Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting 4/4/23

The Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 4-4-23 began with some discussion regarding changes to the Unified Development Ordinance concerning chickens. Currently the regulations require a half acre to keep chickens, allow an unlimited number of them, and allow roosters. The proposed changes would limit fowl to only ducks and chickens and would only allow female chickens, no roosters. It would allow 4 fowl on lots of 5000 square feet and a maximum of 10 fowl total on any size yard. Chickens would be required to be kept inside a fenced rear yard. Coops and roosts would not be allowed to be located closer than 25 feet to adjacent residential buildings. The proposed changes are intended to allow for chickens to be kept on smaller lots and to address concerns about noise from roosters and unpleasant smells created by large numbers of chickens.

Fort Smith resident and current chicken owner William Ferrell spoke in opposition to the proposed change, suggesting that either the proposed changes be rejected or that they be amended so that the maximum number of chickens allowed would be raised from the proposed 10 to 25. He expressed that families can maintain a flock that size in a clean manner. He said that 10 hens average an output of 5 eggs per day and that egg prices are currently high. He also pointed out that when chicks are sold online, they typically ship in batches of 15, so a single order of chicks would already be over the legal limit. He pointed out that there are already provisions about cleanliness in the existing ordinance.

Director Rego asked how the limit of 10 was devised. Planning Director Rice answered that Planning wanted to establish a set maximum and used comparisons of other Arkansas cities. Fayetteville has a sliding scale system based on property size that tops out at a maximum of 20 . Bentonville and Rogers only allow a maximum of 4. Conway and Vanburen are unlimited.

Director George Catsavis asked how many complaints about chickens Planning receives per month. Rice answered that they get 2-3 and mostly about noisy roosters. Director George Catsavis asked for a clarification on the enforcement process on complaints. Rice clarified that if there is a complaint, the complaint is checked out and if there is a situation that is in violation a letter is sent to the property owner giving them 15 days to remedy the problem, then a re-inspection is done, and another letter is sent if it has not been fixed, and ultimately the property owner will end up in court if they do not fix the problem.

Director George Catsavis motioned to table the issue so that Planning could make some adjustments to the proposed changes and the issue could be moved to a study session for more thorough discussion rather than being voted on at the 4-4-23 meeting. Before voting on tabling the issue, the Directors had a little more discussion to help guide Planning in what to prepare for the study session.

Director Good said that he would have voted against the measure as presented if the vote were to be held. He said that his ward on the Northside has a lot of chickens. He opposed the changes that would allow for more households with smaller yards to have chickens. He expressed concerns about existing problems with stray dogs and feral cats and having more chickens adding to the animal nuisance issues.

Director Morton expressed concerns about loose chickens getting into traffic.

Director Settle suggested a sliding scale based on yard size that would allow for ace or 2 or acre lots to keep up to a maximum of 20 chickens. He said that 20 is the maximum he would consider on any size lot. He also suggested that if a property owner wants to keep more than the maximum number for their lot size that they might be able to get a conditional use from the planning commission to approve a larger flock.

Director Martin agreed with the prohibition of roosters. He questioned that Planning is in charge of enforcement on chicken issues. He expressed his view that that should be under Neighborhood Services. Rice responded that it is “pretty typical” for cities to have that handled by Planning and that Planning also handles similar issues with goats, horses, cows, etc. but not dogs and cats. Martin asked if Planning has the staff necessary to enforce the regulations. Rice answered that the enforcement is complaint driven, no staff would have to drive around patrolling for violations. Martin opposed allowing chickens on smaller properties.

The Board voted unanimously to table the issue. It will return on a future study session agenda.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of changes to the recently approved animal ordinances that would provide that the shelter director will be in consultation with a licensed veterinarian about medical decisions for injured animals brought into the shelter. Also proposed is a change that would allow for the Board of Directors to lay out and adjust the details of the spay and neuter voucher by resolution instead of including the specifics as part of the municipal code. A resolution on the voucher system is currently being crafted and will be brought to the Board for a vote soon.

The Board vote in favor of acceptance of a donation of $19,377.37 to the Fire Department from Fort Smith Fire Fighters Local 33 that will be used to purchase technical rescue equipment.

The Board voted unanimously to accept a donation to the Police Department from Fort Smith Music and Arts Festival (Peacemaker Festival) of $16,648 towards the leasing of additional mobile surveillance trailers. The trailer units are solar power and offer 360 degrees of streaming video 24/7. The Police Department will be returning 2 more expensive leased trailers and replacing them with 4 less expensive trailers from a new vendor. The donation will cover the first year lease and the donor is also committed to covering a second year of the lease.

