Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 3/14/23

The Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 3-14-23 was led by Director Settle in the absence of Mayor McGill and Vice Mayor Rego. It started with the annual review of the Board of Directors best practices document. This list of non-binding guidance suggestions includes things like a code of conduct and ethics and the responsibilities for the Board of Directors.

Director Christina Catsavis expressed disagreement with the passage saying “Effective decision making results in finality. While it’s important to deliberate in many voices, the Board must govern with one voice.” Director Settle talked about being on the Board when that part was added in response to decisions where there was dissent among some of the Board members. It was added to clarify that once a decision is made that Board acted as a whole. Director Morton added that the intent is after a decision is made that it is accepted and the Board can work together and move forward regardless of how they stood on the vote. Administrator Geffken added that it is a part of procedure in Roberts Rules of Order. Director Christina Catsavis motioned to add the language saying that “If facts change, an issue can be deliberated again”. The Best Practices document with that amended “if facts change…” additional language will be up for a vote at the March 21, 2023 meeting.

The biggest topic of discussion at the meeting was a discussion about making changes to the animal ordinances. Some of the most significant changes being proposed were…

• Requiring microchip identification for all cats and dogs plus a secondary form of identification like a collar tag

• Requiring spaying or neutering for all cats and dogs not secured at all times within a building, enclosure, or yard

• Vouchers for spaying and neutering will be made available to low income residents through the Police Chief with required proof of residency and income. They will be available on a first come first serve basis, limited to one per household per year, and will be available until money budgeted for the program runs out.

• Any loose animals brought to the shelter will be spayed or neutered and microchipped and vaccinated if they are not already sterilized and chipped and vaccinated. The owner will be required to pay the fees for these procedures to be able to retrieve their animal.

• Animal control will return altered animals that can be identified by their microchips directly to their homes twice a year. Any more escapes will result in a citation for an unsecure enclosure. Any unaltered or unchipped animals will be taken to the shelter.

• Feeding wild or feral or stray animals or leaving pet food out unattended will be prohibited.

• Citations will be issued to the owners of barking dogs that recieve 3 or more complaints within 90 days from 2 separate households regarding sustained barking in the daytime. Citations can be issued for any instances of complaints regarding sustained barking from 10pm-7am.

• Dogs will not be allowed to be tethered for longer than 10 days and nights and must have access to food, water, shade, and shelter at all times while tethered.

• Animals riding in open vehicles, including the beds of pickup trucks, must be inside a secured container.

• The threshold to be considered a “kennel” will be lowered from 7 dogs to 4 (with the exception of temporary fosters).

• The price of a Breeder’s License will increase to $1000 per year and will require meeting all of the other requirements for a business license.

• A $500 annual fee will be required to keep an animal deemed “aggressive” and it must be spayed and neutered.

• People taking in strays (including pregnant animals) for the purpose of re-homing them will be exempt from the newly instituted rules prohibiting selling and giving away animals. Sales of livestock (including the auctions at the fair) will also be exempt from the new prohibition on animal sales.

Director Morton expressed a desire to have both Fort Smith Animal Haven and Kitties and Kanines Veterinary Clinic (also potentially some other veterinary clinics) serve as designees of the Police Department able to give spay/neuter vouchers to qualified residents. He felt that some people would not want to go to the police department to get the voucher. He wanted vouchers to also be able to be issued on the spot to help when an animal is picked up and taken to the shelter. He suggested that more money may need to be allotted for the voucher program. Director Settle suggested that possibly voucher efforts could be focused on the 72901 zip code that has the highest numbers of animal pickups currently.

Director Morton suggested delaying the fines parts of the ordinance to not take effect for 6 months to allow for people to become aware of and adjust to and comply with the new rules. Director Martin expressed a desire to “blanket the city with that information”. Geffken said that it would be put in with water bills and sent out on the notification system.

Director Morton questioned how the reduction from 7 dogs to 4 to not be a “kennel” would work saying he didn’t want to have to tell people to pick which pets to get rid of. Geffken answered that there is “potential for grandfathering”. Morton questioned how to tell who is and isn’t grandfathered.

Director Morton suggested that with the exemptions for people fostering animals there should be a foster identification program where fosters register with animal shelters and receive a proof of registration that they can show. While the shelters already have relationships with their foster households and know who they are, a handy proof of registration would enable to police to not have to waste their time and resources to check on that.

Director Good asked for clarification that the part about breeding licenses was $1000 per animal used for breeding, not per breeder facility. It was clarified that it is per animal. Geffken said that the typical sale price of puppies was considered when crafting that part of the ordinance. Director Good agreed with the license fee. Speaking of the changes in general, he said “ I like the teeth we see in this ordinance”.

Director Martin voiced concerns about fines spiraling out of control He relayed a story he heard about someone from another part of the state who had a situation that started with his dog escaping a minor lack of security in a fence and ended up spiraling into the owner being arrested and his life ruined. He said of the proposed changes that he is “Okay with how we have this here” but wanted to make sure the Board is mindful of not causing “irreparable harm to people who can’t pay it”. Geffken said that the police are already of that mindset and they and the District Court are both making strong efforts of focusing on alternatives to incarceration. Deputy Administrator Dingman mentioned a recent situation where a resident with a dilapidated building on his property was facing fines and trouble and asked for help and employees from Code Enforcement and the Police Department volunteered their own time and labor to fix the problem. He said “Somebody in this community’s gonna help them.”

