Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 1/14/25

At the Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 1-14-25 with Director Christina Catsavis absent, the Board discussed the planning for the former Acme Brick property. Halff Engineering was selected to do the engineering planning for the flood retention pond portions of the project. At the 10-8-24 meeting, the Board voted against contracting with RDG for a master plan for the entire property that would incorporate both the flood ponds and the park amenities because there were concerns expressed by some Directors about the master planning process slowing down the building of the flood ponds.

Travis Brisendine from Halff and Scott Crawford from RDG addressed the Board regarding the benefits of the planning for both the flood mitigation and the park being collaborative.

Brisendine said that the pond on the east side of the property would be about 11 acres and the pond on the west side would be 8 acres (the same size as the one at Carol Ann Cross Park). He said that the flood ponds “can become an amenity to the park” like the pond at Carol Ann Cross.

Crawford said master planning can maximize the amount of stormwater controlled and also maximize parks amenities. He said that it would be an approximately 14 month process that would include a topographical study and also engaging the community and collecting feedback from the public. The planning stages for the ponds would be likely to be concluded and ready to go out for bidding near the same time as the end of the master plan, early 2026. He said the “two timelines work very well with each other.” He provided two parks with stormwater pond features, Prairie Trails in Ankeny, Iowa, and Iowa River Landing Wetland Park in Coralville, Iowa as existing examples of comparable projects to what might be done with the property.

Director Rego asked if it might “hamper one or the other in the long term” if planning for park and commercial development and water management are not coordinated together in the design process. Crawford said that it would. Director Rego said of the 14-17 month timeline for the master planning that “doing it right takes time.” He said “I personally suggest we get started.”

Director Settle pointed out that initial discussions about the property prior to the purchase included plans for “state of the art bike park” that would be better than any in Northwest Arkansas on the left side of the park (the former quarry). He said “I struggle with this because I’m not hearing about a mountain bike park.” Crawford said that a single pond rather than 2 would be expensive and not as effective. He said that the pond potentially on the left side would result in water in the former quarry. Interim City Administrator Dingman expressed his view that public input is important and said that the feedback from the public might be a preference for a bike park or that they might want something else. Director Settle suggested that the Parks Department could get the public input themselves through a series of 4 public meetings over the next 4 months. He asked “Do we need a design firm?”

Director Good pointed out that the topography study would need to come first before the public input phase regardless of whether it was conducted in-house or by an outside firm saying that without the study the public input phase would be a “waste of time for the community and us.”

Director Martin asked how long it took from planning to completion on the comparable parks. Crawford said that the planning took 12-14 months for each of the parks. Prairie Trail was built over “many years.” Iowa Wetland construction lasted 16 months. There were funding gaps in both projects. He said that often the ponds are the first thing to be built and the other amenities are added gradually later. He said that type of parks are sometimes called “generational parks” because they take a generation to build completely. Director Martin asked about the total cost of the comparable parks. Crawford said that Iowa Wetland cost a total of $7.5 million. Parks Director Deuster said that the cost for the master planning would be $698,000 with $466,000 coming out of the Engineering budget paid from the sales tax for streets and drainage and the rest coming out of the Parks budget paid from the general fund. The cost of the planning has already been included and approved in the 2025 budget. Director Martin expressed concerns about the portion of the cost coming from the general fund, suggesting that it instead should come from the sales tax for Parks. Deuster said that the Parks sales tax is limited to only being used for Capital Improvement projects and cannot be used for planning, but rather must be only used for the planned construction projects.

Director Kemp expressed concerns about the cost. He asked about the planning cost for just the ponds alone (without the parks amenities planning included). Engineering Director Snodgrass said that the planning for the ponds would be $466,000 and that the contract for that would up for a vote at next week’s meeting. Director Kemp said “I struggle with paying for a lot of consulting work.” He expressed an interest in prioritization of the flood mitigation. He suggested that parks amenities, including for mountain biking, might be done as partnerships with community organizations. He also suggested just clearing the land for greenspace for a while. Dingman advocated for master planning on a large piece of property to “maximize the best benefit” saying that it could allow for cleared greenspace “for a good while” but would still prevent doing things that would be regretted later like losing trees that would be missed with later plans for the space. Director Kemp mentioned the expanded trails amenities to come soon with the federal grant funding coming for the Bass Reeves Loop. He also suggested that the public could just enjoy a cleared greenspace near a body of water recreationally. He said that the City should “forego a park for a good while” while reducing flooding.

