Parsons, and D. Ruff. The motion passed unanimously by those present.

187.5 OTHER BUSINESS: R. Hudson stated that he appreciated Judge Johnson's efforts with Justice Benefits, Inc. and his willingness to move ahead with a contract.

187.6 Judge Johnson explained that if they can get it in place in time, they may be eligible for reimbursements this quarter and that is what they were working to accomplish.

187.7 L. Thompson called attention to the information provided by Sheriff McKee with regard to monies received and paid into the County Treasury since January 1, 1998 for services rendered at the Washington County Jail.

187.8 Judge Johnson explained that this lists a number of items that show how revenues come into the Sheriff's Department, including $260,400.00 which comes in from the Arkansas Department of Corrections for holding State inmates, and makes up the bulk of these funds. He further reviewed the list provided by Sheriff McKee showing the areas from which they receive monies.

188.1 K. Haley stated with regard to entering into the contract with JBI, that she wanted to make sure that JBI would not be getting 20% of funds that the County is already receiving, but rather in addition to those funds.

188.2 County Attorney George Butler explained that it appeared if there was something that JBI discovered which would require the County to match funds or set-up a special program that could not be afforded by the County, that JBI would be able to apply for these funds and get the commission. Even though he was told that this was not the case, County Attorney Butler reworded that section which sets out that the only services they are paid for are things they discover that the County is not already receiving.

188.3 K. Haley questioned whether there would be some sort of accountability and how they would know that this was not being done; to which County Attorney Butler responded that the contract called for a designee or monitor in the Sheriff's Office to oversee this.

188.4 R. Hudson stated that this is a good reason for passing his Ethics Ordinance which would require that the Quorum Court have an opportunity to review the contracts and information, as well as providing several elements that would help us assure accountability to the taxpayers of this County.

188.5 W. Kimbrough complimented the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board for the work that they have been effectively doing in the last several months. He especially complimented them for bringing to the Quorum Court the issue of underage drinking as a problem in Washington County. Since the Court did not take any action on this, he would like to somehow get it out to the public that if interested in this issue, they can talk to Aaron Bleidt about it and he suspects if a sufficient number of citizens knew about this, they would get behind the JP's to do something about it.

188.6 R. Parsons reported that he read a story where a neighboring county had received a sophisticated finger printing electronic system which was sent back. He noted that the Washington County Sheriff's Office has this piece of equipment and on the day that they toured the Jail, they were shown how a prisoner could be booked and processed with this machine and in a very few minutes, an answer was received that this prisoner was in fact wanted by another agency, just from the comparison of fingerprints. In closing, he stated that he believes they are fortunate to have this technology in their County Jail.

189.1 CITIZEN COMMENTS: Dr. Joe Beasley, member of the Animal Concerns Advisory Board, addressed the Quorum Court and noted that Carla Holcomb, Animal Control Officer for Washington County, was in attendance and had some information that may be of interest to the Quorum Court.

189.2 Carla Holcomb, Washington County Animal Control Officer, addressed the Quorum Court with regard to the ordinance to define "stray animals" and explained that following numerous inquiries about the ordinance, Sheriff McKee felt that this may need clarification. She explained that they developed a form entitled, "Stray Animal Policy" which states that "Any animal who appears, at the discretion of the Animal Control Officer, to be obviously abandoned, abused, or neglected shall be considered a stray animal and will be transported by the Animal Control Officer to the Fayetteville Animal Shelter", which is basically what the ordinance says. The policy further states, "The person who reports such stray animal shall sign a statement as follows: I, , do hereby certify that the animal described as follows: is a stray. I am not the owner of said animal, nor do I know who the animal's owner is; furthermore, said animal has appeared to be a stray animal by me for days. I hereby surrender any and all rights and interests in the above described animal." The person reporting the stray animal is required to sign the form, which addresses County liability. She stated that she has people waiting for 3-4 weeks on a waiting list to bring approximately 20 animals into the Shelter, which is filled to capacity. In addition, the Animal Shelter has a waiting list similar to this with as many animals waiting to be brought to the Shelter. She explained the reason for the last sentence of the policy is to avoid people calling the day after she has picked up an animal stating that they have decided they want to keep the animal, and in many cases, she has had to deal with irrate people. In these cases, since the County has put the animal in the Shelter and paid for that animal to be in the Shelter, the only way an animal can be retrieved from the Shelter is to pay the fees.