Director Christina Catsavis disagreed with the proposed prohibition of feeding feral and stray animals expressing her doubts on how it could be enforced. She said “I don’t like things that can’t be enforced”. She also said “We have a community of kind people with good hearts that don’t want to see animals go hungry”. Director Dingman suggested that the wording could be changed to only include the part about the unattended food being left out. He expressed that unattended food attracting wildlife like skunks, raccoons, coyotes, and foxes and the parasites transmitted by wild and feral and stray animals can be a problem for owned pets and even human children. Geffken added that his own dogs caught parasites brought into his yard by feral cats that his neighbor fed. Director Morton said that he wanted “good Samaritans to be able to feed” strays but that leaving food unattended is “kind of a dangerous thing”. He called the proposed changes as originally presented “not bad language”.

Director Christina Catsavis called the microchip requirement “burdensome to some” and suggested it be included also in the voucher system. She also suggested periodic city funded vet events. She advocated for there being no income requirements for the vouchers.

Director Good said “ We know we have a community full of people who care” but put blame for the animal problems on a “large segment of the community that are irresponsible pet owners”. He called the proposed changes “good policies”.

Director Settle asked for clarification that the section pertaining to aggressive animals was not breed specific. Geffken clarified that it definitely was not breed specific, that it would apply to absolutely any animal deemed aggressive.

Director Settle suggested that in addition to so long as an animal is properly secured inside your home or yard at all times that it is exempt from the requirements to be altered that wording be added to allow that same exemption for animals that are under their owner’s control “by a leash”. A lot of Directors agreed. That change in wording will be made in the version to be voted on.

Director Settle suggested that the same exemptions for well-secured animals regarding spay/neuter be extended regarding microchipping, too. Geffken said that it was intended so that if an animal that was ordinarily secured did escape or was stolen or something that it would be identifiable. Settle questioned the ability to enforce the rule. Director Christina Catsavis suggested the wording be changed to allow for a collar ID tag to be enough identification instead of a microchip. Director Morton said that dogs frequently get loose from their collars. He also agree with Director Settle that it made sense to him for the microchip part to have the same language as the part about the spay/neuter requirement. Many Directors agreed.

Director Settle suggested a yearly review of the animal ordinances with data. He also suggested that something might be added to address people from outside the city dumping animals inside the city. Director Morton suggested maybe a fine. Dingman said that they could add that to the ordinance, but it would be challenging to enforce.

Director Martin asked how many animal wardens the city currently has. Geffken answered 5. Martin said that it may take a couple of years for the effects of the changes to kick in and in the meantime more may need to be hired. Dingman said it is “not gonna be an immediate fix” but it “will not get better if we don’t do something like this”. Geffken said that 1 or 2 more wardens may be needed and he will bring it to the Board with the data if necessary. Director Martin said of the proposed changes in general he is “hopeful with this we’ll get that opportunity to move forward”.

Director Christina Catsavis doubted that the $75,000 currently in the budget for the vouchers will be enough. Geffken said that he will bring it back to the Board for a vote on an increase if needed.

Director Settle expressed his desire for a broad campaign of education to spread the word about the changes if they are enacted. Director Morton reminded that when the last animal licensing change was originally passed a meeting was held and only 2 people showed up.

Director Christina Catsavis and Director Morton suggested that the wording of the part about the vouchers be changed to make one voucher per animal available instead of limiting it to only one voucher per household. Lots of Directors agreed.

Director George Catsavis expressed frustration at how long the animal issue has a problem and how long it has taken to seriously address it. He said of the proposed changes “This is about time” and motioned for the changes (with the amendments proposed at the study session meeting) to be presented for a vote at next Tuesday’s regular meeting. The motion was approved and the changes will be up for a vote 3-21-23.

The discussion about the cybersecurity insurance policy with Brown Hiller Clark and why there was not a study session regarding the policy held before the policy expired that was on the agenda was tabled to allow ample time and attention to be devoted to the Citizens Forum section of the meeting that had several people signed up to speak, many to speak about the animal ordinances part of the meeting.

The majority of the participants in the monthly Citizens Forum section of the meeting spoke about animal related matters.

Jesse Fenwick from Jen’s Kitty Rehab applauded the proposed changes saying “Do that. Quickly. Please and Thank You. As soon as possible.” He also said that with cats irresponsible pet owners are not the biggest problem, but rather cats that residents feel are “not mine”. He said that there needs to be a program added to spay and neuter the strays that don’t belong to anyone.

Ms. Rogers with Almost Home Shelter in Vanburen said of other nearby towns dumping animals in Fort Smith that maybe if Fort Smith gets these changes going and shows good results that surrounding communities will adopt similar policies. She mentioned Almost Home volunteers helping people with their fence issues and doing other things to help good owners who want to keep their animals. She said the fines are “where they need to be”. She encouraged stronger enforcement on cases of cruelty and neglect.