Police Chief Baker called the units “highly visible commanding police presence wherever they’re placed.” He said that one was moved yesterday from North 50th to the Kelley ballfields. He said that when one was placed downtown in area with a high rate of nuisance crimes mostly committed by the homeless population the reduction to nuisance behaviors in view of the unit was “almost immediate”

Director Good said that he is happy to be able to get more of the units. He agreed with the Police Department having chosen to place them in some areas that experienced a high crime rate and some gun related violence incidents. However, he did express worries he has heard from citizens about the placement of the units and concerns that they were just put on the Northside and that they felt they were being “spied upon”. He expressed hope that having more units would allow for them to be put in more places and moved around more, calling it a “positive thing”. Chief Baker said Good’s “concerns are noted and I’ve felt them for some time as well”.

Director Rego voiced his agreement with Good’s sentiments. He added his support for the surveillance at the ballfields. He said that he has already received positive feedback from other parents about their use at that site.

Director George Catsavis asked Chief Baker about the Flock system and its affordability. Baker responded that they are not inexpensive but that the Police Department is already in the process of contract negotiations for between 21 and 25 Flock units including license plate readers. Director George Catsavis said “I’m all for it. I don’t care what it costs.” Chief Baker said that the initial part of the Flock system will be paid for by asset forfeiture funds. There is also a gunshot detection system that can be added that the Police Department would like to add someday but that is cost prohibitive currently.

Director Settle asked why the units would be leased not bought outright. Baker said that they’d looked into purchasing but that not being responsible for damages including hail and vandalism were a major benefit to leasing. Administrator Geffkin added that the ease of staying up to date on the tech is an advantage to leasing. Director Settle said that he has seen extensive use of the units in Memphis. He supported the units saying the “better you can use technology, the better we are”

Director Martin expressed worries over a “slippery slope” and where the use of surveillance goes next. He supported using them for events but was concerned about their use at more long-term locations. He said that he would vote for the measure “because it’s a generous gift” but that the City has “got to be really careful as to where we put these out”.

Director Morton disagreed with Director Martin saying “If you follow the rules, then there’s no problem” and that he wouldn’t be bothered by surveillance near his house. He said that to stay an extremely safe city even with the new growth they “have to be mindful to protect our citizens”.

Baker said “I very much believe the less government intrusion in our lives the better” and assured that the units were not going to “invade privacy”. He said the units only gather footage from a public view viewpoint.

Director Good asked if a unit is parked at an intersection where a red light is run if that could be used to ticket the red light runner. Baker answered that it could not. Under Arkansas law they cannot use the cameras for traffic enforcement including red lights. The footage can be used as evidence in automobile accidents, but not for traffic tickets.

Director Rego asked if the footage is monitored proactively to apprehend perpetrators immediately or is used only reactively like as evidence after a crime is committed. Baker answered that it is both.

Director Christina Catsavis expressed her support for the Police in general but also agreed with Director Martin’s “slippery slope” concerns. She also asked how long the data is stored and about the expense for the data storage. Baker answered that the footage is kept for 30 days and that the cost of the data storage is included in the lease of the units.

The Board voted to accept bids from Forsgren on two contracts for sewer work and manhole replacements. While 3 companies picked up bid packets, Forsgren was the only one to submit a bid. The first contract is for $2,299,325.30 to come from the excess sales tax appropriation. The second is for $1,303,079 to come from the excess sales tax appropriation and American Rescue Plan Act funds.

Fort Smith resident Kristin Kitchens spoke in opposition to the Basin 12 spending. She mentioned backups at Northside High School and the Northside football field. She said that when the school renovated recently they built on top of broken sewer pipes. She requested the issue be tabled.

At the request of Director George Catsavis, Utilities Director McAvoy clarified. He said that Basin 12 is north and east of Northside High, not under the high school. He said that there have been no repeated sanitary sewer overflows there and that the school did not build over sewer line that needed replaced.

Director Morton and Director Settle expressed concern that only one bidder bid on the projects.

The Board voted to accept the first bid with all but Director Christina Catsavis voting in favor (She was not seated at the time of the vote and not present to vote). The Board voted unanimously to accept the second bid (Director Christina Catsavis had returned to her seat and voted on the second one).

The Board voted unanimously to accept a bid from RJN Group for the inspection of 776 manholes for $234,606 to come from the excess sales tax appropriation.

During the Official’s Forum section of the meeting, Director Morton requested that Project X be discussed at the next meeting. He said that the proposed Constitutional amendment that would add retail to the kinds of projects approved for tax incentives failed in the State legislature last Thursday. He said “We have an unconstitutional proposal we have executed.” Director Settle said that a Senate bill is in committee at the State legislature currently. Morton said that even if that passes that the issue will still be unconstitutional until the constitutional amendment is approved by a vote of the people. Director Rego said the “opinion of one attorney does not a firm ruling on the Constitution make.”