189.3 In response to a question by Judge Johnson whether she feels that this policy will take care of the matter, Ms. Holcomb responded that she believes it will for the time being; however, they have bigger problems dealing with the citizens since the ordinance is pretty broad as to the discretion of the Animal Control Officer. Ms. Holcomb further reported many cases where once she tells someone that they will be required to sign this policy form, they all of a sudden are not sure whether the animal is a stray or not.

190.1 Judge Johnson stated that if this policy does not handle the problem, they can always consider an ordinance in the future.

190.2 In response to a question from County Attorney George Butler regarding impoundment of vicious animals, Ms. Holcomb stated in the case of a vicious animal, she usually has to bump somebody in order to have the animal impounded. In addition, she stated that the Animal Shelter was working with her as much as they can to get these animals impounded in a "holding spot" for vicious animals. Ms. Holcomb further stated that she currently has about 15 puppies that need to be placed in the Shelter, and once they reach 3-4 months of age, they need to be placed in dog runs, which cuts the space down even more. She compared the situation at the Animal Shelter to that of the County Jail. In many cases, by the time she is able to pick up a stray animal, the caller has taken an alternative action with the animal.

190.3 In response to K. Haley's question, Ms. Holcomb stated that this differs from week to week; however, on average she takes 5-6 strays into the Shelter each week. She currently has scheduled for 10-12 animals to go in next week. Ms. Holcomb further stated that she had 20 calls to return when she came into the office today, and took another five calls while in the office.

190.4 In response to L. Thompson's question with regard to possible expansion of the Animal Shelter, Ms. Holcomb stated that the Animal Shelter has on its own expanded the Shelter to some extent. She compared the current situation to that of the basement of the Jail. The Shelter has added 10-12 runs and these will be designated just for strays.

190.5 Paul Horne, resident of District 5 in south Fayetteville, addressed the Quorum Court and thanked the Animal Control Officer for employing common sense in settling this matter. Mr. Horne further asked if he could get a rereading of the Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 98-10 regarding clarifications to the County's land development regulations. 191.1 County Attorney George Butler read the ordinance.

191.2 Mr. Horne asked what they were actually doing with this ordinance, to which County Attorney George Butler responded that this ordinance amended an earlier ordinance in order to clarify situations depicted on the exhibit in regard to parcels that can be created without public road frontage and how much of an easement is needed.

191.3 Paul Horne asked on the status of the land acquisition for the Road Department and County Jail, to which Judge Johnson reported that the engineers are studying the one site and a report is expected in a couple of weeks.

191.4 R. Hudson stated that it is not legal for the Quorum Court to make any decision with respect to that land and the use thereof for a jail until the same is approved by the citizens of Washington County. At this point, the only decision that this Court has made is that this is where the Road Department will locate, providing the engineer's reports come back positively. Certainly this location would be an option for the jail.

191.5 John Miller, resident of District 11, addressed the Quorum Court stating that he has 3½ acres on Hwy. 16W and has had one trailer house on it for about two years. He and his wife decided that they wanted to put three more trailers on the property, with each trailer having an acre of property. He noted that there are a lot of people living in trailer parks which offer no yard or garden areas. He further stated that he and his wife have other rental properties and run these by strict rules. Mr. Miller stated that he went to the Planning Commission asking what he would be required to do, which included getting house numbers, city permits for water taps, gas, etc. He further went to the expense to put meter loops and septic systems in, and had his perk tests done by the Health Department. Mr. Miller stated that he had already rented two of the spots when he was approached by the Planning Commission telling him that he couldn't do this because you can only put one trailer on a piece of property regardless of the size of the property. Mr. Miller stated that this regulation is stupid and appears to be discriminating against house trailers. He was later told that he could put one trailer and one double-wide, which is considered a home, on the property and was then told that he would have to split the land. He thereafter hired an engineer to split the property and then had one trailer on one piece of property and a double-wide and trailer on the other piece of property. Mr. Miller was thereafter told that he would have to put a paved street in front of the property. This occurred after he had already spent thousands of dollars and had already approved it. Mr. Miller stated that he is not a "slum lord" and has regulations which he gives all of his tenants setting out what they will be required to do to maintain the property. He stated that he has already built the driveways and will plant trees in this area. These are brand new mobile homes and they will stay there. He further noted that he could show them situations in the County where there are 3-4 trailers on a half acre of land, and he does not want to do this, but rather give his tenants room to move. Mr. Miller stated that something has to be done about the County Planning system. He stated that he has been lied to by Sarah Riley and Kevin Urban, and he is not pleased. The County Planning Board approved his land split and he intended to place one trailer and one double-wide on each piece of property. He thereafter received a letter from Sarah Riley stating that he could not put a double-wide on the property unless he owns the trailer. When he inquired of Ms. Riley where this ruling came from, he was told that it was something she had come up with. He stated that anyone serving in a County office who can just make up a ruling because they don't like the way something is being done, has no business there; and he will do everything in his power to remove Sarah Riley and Kevin Urban from this office.

