The Garland County Quorum Court's finance committee voted against releasing the balance of the Hot Springs Metro Partnership's 2016 appropriation earlier this week, withholding $51,333 it said won't facilitate economic development in unincorporated areas left isolated by the city's utility connection and extension policy.
The measure passed by acclimation, with several committee members telling the public-private partnership's leaders that it elevates the city's interest over the county. Committee Chairman Matt McKee, District 9 justice of the peace, questioned the Metro Partnership's silence on an extension and connection policy he called "anti-growth" and "anti-progressive."
The city prohibits extensions of sewer and water mains outside the city. In October, the Hot Springs Board of Directors amended the policy to allow limited commercial access to existing mains in the planning area -- territory extending up to a mile from the corporate limits that's subject to the city's subdivision code.
"Is the county out of line to want their citizens to be able to have the same access to development and all those different things the city residents have?," McKee, speaking rhetorically, asked Metro Partnership Chairman Todd Woerpel and Vice-Chairman James Montgomery. "I don't think so. Is the city out of line to deny citizens access to water? Services they paid for on their tax statements.
"It's time individuals say this is right and this is wrong, and what (the city) is doing is wrong. Until a statement is made to that effect, I don't know why on earth we'd give you any money."
Woerpel explained that the Metro Partnership isn't advocacy oriented, a function he said is better left to the Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce that shares staff, office space and executive leadership with the Metro Partnership. According to information Woerpel presented to the finance committee, the Metro Partnership will reimburse the chamber for $327,293 in administrative expenses this year.
"The Metro Partnership is not a (political action committee)," Woerpel, who by virtue of his Metro Partnership chairmanship also serves on the chamber's board of directors, told the committee. "The relationships we try to build with the quorum court, city board members and other elected officials will hopefully get us an end result. The chamber is the organization that should be more political. They have a PAC."
Chamber and Metro Partnership President/CEO Jim Fram reiterated Woerpel's explanation Thursday. Prior to the finance committee denying the Metro Partnership's 2015 funding, Fram told JPs the organization's acceptance of public funds prohibits it from issue advocacy. In addition to the $75,000 the county appropriated for 2016 funding, the Metro Partnership also receives $100,000 from the city.
"The partnership doesn't get involved in politics in any way shape or form," Fram said Thursday. "That's been explained ad nauseam."
The county renewed the Metro Partnership's 2016 funding after discontinuing it in 2015 over concerns similar to those raised earlier this week. At Fram's suggestion, the finance committee controlled the release of funds from this year's appropriation, whereas in previous years the funds were automatically allocated every quarter.
The finance committee released $23,666 before freezing the appropriation. Several JPs took exception to the funds being used for personnel expenses they've said don't directly affect economic development in the county's unincorporated area.
The finance committee will continue to control the allocation of the $75,000 it appropriated for 2017 Metro Partnership funding. Fram said he's optimistic it will release the full balance.
"We've been very clear in how the money was going to be spent," he said. "I'm holding out some hope. I think next year we're going to send them a very detailed report along with invoices. Whether they pay it or not is their decision. I have to say I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the action they took the other night."
Fram said the convincing margin that Issue No. 3 passed by in Garland County during last month's general election shows county voters support economic development. Among the changes to the Arkansas Constitution enabled by Issue No. 3's passage is the removal of the prohibition against using public funds to support private corporations. Counties or municipalities can now give money to private interests for the purpose of funding economic development projects and services.
The issue passed by almost a 30-point margin statewide and garnered more than 60 percent of the vote in Garland County.
"In the last election in Garland County, the voters approved Issue 3, which was a jobs initiative," Fram said. "There was strong support from people that live in Garland County, which was evidenced by that vote."
Local on 12/09/2016