Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 7/30/24
At the Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 7-30-24, the Board saw and discussed architectural design plans for the new Fort Smith Animal Haven (FSAH) animal shelter that is to be built and the Board also asked the FSAH Board general questions about the shelter. The new facility will start with an administration building and a kennel building with treatment rooms and 100 kennels. A second 100 kennel kennel building will be added as a later expansion.The administration building is 6500 sq ft. The kennel building is 12,800 sq ft under-roof. Each kennel will be 5ftx6ft indoors and have access to a doggie door to allow animals to go outside into a covered outdoor area. The kennels would not be air conditioned but would have a “temperature managed” system that would be able to keep the facility in the 65-85 degree range that is recommended for the comfort and safety of animals. The initial phase (the administration building and one kennel) is estimated to cost $5.1 million, with the second kennel included the cost would be $6.2 million.
Director Christina Catsavis suggested that the Board and FSAH consider the possibility of renovating and repurposing the former Bost building recently reverted back to City ownership instead. She called the building a “good solution at least in the short term” and mentioned that it is large at 13,000 sq ft, has air conditioning, has a fence, and is conveniently near Carol Ann Cross Park to take dogs for walks. She suggested that the Board do a walk-through of the building. She said it is “not a building we were counting on” and “There’s a good space there.”
Director Morton said that the former Bost building “has some attributes that are positive” but expressed concern about the lack of floor drains. Floor drains reduce operating costs by not requiring the paid labor of cleaning the facility without them. Director Christina Catsavis said that floor drains could be put in because the internal walls are not load bearing. Director Good said that they can look into the Bost building and in the meantime also look forward to the planned newly constructed building.
Director Morton said “I’m a huge advocate of animals in this city.” He said in order to have the control the City wants in regards to the animal issue, the City needs to make a financial contribution to the shelter. He said “$5.1 million is a lot of money.” and that he is “not optimistic” that 75%-80% of that could be raised through donations. He suggested that the shelter “rethink and reduce the costs of the structures.” He also requested the Board be sent an estimate of what the operating costs on annual basis would be for the new facility. He also expressed concern about dogs from areas outside of the city being brought into Fort Smith to be abandoned because we have an animal shelter.
Director George Catsavis asked how long it would take to build the facility. A representative from FSAH answered that it would take 14-16 months after ground was broken but also said that the time table is a matter of funding. Director George Catsavis expressed concern about the heat at the current facility. FSAH answered that portacools will be up and running tomorrow, their installation was delayed because the electricity in the building had to be upgraded to accommodate them. Director George Catsavis asked if there have been any animal deaths at the shelter this summer because of the heat. FSAH answered that there have not been any heat related animal deaths, but there was one incident where an employee experienced heat stress.
Director Good called the idea of repurposing the former Bost building a “great idea” but said that it would require a lot of modifications. He mentioned that the fundraising for a new facility was hampered while the audit was going on. He said that the Board needs to get behind the new facility, another facility, or the Bost building.
Director Morton asked how many animals are currently in the shelter. FSAH answered that there are currently 201 animals inside the shelter. The total number of animals under FSAH care right now is 266 with the inclusion of animals housed in foster homes. 146 of the animals currently in the shelter are dogs. Director Morton expressed concern that the city cannot go from a facility that is housing 146 dogs to one that only houses 100. He said that the “shelter is always full” and that animal control cannot pick up dogs because there is no place to take them.
Director Rego said “As long as we remain committed to no-kill, space is going to be required.” and “Space costs money.” He said “fundraising is a challenge even in the best of circumstances” and praised the people working on it. He advocated for the City to look for ways to help saying “If we’re not helping, we’re hindering.”
Director Good asked about a temporary building that is being considered by FSAH for until the new facility is built. Mike Ballman with FSAH said that there is one they have been looking at that would work in the interim but that it doesn’t have floor drains. It would be the same “exact scenario” as the current facility except that it would have a forced air unit and insulation in the roof.
Director Morton asked how adoptions and transports are going. Ballman answered that adoptions are “still light throughout the summer” and that there were 43 animals transported this week. The shelter is working on permits to bring large dogs into different states including Colorado in the next week or so and Pennsylvania soon.
Director Martin asked about the hiring of a Foster Coordinator that was mentioned at a meeting in January. Ballman answered that one was hired last week. Director Martin mentioned that his top two priorities for the shelter are for Animal Control to be able to get calls and be able to take the animals to a shelter and an “urgency around adoptions.” He mentioned that reports from Animal Control comparing 2022 and 2024 show a 36% decrease in 2024 in transports to the shelter and a 33% increase in the calls where the shelter was full so the animal was left on the scene. Ballman said that in 2022 the shelter was in a parking lot with an awning, so it could hold a higher number of animals. However, the shelter received “numerous complaints” on that facility. The move to a shelter that put all of the animals indoors has reduced the total intake. He also said that there has been a 40% increase in calls received by Animal Control. He said that Animal Control calls involving vicious animals have increased and that those vicious animals are required to be taken in by the shelter so the shelter has to maintain some kennels open on reserve for vicious animals. Director Martin voiced concern about the heat at the current facility. He also said “Adoptions and transports are where we’ve gotta go.”