192.1 Judge Johnson stated that everyone should be honest and Ms. Riley or Mr. Urban cannot just make up rules, but rather have to interpret the regulations that are in place. He explained that the Planning Board is there to establish policies and regulations for the development of mobile home parks.

192.2 Mr. Miller responded that he does not consider his situation a mobile home park, which in his mind, would be 20 to 30 trailers. He noted that he had the County's approval on the septic systems and does not see what harm this can do.

192.3 Judge Johnson responded that septic systems are approved by the State and not the Planning Office, after the County Health Department does a perk test.

193.1 Mr. Miller stated that there are people in this area who are against his plans, some being present at the meeting tonight, and it was their complaints to the Planning Office which stopped his development. He stated that there are more trailer houses in this immediate area than there are homes. He noted that he bought this land from Lonnie Nickels in 1970 and further sold 20 acres at the back of his property which was designated strictly for mobile homes. Further, someone built a house in this area, and then raised all kinds of cain because of the mobile homes in the area.

193.2 In response to K. Haley's question, Mr. Miller explained that he went to the city for a permit from the city growth area; and Judge Johnson added that a city can exercise up to 5 miles outside the city limits for their growth area.

193.3 Mr. Miller stated that K. Haley was the only one who voted against his development; and then contacts the City with regard to his permits; and thereafter Ms. Riley comes up with a regulation to try to stop his development. He stated that he would like someone to tell him what he is doing wrong.

193.4 K. Haley stated that her reason for contacting the City was that this was her district and part of the approval process.

193.5 R. White stated that there are people against having mobile homes in their neighborhood, and he personally is for mobile homes.

193.6 Mr. Miller stated that in many cases, mobile homes are stepping stones for young people trying to start out on their own; and when he and his wife were first starting out, he would have given anything to have been able to live in a mobile home.

193.7 B. Yancey asked Mr. Miller how long he has been trying to get his development approved, and whether he ever received a copy of the planning regulations in effect currently which govern mobile home parks.

193.8 Mr. Miller responded that he has been trying to get approval for this development since last November and did not get a copy of the mobile home park regulations because he does not consider this to be a mobile home park. He was unaware that he would need the County's approval to develop his land.

194.1 Mr. Yancey stated that his understanding of the regulation is that if the owner of the land does not own the mobile homes and is setting up mobile homes on his property, he is in effect setting up a mobile home park. He asked Mr. Miller if after he went to the Planning Board, they ever told him that he could proceed with his development.

194.2 Mr. Miller responded that he went to the Planning Office and asked Mr. Urban what was required of him, and although he never gave him specific approval, he did not tell him that he could not do what he was intending to do after he explained his plans. They further did not tell him that he would have to have approval by the Planning Board, and believed that he had done all that was required of him. Had he known how this would turn out, he never would have proceeded as he has; but at this point, he will fight it with all he has because right is right.

194.3 R. Hudson stated that he shares Mr. Miller's concerns. He further requested that Ms. Riley be asked to give a detailed explanation of the entire process with respect to the Miller property. He explained that Mr. Miller has a right to file a written, formal appeal to the County Judge with respect to the final decision made by the Planning Board. If Mr. Miller doesn't get the decision he wants from the County Judge, then he has the right to appeal to the Circuit Court. R. Hudson explained that these are Mr. Miller's current rights until the County can do something about the Planning Board, whether it be to abolish it or come up with new planning regulations. He encouraged Mr. Miller to avail himself of these rights.

194.4 K. Haley stated that she was at the Planning Board meeting where Mr. Miller's property was discussed and R. Hudson is jumping the gun with his suggestion that Mr. Miller appeal the County Planning Board's decision. She explained that the Planning Board postponed the matter and gave Mr. Miller 30 days to get with the Planning Director and let her know his intentions and then come back to the Planning Board before they make a final decision.

194.5 Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Board gave him approval to put a double-wide and a trailer on one piece of property and approved his land split after which he put a trailer and double-wide on each piece of property. He explained that Ms. Riley just sent him a letter yesterday which stated that a double-wide is considered a mobile home unless he owns it and furthermore indicated that this was something that she had just come up with.

