The apportioning of a more than half-million dollars to repair a sewer system that affects the North Sunflower Medical Center has been backed up yet again.
The matter was brought up and tabled at several of the previous sessions of the Sunflower County Board of Supervisors, with the board finally voting on the item at its last meeting in October.
However, at the onset of Monday's meeting, District 4 Supervisor Anthony Clark asked to rescind his previous yes vote, which was in favor of expending the funds from the county's American Rescue Plan Act money.
Clark explained, "The last meeting, I had accepted the proposal that North Sunflower hospital presented, but this morning I would like to rescind my vote to let it go forward due to some information that I received."
At the meeting that Clark referenced, he, along with District 5 Supervisor Gloria Dickerson and District 2 Supervisor Riley Rice, voted to move forward with the expenditure of $600,000 from the county's ARPA money for the hospital sewer repair project. District 1 Supervisor Glenn Donald and District 3 Supervisor Ben Gaston had voted no in a 3-2 decision.
At Clark’s announcement, Board Attorney Johnny McWilliams called for clarification regarding the reasons for the previous vote, but did mention that it had to do with whether or not it was legal under state law to make the allocation.
He also mentioned that Donald had previously stated that if it was legal under state statutes that he would vote for it.
McWilliams asserted that he felt the best way to handle the appropriation is to draft an inter-local agreement between the county, the City of Ruleville and the hospital, wherein the county would fund the improvement, the city of Ruleville would maintain it and the hospital would benefit.
He then stated that the members should submit the agreement to the state's attorney general for approval with the understanding that no money would be spent unless it was approved. "That would be a good way to put to rest the question of whether it is legal under state law to do that," McWilliams said.
Dickerson then asserted that she had recently spoken with a representative from the state auditor's office and that he had verbally assured that it was definitely legal. Dickerson said she explained that it was a county hospital and it's sewer and toilets are prone to backup during heavy rain conditions. "And he said that's a no-brainer, sure you can do that. There's no question about that," Dickerson said. She added that the unnamed auditor stated that it would be bordering on negligence if they did not take care of the problem.
Donald said, "This was presented to them wrong. This is not a county hospital system. If the hospital was the problem, then yes, we could do it, but we'd have to do it through a tax. But this is a city of Ruleville problem."
He explained that the City of Ruleville is responsible for pumping any sewage to the lagoon from its businesses and not the businesses themselves. He stated that he had spoken with engineers regarding the project and was told that the sewer project was initiated before any ARPA money was announced available. He maintained his prior conviction that it was a city problem, involving city streets.
Donald told the members that he had been to Ruleville to check on the situation for himself. "The City of Ruleville got a size 8 sewer line and when Ruleville built that hospital, the City of Ruleville was supposed to increase their line to a 14 at least, possibly a 16, and they did not do it," Donald said.
He alluded to a local business putting pressure on Ruleville’s leaders to correct the problem and re-stated that it was a city issue. "Sunflower County does not put sewage lines in for cities," Donald said.
Then apparently alluding to McWilliams' earlier statement about the county forming an agreement with the city and the hospital, Donald reminded McWilliams that he was the one who said they would likely not get approval in writing.
McWilliams responded, "Nobody is going to send you a letter that says, 'yeah this is approved,' they don't approve things upfront. You can submit an inter-local agreement to them and if they approve it, then it's approved. It's a backdoor way of getting a letter of approval."
Donald denounced McWilliams suggestion and reaffirmed his aforementioned contention for not supporting the project and emphasized that if it could be done with ARPA money, then the City of Ruleville should use its own ARPA allotment to fund the project.
McWilliams then stated, "They said it was going to be a 100% dedicated line to the hospital, it won't have anybody else on it but the hospital. I am totally lost as to how we got so opposed to the City of Ruleville, something has gone strange."
He then redirected the conversation back to the matter at hand, which was Clark's announcement to rescind his previous vote. When queried for clarification, Clark indicated that he was now making a motion to rescind the action of appropriating $600,000 of county ARPA funds to the hospital sewer project.
Donald made a second to his motion and after a clarification, Gaston also added a yes with the annotation that there should be some additional discussion to clarify so that those who voted on it would know if it's legal or not. "Frankly, if the auditor is not willing to give a letter saying that it is legal, then it's pretty questionable. And those who do vote for it, if it's not legal, they're gonna be responsible for paying that money back personally," Gaston said.
Initially, Gaston had said that he abstained and wanted to give McWilliams an opportunity to get a response from the attorney general; however, after McWilliams stated that he was unsure of how Gaston's abstention would be counted since there was two yes and two no votes—Dickerson and Rice voted no—Gaston changed his vote to align with Clark and Donald.
Gaston said he would like to have some questions answered first and suggested they revisit the matter after responses were received from the attorney general and the auditor.
McWilliams is supposed to submit the letters to the state auditor and the state’s attorney general. "I'm going to lay out the facts as I understand them and ask them, is that legal," McWilliams said.
Rice said, "So that was three yes and two nays, so that motion is rescinded."
Dickerson said that she would contact the person that she had spoken with from the auditor's office and get a written statement because he had declared that he would tell her how to put it in the minutes. "I can't believe that this board is working so hard not to give North Sunflower Hospital some money to keep it open and keep it going," Dickerson said.
Donald refuted her statement and maintained that he was just trying to make sure that it was legal.
Gaston also added that no one was trying to deny the hospital any funds that it is entitled. "All we're trying to do is make sure it is legal and nobody has come up and said it's legal except for the hospital up there and an auditor who won't put it in writing to you," he said.
Rice also reaffirmed the board's intention to help the hospital in any way that it can that's illegal and called for unity among the members and the municipalities in the county.