Janet Alford, a former Fort Smith Animal Haven Board member, shared a story of a dog that was hit by a car and brought to FSAH and who had to wait a long while for amputation of its leg. She called the delay in the treatment “abuse, neglect, cruelty by the shelter staff and a particular board member”. The dog was eventually transported to Minnesota and adopted and “has a happy life”. But Alford said that there are “some things that are a little amiss” at the shelter.

Veterinarian at Fort Smith Animal Haven Dr. Randy Hubbs responded that the dog was pulled off the street and that he got the surgery he needed and the “end point was what we were looking for”. He said that the dog was not in pain, that the broken leg is initially painful but “a non-union forms” and no longer hurts.

Director Morton said that that discussion “doesn’t relate to this meeting” and that it is a matter that is the responsibility of the shelter’s board rather than the City Board of Directors. Director Settle reminded that during the Citizens Forum everyone has 5 minutes to speak about any topic, it need not be directly related to any agenda item. Director Christina Catsavis agreed that they should just “let people speak”. Of the accusations regarding poor care of the dog, Director Martin said that they are aware of those types of things and “we will be reviewing”.

Benny Westphal whose wife is on the Fort Smith Animal Haven Board said his wife is trying to help raise money for the new facility out at Chaffee Crossing. He also reminded that at a recent meeting the Police Chief spoke positively about FSAH.

Fort Smith resident Ramona Roberts expressed disagreement with the language in the proposed ordinances that allows for the Director of the shelter to make decisions regarding medical attention for animals picked up by animal control and taken to the shelter. She asked what training they have and if there is a vet on call all of the time. She said that if an animal is hit by a car it should be x-rayed. She disagreed with the part of the ordinance that would exempt a pet from the requirement to be spayed/neutered if it is secured in a fenced yard because dogs will do everything to find a way into a fence to get to an unspayed female in heat She also suggested exemptions be added for old animals and animals with health problems.

Bert Petray, a Winslow resident who often brings his dogs when he comes to work at the Farmer’s Market, asked for clarification how the new rule would apply if his dog were to somehow escape and be picked up by animal control. He uses the dog for occasional breeding and would not want it to have to be neutered for him to reclaim it. Director Christina Catsavis and Administrator Geffken clarified that the wording specifically applies only to animals that are visiting for longer than 30 days. His dog would not be affected.

All of the remaining participants in the Citizens Forum section were there to speak about the Fort Smith Farmer’s Market.

Bert Petray, a Fort Smith Farmer’s Market vendor from Winslow, took the mic again to speak about the market. He talked about how the market has been open 20 years and only accepts vendors from within a 90 mile radius and doesn’t allow any resale (all goods must be grown or crafted by the seller) and only allows 25% craft items the other 75% are produce and food products. He called it “probably the most diverse group of vendors anywhere in the state” and spoke of the diversity of the products and the customers, too. He said the market serves 20,000 customers annually. He showed the Board pictures of the farmer’s market in Overland Park Kansas as an example of the type of pavilion and covered walkways that he would like to see the Fort Smith market add to provide shade in the heat.

Fort Smith resident and Farmer’s Market vendor Charles Hartgraves also spoke advocating for the covered pavilion. He said that he would like to see more people come to the market and that a covered pavilion would help.

Kathy Mazik, Farmer’s Market vendor and Secretary/Treasurer of the Farmer’s Market, also spoke in support of adding the pavilion. She said that busiest season is also the hottest part of the year and vegetables wilt in the heat and customers are uncomfortable on the hot pavement. She said that "skilled workers choose cities with good parks, trails, vibrant down towns, safe welcoming communities, and a good farmers market”. Mazik also mentioned possible uses of the pavilions by others like artisan markets, dog shows, and bike rallies. She pointed out the part of the Future Fort Smith comprehensive plan that includes plans to promote the farmer’s market by providing shade. Previously any action on that had been delayed because of worries that the lot would be needed as part of a change to the truck routes downtown, but recently there was assurance given by ARDOT that the lot would not be included. She urged the Board to take the first step towards the pavilion by designating the parking lot at 2nd and Garrison where the market is held an “outdoor community center”. The designation would allow the market to proceed with applying for a state matching grant to help with the cost of the pavilion and to approach the Parks Department and CBID about potentially finding funding for it in their budgets.

Director Settle mentioned that when a pavilion for the Farmer’s Market was discussed back in 2008 or 2009 that concerns were raised about the homeless using it when the market was not open. Geffken said that the topic of the farmer’s market pavilion was brought up at the most recent Homelessness meeting and that the consensus was “Don’t stifle development. Move forward. We’ll find a way.”

Director Geffken said that he’d been contacted by a State Senator about the flag display at Riverfront Park who said that if instead of installing the military flags the old display of flags that have flown over Fort Smith historically (including the Confederate flag) were put back up that he would not file an amended version of the previous flag bill that failed and would not file a bill requiring City Attorneys to be elected. Directors Settle and Morton both enthusiastically disagreed with the Senator’s proposal.