The Jonesboro Capital Improvement Bond Task Force voted to locate the city’s expanded E‑911 real‑time crime center on the Washington Street property, the task force announced after a roll-call vote at the meeting. The motion passed 4‑0 with one member recusing.

Task force members said cost savings and downtown presence drove the decision. Councilman Moore, who moved to select the Washington property, cited an estimated Phase 1 savings of $654,000 and said Phase 2 savings would “surpass over a million,” referencing a $1,034,000 estimate during his remarks.

The choice ends a months‑long site-selection discussion between the Washington Street property and a Caraway Road parcel. Task force speakers repeatedly emphasized that the task force’s role was to pick a site; building design and internal program decisions will be handled by architects and other city staff or contractors. A city administration representative clarified that bond proceeds can be used to purchase property but that an actual land purchase must be authorized by a separate council resolution.

Discussion and public comment focused on three recurring themes: cost, operational efficiency for police and 9‑1‑1 staff, and drainage risks at the downtown site. Councilman Moore and other supporters argued the Washington location would both save money and bolster downtown government presence, saying the site would be within walking distance of courts, the city attorney and other downtown offices and would help support festivals and public events.

Opponents and several police officials argued for maintaining operational efficiency by keeping the police investigative division and the real‑time crime center close together. Lieutenant McDaniel, who administers the city’s real‑time crime center, told the task force that “if this is about public safety, it's more than just the building” and warned that dividing staff geographically would “fundamentally damage the efficiency of public safety.” Chief Rick Elliott said that the future Phase 2 buildout would require significantly more space and argued that splitting functions would increase long‑term costs; he cited a needs analysis that called for roughly 45,000 square feet in Phase 2.

Task force members also discussed drainage estimates. An included site estimate for required on‑site drainage work showed roughly $350,000 for improvements developers would be required to make on the Washington parcel, while a separate estimate for fixing the entire drainage basin was described as “almost $3,000,000.” A city engineer’s estimate and other cost items — including demolition and asbestos removal at the Caraway site estimated “over $700,000” — were cited during debate.

During the meeting, a city administration representative addressed legal and procedural questions about the bond funding, saying the bond ordinance creates a revenue stream that can be used for property acquisition but that a separate council resolution is required to approve any land purchase agreement. The administration representative summarized: “the passage of the bond… meant that you were not locked into buying this property; any property acquisition is a resolution to city council.”

Public commenters were split. Some downtown residents and business‑area advocates urged selecting Washington Street to support downtown investment and events; others, including several police‑department supporters, urged Caraway Road to preserve operational cohesion. The meeting included questions about earlier public messaging and the terms of the Caraway offer that task force members said are posted on Legistar and available for review.

On the roll call following debate, Councilman Haffner, Mr. Street, Mr. Gibson and Councilman Moore voted yes. Mr. Emmerson recused himself. The task force chair announced the motion passing for the Washington property and adjourned the meeting.

The vote advances the site decision but does not by itself transfer property or start construction. Task force members and the mayor’s letter read into the record said the next steps would include preparing a construction plan intended to minimize disruption and presenting any land‑purchase resolution or contract to the full city council for separate approval.