Commissioners Stumble with Settlement Proposal

1. Compliance with Arkansas Statutory Law

Arkansas Code Title 14 - Local Government provides the legal framework for the creation, management, and dissolution of improvement districts. Key sections include:

• § 14-94-105: Petition to form a district

• § 14-94-106: Hearing on petition and determination

• § 14-94-107: Board of commissioners generally

• § 14-94-110: Powers of districts generally

• § 14-94-126: Dissolution of district

The proposal FAILS to follow these statutory requirements, the proposal FAILS to be legally valid.

2. Formation of a New District

Issue: The proposal suggests creating a new municipal district to replace the MRID. This process requires a formal petition, a hearing, and approval by the relevant authorities, as outlined in § 14-94-105 and § 14-94-106.Stumbling Block: The commissioners must ensure that the petition process is properly followed, including gathering sufficient support from property owners and conducting a public hearing.

Creating a District in a settlement negotiation is a FAILURE to adhere to requisite procedures and would not stand up to a legal challenge.

3. Governance and Management

Issue: The proposal indicates that the new district would be governed by the same five commissioners until 2026, with four elected by property owners and one appointed by the city council.

Stumbling Block: This governance structure must comply with § 14-94-107, which outlines the requirements for the board of commissioners. The appointment and election process must be transparent and in accordance with the law to avoid disputes. Again, FAILURE is the verdict!

4. Transfer of Assets

Issue: The proposal involves transferring all amenities, assets, and property from the MRID to the new district, pending approval from various legal authorities.

Stumbling Block: The transfer of assets must comply with § 14-94-113 (Sale of land) and § 14-94-126 (Dissolution of district). The commissioners must ensure that all legal and financial obligations are met, and that the transfer is conducted transparently to avoid legal challenges.

How can they transfer legally? Why were amenities never transferred to Trust? again - FAILURE

5. Assessments and Funding

Issue: The proposal includes reinstating assessments to 5.5% and retaining a professional assessment company to appraise and reassess MRID properties.

Stumbling Block: The assessment process must comply with § 14-94-115 (Assessment of benefits and damages) and § 14-94-117 (Reassessment). The use of a professional assessment company adds transparency, but the commissioners must ensure that the assessments are fair and legally justified.

The commissioners FAILED to assess the amenities property over the course of 45 years, trusting the commissioners to learn from their mistakes, a FAILURE

6. Attorney Fees and Special Administrator

Issue: The proposal includes reimbursing attorney fees and dissolving the position of the special administrator.

Stumbling Block: Reimbursing attorney fees must be approved by the court, and dissolving the special administrator position must comply with the relevant statutory provisions. The commissioners must ensure that these actions are legally justified and do not result in further disputes.

7. Long-term Contract for Management

Issue: The proposal suggests entering into a long-term contract with the City of Horseshoe Bend's Parks and Recreation Department to manage the district's amenities.

Stumbling Block: The terms of the contract must be clear and favorable to the property owners. The commissioners must ensure that the contract complies with § 14-94-110 (Powers of districts generally) and other relevant statutory provisions.

Conclusion

The proposal by Edward Chevallier and the MRID commissioners to reorganize the MRID into a new super municipal district involves several legal and procedural challenges.

The commissioners fail to ensure compliance with Arkansas statutory law, particularly regarding the formation of a new district, governance, transfer of assets, assessments, attorney fees, and long-term management contracts.

Failure to adhere to these legal requirements will result in legal challenges and disputes, hindering the successful access to property owner amenities.