Director Rego asked how long the ponds would take to build. Snodgrass answered a year. Director Rego asked the cost of the ponds. Snodgrass answered $5.2 million. Director Rego expressed that he would like to see mountain bike features in the quarry pit.

Director Good pointed out that the meetings regarding input on parks held by the Parks Department are frequently poorly attended. He said that because of that the public input phase “needs to be taken out of our hands.” He said that he is in “not saying we’re not capable” but that there needs to be a good turn out and a “good cross-section of the community’s input.” Deuster agreed. Director Good mentioned that he has already heard directly from at least one community group that has expressed interest in partnering with the City on the parks amenities for the property.

Director Rego mentioned that the detention ponds would be the “lion’s share” of the planning cost. Dingman said that he pond-only planning would yield a “piece of infrastructure” but the master plan would yield an “amenity that serves the same purpose.”

Director Kemp voiced his view that in voting to renew the sales tax for streets and drainage that the voters were expressing support for drainage projects. He said the people “want flooding resolved.” Director Good said “Let’s take care of the communities that are flooding” and that he is “glad we’re making progress and some type of movements” on reducing flooding.

The Board will vote again on contracting with RDG for master planning at a future meeting.

The Board discussed a revised version of the charter to establish the Utility Advisory Committee. The charter was up for a vote for approval at the 1-7-25 meeting, but was tabled to the study session and to the 2-4-25 meeting to allow for changes requested by the Board at the 1-7-25 meeting. The new version of the charter includes requested added language that specifies that the items to be researched, investigated, or reviewed by the committee will be determined by majority vote of the Board of Directors. While the revised version included in the agenda packet for this week’s meeting did not include changes suggested by the Board at the 1-7-25 meeting that would make the nomination and appointment process for the committee identical to the process used by the other Boards and Commissions, Dingman assured that that change has been made and that the version that will be up for the Board vote on 2-4-25 will include that change.

Director Martin suggested that there needs to be an output specified for the committee. Dingman said that when the Board gives the committee their tasks that they could also define the “deliverable” requested.

Director Kemp said “I’m a no on this whole thing.” He expressed opposition to the creation of the committee and suggested that the duties instead be added to the audit commission. He said that if the committee only does what the Board asks that the Board “might as well just do it.” He said that the original intention behind the committee (originally suggested by his predecessor, Director Morton) was “Board involvement” not “Board oversight.” He suggested that time could be dedicated on the agenda at Board meetings to address the water and sewer topics. Director Settle and Director George Catsavis mentioned that there had been a decision recently to dedicate the first study session of each month solely to water and sewer. Director Settle reminded that that idea had been “pulled back” with the creation of the committee instead.

Director Rego reminded that the Board already voted to create the committee. He expressed support for the change to the charter that would include it having the same application and appointment process as is usual for the other committees. He suggested that the charter could be approved and the members appointed and allowed to meet for a first time and identify what issues they want to work on at that first meeting. He said that he expected there to be overlap between what the committee would want to work on and what the Board would ask them to work on. He said that then the Board could suggest to the committee anything that they left off their own plan.

Director George Catsavis voiced his opposition to the creation of the committee. He asked “What is this committee gonna tell us we don’t already know?” He said that the Board already has access to information and can call Utilities Director McAvoy about any questions they have.

Director Rego pointed out that if the revised charter is voted down at the 2-4-25 meeting, the Board would need to make an additional vote to get rid of the committee all together if that was what they wanted to do. Director Martin said that if the committee were to be disbanded that the Board needs to dedicate meeting time to water and sewer topics. Director Kemp advocated for prioritization of fixing water leaks.

The Board discussed the US Supreme Court overturn of Chevron Deference in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. This decision overturned the previous practice that allowed federal agencies including the EPA to interpret ambiguous law including the Clean Water Act. The discussion was about how this change could potentially impact the consent decree that Fort Smith is under.

Director Martin asked if when the City originally entered the consent decree “any interpretation of statutes or law made by the EPA put us into the consent decree.” City Attorney Canfield answered “very little if any.” He said that the consent decree involved enforcement of the Clean Water Act in relation to the permits to discharge water into the river. He said that there is no “statutory nuances or ambiguities in language” involved. He said that there have been arguments with the federal government regarding things like jurisdiction over requiring repairs to private sewer lines but called those arguments a “small item in our consent decree picture.” He said that nothing in the consent decree is an issue of deference, but rather contract interpretation by the courts.

