Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Desha County Quorum Court rejects resolution to let Masonville Park apply for ARPA funds
Summary
On July 18, 2024, the Desha County Quorum Court voted 5-4 to defeat Resolution 2024-4, which would have authorized Masonville Park to apply for an American Rescue Plan Act grant. The vote followed debate about property ownership and legal constraints; no alternative funding directive was recorded.
The Desha County Quorum Court voted 5-4 on July 18, 2024, to defeat Resolution 2024-4, which would have authorized Masonville Park to apply for a grant from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. The meeting was held at the Desha County Courthouse.
County Clerk Valerie Donaldson read the resolution in full before the court debated whether the county should allow Masonville Park to seek ARPA funding. Attorney Brooks Gill spoke during the discussion, saying federal law can supersede state law: "Federal law trumps State Law," according to the transcript. Court members raised questions about who owns the park land; one member said the property had been leased to the county for 20 years under a previous judge and that the owners had offered to sign the land to the county.
The roll call recorded four votes in favor and five against, so the resolution failed. Members voting in favor were JP 8 Dollie Wilson, JP 3 Patricia Watkins, JP 1 Troy Jackson Jr and JP 4 Ricky Helton. Members recorded as voting against were JP 6 Kenneth Holt Jr, JP 2 G. Lynn Weatherford, JP 7 Rita Kolb, JP 5 Hollis Mankin and JP 9 Norris Sims.
JP Patricia Watkins asked to go on record after the vote, saying the court had been "unjust and unfair to the Masonville Community" and urging that, given recent expenditures elsewhere, funds could have been provided to Masonville Park: "that if the Quorum Court could give over 200,000 dollars to an RV Park surely money could've been given to the Masonville park because its not like the money isn't there," the transcript quotes.
No motion to refer the matter for further study or to reintroduce the resolution was recorded in the transcript. The court moved on to new business after the vote.