195.1 Judge Johnson responded to Mr. Miller that if the Planning Board made a ruling, Ms. Riley cannot override the Planning Board, but rather can go back to them and show them where they may have made a wrong interpretation and let them verify that.

195.2 R. Hudson reiterated that he wants a detailed explanation from Ms. Riley on what has been done with regard to the Miller property from day one to where they are today. He further stated that he would get Mr. Miller a copy of the ordinance that covers his rights to appeal, and stated that Ms. Haley is right that an appeal cannot be made until the final decision is made by the Planning Board.

195.3 Judge Johnson stated that he believes that Mr. Miller misunderstood Ms. Riley because he doesn't believe she would try to tell him something that was counter to what the Planning Board approved unless there was a regulation that they were not aware of that she will be showing them. He further stated that it is Ms. Riley's duty to go to the Planning Board and tell them why she took what action she did, if it is counter to what they approved.

195.4 B. Yancey questioned why the Planning Board would ask him to pave the existing road. He felt the Quorum Court should recommend to the Planning Board that they approve Mr. Miller's subdivision and stop causing him the cost and problems that he is having to go through. B. Yancey further stated that it is not their business to deal with Mr. Miller's neighbors, and if they have any objections, they can take him to court.

195.5 R. Hudson further suggested that Ms. Riley should be specifically asked to show up at the next County Service's Committee meeting with a complete explanation of this situation. At that time, they can fairly consider what has transpired and have all the facts before them, as well as giving Mr. Miller an opportunity to present his position to the Committee and then the Committee can make its recommendation.

195.6 Jim Higgins, neighbor to Mr. Miller's property, addressed the Quorum Court stating that he also brought pictures to show the other side of the fence and what he sees. He stated that he also has property rights and he would like to see a buffer zone along the road and between the properties because the development is already underway and doesn't appear to be stopping. 196.1 Paul Johnson, resident on Tipton Road also next to Mr. Miller's property, addressed the Quorum Court stating his opposition to this development due to the depreciation of his property by 30% as a result of this trailer park. He concurred with Mr. Higgins that a buffer zone is needed. It was his under-standing that Mr. Miller's plans were to be on hold until the Planning Board okayed it; however, there are people living in these places and they are proceeding as planned. Mr. Johnson stated that he would recommend in the future that once they come up with rules and regulations to go by with respect to County planning, that they abide by these to protect the rights of not only the developer, but their neighbors. He understands that the current regulations are being reworked, but in the meantime, the existing regulations should be enforced.

196.2 B. Yancey stated that he also can see Mr. Johnson's point of view, but he believes that he and Mr. Miller have an individual problem that needs to be settled somewhere else besides the Quorum Court. The current conflict seems to be that Mr. Miller has gone ahead with his development as he believed he had the approval of the Planning Board, and those opposing Mr. Miller don't see it the same way. If what Mr. Miller says is true, then he shouldn't be penalized for proceeding with his development. B. Yancey stated that he does not like rules and regulations that much and suggested that they should be reasonable people and work it out between them.

196.3 W. Kimbrough stated that he owns a house on 21 acres. Years ago, mobile homes came in his area and the experts agreed that this severely reduced the value of his house and his 21 acres.

196.4 Roy Rhineheart, resident of Canehill, addressed the Quorum Court stating that county planning has almost no effect on areas inside corporate city limits. He believes that people in rural areas need some guidance with rural transactions, but no more rules and regulations. He asked how many people on these committees and Quorum Court reside outside corporate city limits. All septic systems have to be approved by the State and still the county committees are still looking at this. Even if the Planning Board feels strongly about this or that, they still cannot override the decisions made by the City Administrator. Mr. Rhineheart stated that this is supposed to be America and we are supposed to be free to choose. The County is trying to regulate 9 out of 10 people because of the tenth person's ignorance. With respect to the Transportation Committee, the only way they have any effect on County road planning is for the Quorum Court to find more tax dollars to work with and in his opinion, this is a duplication of efforts on the part of the Transportation Committee, however well intentioned. The County Road Department still is and must be scheduled as to the amount of dollars that they have to spend and areas that they have top priority to spend these dollars on. He believes that the County is sadly mistaken to believe that they can make rules and regulations that keep people from making mistakes. The only way progress is made is by making mistakes, and the more it touches your pocketbook or hurts you physically, the more intense and real are the results. Mr. Rhineheart stated that telling people who own property outside the corporate city limits that they are required to get permission from someone else to sell, dispose of, divide, or whatever with regard to their own property is wrong.

