The Pine Bluff City Council passed a resolution on Monday expressing its ongoing support for the operations of the Pine Bluff Urban Renewal Agency, which comes amid discussions of the agency’s possible dissolution.
The resolution, which was approved by a 6-2 vote, notes such discussions have thwarted PBURA’s ability to establish confidence for future grants and partnership funds.
City Council members Steven Mays Sr. and Yvonne Denton voted against the resolution, which also reappropriates $860,000 for go-kart track construction. This funding, which the City Council initially voted for on Dec. 16, 2024, is intended as a match to the $1.2 million from Go Forward Pine Bluff to complete construction; fund furniture, fixtures and equipment; and cover operations.
The resolution outlines several achievements of PBURA in accordance with its Urban Renewal Plan:
The agency acquired equipment for blight remediation and, in partnership with other city departments, has successfully removed more than 200 condemned properties.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
The agency acquired and assembled downtown acreage, which the city leveraged to secure a $500,000 Brownfield award.
New commercial and residential construction has been successfully facilitated by the agency on formerly condemned and abandoned property in approved urban renewal areas.
The agency has active federal grants with the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Forestry Division.
The agency has developed partnerships resulting in over $4 million in private partnership funds and real estate.
But Monday’s City Council meeting was largely dominated by a tense, prolonged dispute between the agency and city administration, centered on the agency’s financial transparency and a proposed ordinance to dissolve it. The contention centered on whether the PBURA had sufficient funds to complete its projects, leading to a clash over claims of mismanagement and bureaucratic delays.
The debate began with a citizen speaking out during public comment for the abolition of the agency, arguing that they should “spend their own money.” The citizen stated the agency had been granted “$800, some thousand plus another $14,000” for a go-kart track project that was supposed to be done “two years ago.” They pleaded with the council, “Abolish Urban Renewal. If they really want it this bad, let them pay for it out of their own pocket. … All they’ve done is put a scar on our city.”
PBURA Director Chandra Griffin defended the agency’s actions against accusations that it had misstated its available funds. The controversy stems from a December Development and Planning meeting where Griffin reportedly stated she only had “$14,000 to pay her bills” and needed money from an $860,000 allocation.
However, the meeting presented conflicting financial reports. It was noted that the Relyance Bank account balance was showing $439,195.55, and later cited a December 2025 report with a balance of $402,211.83. Griffin explained that the $14,000 was in reference to a “budget line item on the budget performance report,” and that the large amount — initially around $789,000 — was not readily available.
“I did send a memo to the finance department to make that … $789,000 odd dollars available,” Griffin stated, but she was “told that it would not be that amount, that there were outstanding checks, so on and so forth.” She claimed to have only received the accurate balance report on Dec. 22, and subsequently, only $400,000 was made available, “and that was strictly to pay those two invoices” that totaled approximately $335,000.
She maintained, “The full amount was never made available in New World (financial software) to be spent.”
Pine Bluff Mayor Vivian Flowers called the claim of only $14,000 available “at least disingenuous.” She highlighted that Griffin “knew you had at least $290,000” because Urban Renewal put that amount in reserve in 2024 from an insurance claim settlement for theft of funds. Flowers further criticized Griffin’s reported lack of familiarity with the New World financial system, asserting she “had always been able to have access to New World if you would learn how to use it.”
The debate over the PBURA’s function led directly to the first reading of the ordinance which seeks to abolish the Urban Renewal Agency and dissolve its board, effective Dec. 31, 2026. The ordinance justifies the move by stating the PBURA’s role “can be efficiently distributed among existing city departments,” which would “promote council oversight and eliminate unnecessary duplication of services.”
Citizen Tiki Hunt inquired about the plan, noting the proposed ordinance mentions duties being “efficiently distributed among existing city departments.” Flowers confirmed the transfer would primarily go to the Pine Bluff Economic and Community Development Department, but also noted that the Simmons Bank Park/Sixth Avenue and Main Street project “would be overseen by parks.”
Flowers clarified that a newly created position in Economic Development was intended to “house Director Griffin’s position” to be “more efficient to save money” from agency-related property and operational costs.
