Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 1/4/22

The first Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting of the new year held on 1-4-22 was especially long and well-attended because of a couple of zoning issues that drew strong interest. City Administrator Geffken was absent and his role was filled by Deputy City Administrator Dingman.

The first zoning issue was to approve a zoning change to allow a former church building at 1208 Princeton to be converted into a dance instruction and art studio. Resident Jesse Fenwick spoke out in support of the studio and its owner TK Rakoski. The Board passed the approval unanimously.

The hot item of the night was the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial for the zoning change that would allow for Next Step Homeless Services to build a new facility to relocate their homeless shelter (currently located downtown) to 1400 South U in the long vacant lot that was previously the Malco Twin.

Next Step Executive Director Sharon Chapman asked that Director Martin recuse himself from voting on the issue because of a video he posted on Facebook in which he said he was planning to vote against the appeal. She spoke in favor of the new location because housing should not be in an industrial area and that the homeless need to be able to get downtown to access other services offered there and noted that the Fort Smith Transit bus routes on Towson and the downtown shuttle would provide good transportation at the new location. She pointed out that the location was in a currently “rundown” vacant area. She highlighted that the $2.3 million planned to be spent on the construction of the facility and the hiring of additional staff would would be good for the local economy. She mentioned that the Hillcrest and Park Hill neighborhoods where she’d heard residents in opposition to the move are a mile from the new facility. She expressed that the homeless won’t walk to those areas. She mentioned having spoken to realtors who said that property values will not be affected by a facility a mile away. Fairview and Ramsey schools are 1.2 and 1.3 miles away. She pointed out that the current downtown location is closer to schools now and that there have been no negative incidents resulting from interaction with the homeless at the schools. She addressed that video surveillance and staffing will be in place to deal with some of the safety concerns. She mentioned that Next Step has been looking for the right property for 2 years now and also that Covid related funding is available for the move right now that would not still be available in the future.

Neil Kowan spoke in opposition to the new facility on U Street. He stated that Park Hill is only a half mile from the facility and that residential housing is located as close as 2/10 of a mile from the facility. He expressed worries about decreased property values and increased crime in that neighborhood. He expressed concerns about a tent city planned for behind the center. He suggested that Hope Campus offers many of the same services and is currently only utilizing 35,000 of its 128,000 square ft facility. He suggested that Next Step partner with them instead of relocating to a new facility of their own.

Board President of Next Step Susan Tucker spoke in support of the new facility. She said crime committed by homeless people just doesn’t happen. She said that homeless go where services are and that many homeless people won’t go to congregate housing (like is offered at Hope Campus) and that the non-congregate housing planned for the new facility would get people safe. She highlighted the 60% success rate for transitioning people out of homelessness achieved by the programs at the current Next Step location.

Next Step board member and Druid Hills neighborhood resident Gary Udouj spoke in support of the move and the agency’s mission to help people transition out of homelessness.

Druid Hills resident Jesse Fenwick spoke in support of the facility and expressed his view that the relocation was “people wanting to do what they want to do with their own property” and the denial would be the city getting in the way of a charity trying to do good work.

Next Step board member and Haven Drive resident Kim Walford spoke in support of the facility and that she didn’t feel it was a danger to the neighborhood. She clarified that the planned tent city that Neil Kowan had expressed concern about was not a tent city, but rather individual more permanent concrete structures.

Liz Smith, a resident a half mile from the facility, spoke in favor of the facility and that homeless people are not a danger to society and “need a warm place to sleep”.

Mary Ross, a resident of U street and a landlord for a rental property across the street from her home also spoke in favor of the facility.

Cornelia Sharp, a resident of Park Hill near Ballman Elementary, spoke in favor of the facility and that the need for "Next Step to thrive”. She said that she didn’t “see the homeless hiking up that hill“into her neighborhood.

Brittany Owens spoke out in favor of the facility citing her positive experiences with cooking food for Next Step with Christ the King Church. She urged the community to overcome the desire to hide the homeless and instead acknowledge their needs and provide human dignity.

Druid Hills resident Kimberly Swaim spoke in support of the facility that she was not afraid and was excited about the new services that could be provided at the new location. She mentioned that Fort Smith is known for its compassion.

Benny Westphal, who has an office next door to the current location of Next Step downtown, spoke in support of the facility and expressed that they are good neighbors. He mentioned that police take care of the handful of trouble makers.

