In a dramatic conclusion to a lengthy and often confusing debate, the Pine Bluff City Council failed to pass an ordinance that would have dissolved the city’s Urban Renewal Agency by the end of the year.
Council members Steven Mays and Yvonne Denton voted in favor of the ordinance. Council members Lanette Fraizer, Glen Brown Jr., Lloyd Holcomb Jr., Bruce Lockett, Latisha Brunson and William Fells voted against it.
“Motion fails, thank you, council,” Mayor Vivian Flowers confirmed, ending the deliberation on the controversial measure.
The session began with a public comment by citizen Kamyra Seals, who stood before the council to voice the widespread public frustration.
“My concern, just as a taxpayer,” she said, “I want to make sure that we are good stewards of the taxpayer money. Accountability is important and transparency. Transparency is important.”
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
She described the process surrounding Urban Renewal as “very complex” and “very confusing,” adding that thousands of taxpayers feel the same. “We just want to know the full story,” she insisted.
Mays, speaking to Seals’ comments, agreed with the assessment of complexity and prior lack of clarity.
Flowers presented the provisions of the ordinance that ultimately failed to pass. The key points were:
Urban Renewal would dissolve at the end of the year.
It would allocate an additional $66,000 to supplement existing funds, bringing Urban Renewal’s total working capital to the requested $860,000 needed to complete existing projects, including the go-car track project.
All assets, including the operational Sixth and Main project, the undeveloped 219 Main St. property, and all demolition and disposal equipment would be transferred to the city.
It would have mandated regular reporting of information related to tax dollars and project updates.
Prior to the vote, Flowers delivered a detailed rebuttal, not only on the merits of the dissolution ordinance but against two resolutions that the council had previously passed — and ultimately used to justify Urban Renewal’s continued operations.
Flowers zeroed in on a resolution authorizing an agreement for $1.2 million in private funds that had been pledged. She highlighted two critical flaws:
Flowers questioned the council’s new designation of the pledged money as “matching funds,” stating, “there’s nothing in writing ever anywhere in the history of Urban Renewal … that this product or that pledge was in any way referred to as matching funds until this resolution.”
The resolution stipulated the pledge would be “nullified” if the city dissolves Urban Renwal before Dec. 31, 2027. “How do you nullify something if you’ve already spent the money?” Flowers asked, concluding that the city would be “blind as to how and when the $1.2 million would come into effect.”
She then strongly criticized another resolution that stipulated the Public Works director, who is under the mayor’s authority, would inspect the ongoing Urban Renewal construction project and forward all invoices to the mayor for approval.
“What would I be approving? Based on what?” she asked, pointing out that Urban Renewal Executive Director Chandra Griffin is not required to report to the council or the mayor. She called the resolution problematic and fiscally irresponsible, suggesting the move would save the city “almost $100,000” if the Urban Renewal employee position were moved to the city’s Economic Development department.
Flowers concluded her statement with a plea to the council: “My prayer is that you all have heard the facts and that we can do this the right way … I have no doubt that [Urban Renewal leadership] would do the right thing and work with us and we could still get this thing done and do it right,” said Flowers.