The ordinance was placed on the calendar for future votes, requiring two more readings before a final decision.
The Pine Bluff City Council formally repealed a resolution measure that had allocated $860,000 in city funds to the PBURA for various projects. The repeal was passed after an intense debate revealed that the PBURA had substantially more money in its accounts than was previously reported to the council.
The resolution explicitly states that the prior allocation was approved “in the belief that the urban renewal agency lacked funds to complete the projects.” However, this belief proved incorrect as it “has subsequently come to light that the urban renewal agency had approximately $700,000 in its account available for use,” rendering the $860,000 city allocation “unnecessary and the resolution repealed.”
Flowers pressed further on the PBURA’s reserve funds, which Griffin confirmed stood at $290,000.
“The bottom line is you had $290,000 in reserve. So, you did know that you had at least $290,000,” Flowers argued. She concluded the intense line of questioning by criticizing Griffin’s repeated claim of having no money.
Griffin attempted to provide a final explanation, stating she was informed that the $290,000 reserve had been “encompassed within that 1.46,” a larger $1.46 million budget for 2025.
The resolution, which had previously allocated $860,000 to the URA projects, was formally repealed by a 7-1 vote, with Mays voting against the measure. The resolution states the previous allocation was made “in the belief that the urban renewal agency lacked funds to complete the projects,” and since it has “subsequently come to light that the urban renewal agency had approximately $700,000 in its account available for use,” the allocations are “unnecessary and the resolution repealed.”
Flowers stated that the agency’s financial position was misleading at the time of the request.
She also argued that with nearly $800,000 in PBURA funds and a separate $1.2 million in private commitments for the project, the PBURA has “more than enough to complete the project” and that the $860,000 should be reallocated to cover city operations. Flowers also countered the argument that the city must spend its money first to “trigger” private funds, stating that key PBURA documents contained no such requirement.
“When I met with Chairman Jimmy Dill, he clarified for me that there was no MOU, no resolution, no ordinance, no contract that dictates that the city will spend all of its money first,” Flowers added.
Council members on the other side of the issue expressed deep frustration that the $860,000, which was legislated in 2024, was never transferred, leading to the current situation of unpaid contractor invoices for the go-kart track project in 2026.
Council Member LaTisha Brunson asked why the money, approved in 2024, still hasn’t moved. “I’m frustrated because we’re sitting here talking about bills in 2026 from a budget that should have money moved in 2024,” she said.
Council Member William Fells highlighted the continued confusion over the process, even years after an internal theft and an audit raised serious financial concerns.
“My frustration is that we’re now in a city council meeting and we have Mrs. Griffin saying, ‘I have unpaid bills,’ and we have city personnel expressing that they’re still uncertain about what process was needed, what needs to be done moving forward.”
The city’s finance director, Gina Devers, clarified that the transfer was stalled in late 2024 due to a new mayoral policy requiring invoices to back up transfers, a policy implemented after the city appeared before the legislative audit committee.
The $860,000 was the only one of several transfers not completed and is currently sitting in a carryover fund, requiring a new resolution and budget amendment to be moved.
Council members also debated the future of PBURA and the city’s financial liability. Council Member Bruce Lockett expressed concern about the long-term impact of taking over PBURA operations.
“I just want to go on record that this thing about taking over all the operations, properties, and projects of Urban Renewal is not sustainable with the city’s current budget, and it would put us in a dire situation,” he stated.
Despite the repeal of the ordinance, multiple council members agreed on the need to reallocate the $860,000 with clearer stipulations to ensure the go-kart track project moves forward. The total funding required to complete the project was stated to be $1.4 million.
Council members on all sides agreed that the long-delayed projects must be finished. The core argument for reappropriation centered on breaking the current financial stalemate and moving forward with construction.
Flowers argued that transferring the full amount is unnecessary, as the private money plus the PBURA’s existing reserves would cover the remaining $1.4 million needed for the project.
“I think it’s outrageous that there is a willingness to just let this go and express support for an agency that no longer gets any funding to give them whatever they ask for and never even require them to come and report to you all any information,” she said.