197.1 Bill Jowls, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Quorum Court and commended them on the planning ordinances that they have passed as a group. He stated that there are those who are concerned about some of the things that are happening in their county and they appreciate what the Quorum Court has done. He reported that there were plans recently by a group from out of state to put 741 houses on 200 acres out by his home, and this was denied. He stated that he has had rental property in the past and described the problems he encountered with tenants, stating that he would never have rental property again. Mr. Jowls stated that he feels like what the east side of the County doesn't want, they get on the west side. He believes that there is enough affordable housing, apartments, duplexes, etc., that they need in his area of the County and need to have people buy to build in this area. He stated that they all need to look and feel for their fellow man which is what America is all about. Mr. Jowls stated that they will be setting a precedent by not abiding by the planning rules and regulations passed.

197.2 Bobby Williams, resident of Dutch Mills, addressed the Quorum Court with regard to underage drinking, and reported that this has been a concern since 1966, when they were trying to find out how the kids were drinking. Therefore, he doesn't see this as a real urgent issue. Mr. Williams stated that he too attended the last Planning Board meeting and taped the meeting. He reported that Kevin Urban admitted at that meeting that he had screwed up on the Miller property. Mr. Williams believes that the information is not getting to the people. He further stated that he does not understand why some people go berserk whenever trailer houses are mentioned.

198.1 Clarence Starr, resident and neighbor from the Miller property, addressed the Quorum Court stating that about six months ago, the City was going to come out and take their property to use for a disposal plant, which he of course opposed. He heard about two months ago that Mr. Miller planned to move four trailers onto his property; and the neighbor behind him planned to do the same. It was at this point that he believes the matter got out of hand, as this would have produced one ton of sewage every day going into the ground in this area. He explained that there are 4-5 of them still on wells and he wondered how much longer they are going to be able to drink the water. Mr. Starr stated that he is concerned and against Mr. Miller's proposed development for that reason.

198.2 Charles Alexander, resident of the 2-acre tract South of Mr. Miller's property, addressed the Quorum Court stating that this tract was not set-up for trailers, as he believes there are a lot more homes than there are trailers out there currently. He urged the County to stick to their rules and regulations or he believed that they would end up with a real mess, including problems with sewers and wells. In addition, he noted that County Roads 639 and 649 cannot handle all of the traffic that this kind of development would generate. Mr. Alexander further stated that these subdivisions and mobile home parks should be held liable for fixing their road, and not the taxpayer.

198.3 R. Hudson stated that anytime a serious health concern is raised, that is fair game. When the State Health Department issues permits of septic systems, they take into consideration all other septic systems in the area. Once they declare a septic system safe, it was his understanding that that qualifies this with respect to any potential pollution it might cause to a well in the surrounding area.

198.4 B. Yancey stated that the Health Department defines 100 feet as all that is necessary for a septic system to be from a well. If the septic system is installed according to the perk test and the way they define that it should be installed, then they consider it safe.

198.5 R. Hudson stated that he just wants to make sure that the State standards are sufficient to protect the well water and if they are, then he suspects that the Planning Board is doing what they are supposed to do.

199.1 Marv Bohanan, neighbor behind Mr. Miller, addressed the Quorum Court stating that he is the person who Mr. Starr referred to who was going to put four trailers on his property. Mr. Bohanan stated that he has never had such plans, but rather had purchased a trailer that he planned to fix up for his daughter and moved it clear back, 200 plus feet, away from the road on another section of his property, and the trailer was not hooked up to any utilities. The next thing he knows, he was accused of starting a trailer park and told by Kevin Urban that he could probably have six months to finish the trailer and move it; however, the Planning Board gave him only 30 days to do so. Mr. Bohanan had no idea that he couldn't have a mobile home on his property to rebuild for resale and he incurred much expense in moving it onto his property, and now he has to move it off.

199.2 Judge Johnson stated that you can buy a tract that has more than one mobile home on it if it was purchased that way and that the regulations come in when people keep putting more and more on a particular tract.

199.3 Another resident present stated in reference to Mr. Bohanan's comment, this was a covenant problem and we went through the court and got the problem taken care of. He urged the County to follow the planning rules and regulations so that they don't have to go through the court again. He stated that they too have put a lot of money in their property and don't want people around them to bring it down.

199.4 With no other business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen M. Beeks
Quorum Court Secretary