Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appropriations And Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County approves multiple appropriations, majority objects to consideration of a separate ordinance (6-3)
Summary
The Marion County court on July 14 approved several appropriation ordinances including sale-proceeds for road vehicles and a court-security grant; the court voted 6-3 to object to consideration of a separate ordinance after a point of order alleging it was unconstitutional.
Get email alerts on the Appropriations And Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its July 14 meeting, Marion County justices approved multiple appropriation ordinances and accepted a state grant, and later voted to object to the floor consideration of a separate ordinance on constitutional grounds.
Clerk Moffat introduced Appropriation Ordinance 26-33 to appropriate $6,360 in proceeds from Witcher Auctions into the sales tax road fund for vehicles. The ordinance was read by title only and approved; justices responded affirmatively in roll call.
Ordinance 2634 was approved to appropriate a grant of $18,699.99 from the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts for court security upgrades, including security cameras and door lock/release systems for courtroom access and rear entry to the Court Complex Building.
Ordinance 2635, described by the clerk as a transfer for the restriping of county roads, was approved; the clerk read an amount as $26,584.02, though portions of the readback contained garbled numbers in the transcript and should be verified in the official minutes.
Ordinance 2636 appropriated a $900 stipend received from the state board of election commissions into the elections fund for part‑time help related to primary and runoff service; the court approved the appropriation.
Ordinance 26‑37 recorded a state jury reimbursement of $1,101,112.89 for the first quarter of 2026 and the funds were appropriated into the jury per diem account; the court affirmed the appropriation.
Later in the meeting a justice raised a point of order, stating that an ordinance under consideration was unconstitutional and requesting objection to consideration to avoid setting a precedent. The court voted on that procedural motion; the objection carried 6‑3 (Yes 6, No 3), meaning the court declined to consider that ordinance at this session.
No further action was taken on the ordinance objected to at this meeting. The meeting then adjourned.