Father Micheal Lager, Rector at Saint Johns next door to the current downtown location, spoke in support of the new facility and that the current building is inadequate. He said “What they do, they do well” and that homeless are human beings and citizens of the city.

Park Hill resident James Storment spoke against the facility that the U Street location is not the best location. He suggested that Next Step instead combine assets and location with Hope Campus.

Phil White, downtown property owner and member of the Harbor House board spoke in opposition to the facility even though Harbor House would benefit from the sale of the land (they own the U Street lot). He expressed that he would also like to get the homeless out of downtown. But still he opposed the move because of the duplication of services between Hope Campus and Next Step. He felt they are “more alike than apart” and need to partner together to work on the issue instead of building a new facility on U Street.

Resident of South W in Park Hill and former police officer Fran Hall spoke in opposition to the facility because while she feels that Next Step does a great job she doesn’t feel that it needs to be in that neighborhood. She does not want it to depreciate property values. She expressed that the community should help them find a better new location to move to.

Rose Torrence, manager of the U-Haul next door to the proposed facility, spoke out in opposition to the facility. She mentioned already having issues with homeless already living in the area including drugs, vandalism, and approaching customers and making them uncomfortable. She expressed concerns about increased foot traffic, increased pan handling, and decreased interest in storage at her storage units if the facility were to open up next door. She also expressed frustration with not being notified about the planning commission meeting held about the zoning change. She says she only heard about the issue at all via a Facebook group.

David Ward, a U street resident, spoke in opposition. He mentioned safety concerns related to fire trucks he sees speed down that street 3 times a week and crime concerns about neighbors’ property being broken into. He shared his past experience having been homeless for 2 days himself and that the homeless need a chance. But expressed his opinion that the facility needs to find another place.

Jo Elskin spoke in support of the facility and urged that the board not vote on emotions including fear, anger, and frustration. She encouraged them to focus on facts. She cited that Fayetteville is a leading city in the nation in reducing homelessness with their 32% decrease in homelessness and that they have a facility like the new one proposed for U Street.

Suzanne Kowan spoke in opposition to the facility. She mentioned that the Planning Commission voted 7-2 to defeat the zoning change and that we have zoning laws for the protection of the city and businesses and that property is zoned commercial. She (like the majority of the citizens speaking out in opposition to the facility on U Street) expressed that she is not opposed to helping the homeless, but just does not want a homeless shelter in that location. She praised the work and good results in fighting homelessness achieved by the Hope Campus. She reminded the Board of the $618,000 spent by the city on the Hope Campus and suggested Hope and Next Step should work together to utilize what we already have instead of building a new facility on U Street. She mentioned that in talk with a respected local realtor that lives in Park Hill and has sold multiple Park Hill and Hill Crest properties that the realtor said that property values in Park Hill and Hill Crest would be decreased by the facility.

Druid Hills resident Krystle Merry spoke in opposition to the facility and mentioned statistics including that 38% of homeless people have problems with alcohol, 26% with drugs, 33% with mental illness, 48% of females are involved in prostitution, and that many are sex offenders. She expressed that statistics like that cause her worry about having homeless people near schools. She agreed that the current downtown location is even closer to schools than the U Street location would be, but argued that Tilles and Darby demographics are different than that of Ramsey and Fairview. She wants the Board to take more time to look at facts and consider safety protocols. She also expressed frustration at not being notified about the Planning Commission meetings on the issue.

Janice Vaught, who recently bought a home in Hillcrest but used to live on U Street, spoke out in opposition to the facility and said that she would not have purchased her house in Hillcrest if she’d known a homeless shelter would go in 7 or 8 blocks from the house. She expressed safety concerns and suggested that Next Step and Hope Campus work together instead. She also mentioned not being notified about the Planning Commission meetings.

Ryan Curtis, who lives near Christ the King on Wolf Lane, spoke against the facility. He expressed safety concerns primarily for children and support for the Hope Campus.

Greg Knoll spoke against the facility citing safety concerns including for his pregnant daughter who lives at 1700 South U. He also mentioned being supportive of helping the homeless but not at that location and that he was also not notified of the Planning Commission meeting.

Next Step board member Jo Carson spoke in support of the facility and praised Next Step’s longevity and experience.

Park Hill resident Peter Cross spoke in opposition to the facility and expressed that there has been theft in Park Hill and Hill Crest recently and that he feels the facility to would add to the fear of that. He said there are better parcels of land to be look at.