Director Kemp asked if the decision has an effect on enforceability of the consent decree. Canfield answered “no.” Director Kemp asked if the City should reassess their legal strategy as a result of the decision. Canfield answered “no.”

Director Settle said that the Waters of the United States rule and Clean Water Act that the consent decree is based on are ambiguous. He said that there are no specific numbers in the Clean Water Act. Canfield said that it “is not an issue legally debatable” regarding the discharge of untreated sewage and the consent decree is contractual and enforceable in the courts. Director Settle voiced his view that the new federal administration may overturn consent decrees.

Director Kemp questioned if Paul Calamita is the right legal counsel for the consent decree going forward. Canfield expressed support for Calamita but said that the City does have the right to choose their counsel. Dingman also voiced his support for Calamita calling Calamita’s experience with consent decrees “very beneficial to us.”

During the Citizens Forum section of the meeting, Andy Posterick spoke in support of the Move Fort Smith plan. He asked if any Directors are leaning toward voting against the plan. None indicated that they were. Director Martin said that he wants to look at it before approving it because it has been revised and language that he was unhappy with in the original may likely be removed from the new version. Posterick mentioned that if the plan is approved each project must still be approved by the Board individually before any money is spent on it. He also said that the most profitable spaces, both public and private, including the Las Vegas Strip and Disneyland, are all built around trails.

Glen Forte spoke regarding an incident with a Fort Smith police captain who lives in his neighborhood. Forte was cited by the City for not having a permit for repairs to roof damage and required to get a permit. The police neighbor did not have to get a permit for his home repairs. Forte expressed concerns that the Police Captain was being treated as exempt from the law. Forte said that the Police Captain threatened to jail him and also threatened to kill him. Forte was arrested for trespassing and taken to jail.

Charlie Hartsfield spoke to pose questions about the engineering for the detention ponds at the Acme brick site and to pose questions about the Alleyway Rehabilitation project. He inquired about the goal of the alleyway project. Director Martin clarified that they will connect pedestrians to schools and parks safely.

Crystal Cadelli spoke in opposition to the creation of the Utilities Committee. She said that it is “hard on City employees for citizens to overwhelm them with suggestions.” She suggested if a committee is created that it should include McAvoy, someone from the Finance Department, and a grant writer. She also suggested that the million dollars that comes out of the Utilities Department for the Mayor and Board of Directors budgets be given back to the Utilities Department budget. She also called the Acme Park “completely unnecessary” and a “waste of money”. She suggested the needed land to be used for retention ponds and the rest sold off to developers.

Chris Cadelli spoke in opposition to the Acme Park. He said that Fort Smith is already “park rich.” He suggested focusing on maintaining and upgrading existing parks. He suggested prioritizing water and sewer.

Patrick McGuire spoke to propose a solution to homelessness. He suggested that the former Bost building could be repurposed as a processing facility for homeless individuals. Social workers could interview the individuals, facilitate their needs being met, and provide temporary shelter at the Bost building. He suggested the program could be staffed by 2-3 full time workers and unpaid interns from the University. He suggested that after homelessness among the people who are not homeless by choice is alleviated by the program at the Bost building that the City could pass an ordinance similar to the Grants Pass, Oregon one recently upheld by the Supreme Court but that the City should also provide a designated area where it is legal to camp. He suggested perhaps a site off the Clayton Expressway. Director Rego called the suggestion an “interesting idea for the Bost facility.” Director Martin voiced his view that the City needs to “change the conversation” with the Homelessness Coalition. McGuire also spoke in praise of Police Chief Baker’s actions surrounding the recent dismissal of 6 police officers in relation to hazing. He praised that Baker “chose to be open and transparent.”

Carrie Salie spoke in opposition to the Move Fort Smith plan and expressed concerns about federal grants citing concerns with “socialism, Marxism, and communism.” She spoke against diversity, equity, and inclusion and climate change programs and goals.

Jack Helms spoke in opposition to the Acme Park. He said that the land near Creekmore Park and Greenwood is “highly valuable” property. He suggested that the flood ponds be built and the rest of the land sold off to offset the cost of the ponds and help fund water and sewer projects. He said “The City does not have critical need for another park.”

Joey McCutcheon spoke. He suggested an investigation be made in the police abuse mentioned by Forte. He also suggested that the Board approach the area’s State legislators for State level grant money so that it might go to Fort Smith instead of Northwest Arkansas. He expressed support for the flood ponds at the former Acme site as improving equity for residents on the north side of town. He expressed concerns about “leftist stuff” in the Move Fort Smith and green plans.