Director Morton made a motion to table the issue and instead add it to a study session to be held 1-25-22 and back for a vote the first meeting in February. He wanted the Directors to all have time to bring a list of specific questions to be answered to the study session to get more information about coordination between Next Step and Hope Campus, transportation, Next Step’s financial position, and safety issues. He plans for about 25 questions. The motion to table the issue passed with 5 in favor and 2 opposed, so instead of voting at the meeting, they will discuss it further on 1-25-22.

During the Official’s Forum portion of the meeting after the voting portions of the meeting were ended, Director Martin chimed back in in response to the U Street zoning issue with the additional comment that what’s “Not good on the South side, Shouldn’t be good on the North side”.

The final zoning item of the night was a vote on the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial for a change that would allow for Cambered Customs, an automobile customization shop specializing in show trucks, to go in at 720 Towson in the former Galloway Tire building. At the Planning Commission meeting the request had been denied with 3 in favor 5 opposed. The denial was based primarily on concern over the parking of 6 display vehicles in the lot facing Towson.

Cambered Customs owner Scott Kangas spoke and expressed his desire to do business in Fort Smith and that he considered the vehicles that would be displayed “automotive art” mentioning that people sometimes even take photos with his high quality and outside of the norm display vehicles. He clarified that those vehicles aren’t for sale like a car lot, just to display the kind of customizations that are done at the shop. He also clarified that they would only be on display outdoors during business hours (typically daytime weekdays).

Robert Donald, from an automotive distribution business who does business with Kangas at his current location, spoke out about the quality of work done there and that the shop would be an “asset to Towson”.

David Robertson, owner of Downtown Automotive, located behind 720 Towson, spoke in opposition. He asked that Directors Settle and Martin abstain from voting because of their connections with Robert Donald who does business with Kangas. He mentioned efforts to make things “look pretty downtown” and that inside auto sales only are allowed.

Director Morton pointed out that there is a large parking lot across the street and that regular vehicles like employee vehicles and customer vehicles would be allowed to be parked in the parking lot at 720 Towson without any special approval. He expressed his opinion that the attractive show trucks on display would not detract visually from surrounding properties. Director Martin spoke out with a similar sentiment. He mentioned that in that neighborhood there are “cars all over the place” and with businesses that are grandfathered in there are even used car sale lots nearby. He said that the new shop would “nothing but improve that area” considering “everything in lesser condition” around it.

Director Rego spoke in support of allowing the display vehicles and recognized the “byzantine and arbitrary hold up” he felt that Cambered had to go through in the zoning approval process.

The Board voted unanimously to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial and approve for the shop to go in including the 6 spaces for display vehicles parked outdoors during business hours.

The Board voted unanimously to require taxi drivers to get an an annual eye exam from an optometrist or ophthalmologist as part of their licensing requirement. Previously, the rules required them obtain the yearly eye exam from the Arkansas State Police, but the State Police will no longer be conducting those eye exams.

Voting on a slight correction to a mistake in the text of the ordinance pertaining to cups and wristbands in the entertainment districts sparked conversation initiated by Director Dawson about repercussions for businesses in the entertainment districts that are caught using unauthorized cups. She has witnessed a particular business twice using unauthorized cups. Director Morton questioned that customers might go outside with drinks in the wrong package and that businesses should not be punished for those kind of customer actions. Dawson assured that the kind of infraction she was talking about was not that kind of thing, but a deliberate non-compliance by the business. She expressed that she wants to crackdown on violating businesses and “didn’t vote for the entertainment district to start with”. Deputy Administrator Dingman mentioned that Alchoholic Beverage Control regulations should cover some of the issue. Police Chief Baker clarified that while ABC rules do cover it to an extent, like that individuals and businesses could be fined for open containers if they aren’t using the approved cups outside, additional things like if a business should be made ineligible to participate in the entertainment district is something that must be handled by the municipalities. The ABC doesn’t handle those rules. The issue of refining penalties for businesses in the ordinance was scheduled for discussion at a future study session.

All of the Human Resources items were unanimously approved including the pay rates and benefits for city employees and the schedule of paid holidays. Director Rego spoke out in praise of the addition of Juneteenth to the paid holiday calendar.

Director Settle motioned to have a study session about changing the zoning appeal process so that when appeals of Planning Commission denials on zoning issues come before the Board instead of coming directly to a regular meeting for a vote they would come to a study session meeting for further discussion first. He noted that the board “always need more time” on controversial zoning issues and that automatically sending them to a study session would help prevent the tabling of such issues (like was seen with the Next Step issue this week). The Board agreed and it will be added to a future study session.