Director Good said that transports being down is a reflection on the want or need for animals outside of Fort Smith. He said that the uptick in calls is a “direct reflection on animal owners” and that FSAH “cannot be held responsible for other people’s habits.” He praised FSAH and thanked them for their efforts saying “What more can we ask of this organization? We need to get behind them.”
Director Rego said “controversy has consequences” and expressed hope that there will be a positive increase now in support for the shelter in the “next chapter of this story.”
Director Morton praised FSAH. He also requested that the Board be provided with information on what the 4 large cities in Northwest Arkansas are doing about their animal problems including the physical layout of their shelters, cost of those structures, and the arrangements they have with their respective cities.
Director George Catsavis expressed frustration that that Board didn’t have any input on the move from the building on 46th to the current one at Chaffee Crossing and requested that the Board be informed directly about those sorts of things to be able to give input on those decisions.
Director Settle asked if the shelter has taken in any animals known to be from outside the city of Fort Smith. Ballman answered that they have not and do not accept animals from outside the city. He said that once some people from Oklahoma tried to leave some animals at the shelter and were denied so they just abandoned the animals overnight on the shelter’s doorstep. In response to that incident, the Police Department put a mobile police surveillance trailer on the shelter property.
The Board discussed the possible creation of a Water Advisory Committee. They decided immediately against even discussing creation of a Water Commission or Water Committee because those would be bound by a lot of state laws and requirements and create an entity that would legally have official control of the water department (including the power to control rates and issue bonds). Instead, what they discussed and were all in agreement that they really wanted to create was a Water Advisory Committee that would be able to study and discuss things and advise the Board but in that format the Board (not the state) would have control of how it is organized and what its scope is and the Board would still retain full control over the water department.
Director Morton said with the committee he is “not looking for authority to do things” but rather to study things in depth. He suggested the Water Advisory Commission prioritize researching the meters being billed for zero water volume use and the missing water (lost through leaks, breakages, etc.). He expressed concerns about the unfunded consent decree sewer needs and the future water supply/pressure problem.
Director Christina Catsavis called the creation of a Water Advisory Committee a “good idea.”
Director Martin advocated establishing a goal for the committee asking if it needed to include engineers and consent decree experts and if it would just look at info on a quarterly basis or would have actionable items. Director Morton said that the committee could decide on their objective at their first meeting. He said that he wants as many Board members as possible to be on the committee. Director Martin expressed interest in participating. Mayor McGill suggested that a study session could be held to iron out the goals first and then the committee could start their first meeting by getting that direction from the Board about what is expected of them.
Director Settle advocated for separating the committee’s water and sewer duties and focusing on one then the other, starting with focusing on water first since sewer is under the consent decree. One top priority he mentioned for the committee is answering “How do we ensure people aren’t getting free water?” Director Martin asked about the possibility of creating two separate advisory committees, one for water committee and one for sewer. Director Settle, preferring a single committee, expressed concerns about the overlap between the two and the potential for “purview creep.” Director Christina Catsavis suggested the committee might be temporary and function much like a steering committee. Directors Morton and Good expressed support for the idea of it being temporary and a bit like a steering committee. Director Good, though questioned the inclusion of Board of Directors members on the commission. He said that if Directors are involved that the citizens will feel like the Directors will “override what they say anyway.” He said that there doesn’t have to be a Board member on the committee, but he is “not against it either”.
It was agreed that the Board will work on setting the makeup, purview, goals, and priorities of the committee at a future study session.
The Board discussed the scoring criteria used by the Community Development Advisory Committee to recommend the allocations of the 2025 federal Department of Housing and Urban Development funds through the Community Development Block Grant and HOMES grant programs. Possible changes to the questions asked and the prioritization of different criteria were discussed. The idea of re-prioritizing the allocations was brought up at the 4/23/24 meeting during discussion about the allocation for the 2024 funds.
Director Rego asked about the “participatory spirit” of the Community Development Advisory Commission (CDAC)that decides on the recommended allocations, asking if the commissioners are engaged and the meetings are well-attended. Community Development Director Gabucci responded that the she is “really excited about the crew that we have and their dedication to it.”
Director Martin said “We’ve gotta change the notification process” that encourages organizations to apply for the funds. The process currently involves placing notices in the Arkansas Gazette, sending notices via govdelivery, and reminding previous applicants. He said he would like to see it “blown out a little bit” to reach more applicants. He asked about projects that apply but don’t meet the HUD requirements so they don’t reach the CDAC evaluation stage. Gabucci said that those tend to be ones that don’t meet the requirements in relation to meeting urgent needs and having a low-income beneficiary.
Gabucci said that her department tests out questions every year to get better results. They throw out ones that lean more toward the subjective and they take feedback from CDAC on questions that are better or worse. She said that the question regarding whether the applicant has participated in the program before is included because brand new agencies who have not received federal funding before are often overwhelmed by the amount of federal paperwork involved in participating in the program, sometimes struggling to the point that they give up before they manage to even use all of their allocated funding and do not apply again for the grants after that first year.
Director Martin said that there is a “very broad” range of types of projects eligible for the funds. He mentioned that the funds could go toward things like fighting blight, neighborhood beautification, demolition of derelict buildings, and a community grocery store. He said “I want to see us broaden out some of those items.” He said that the CDAC should encouraged to consider that.
Director Settle said that the question that favors applicants who have participated in the program before “penalizes new people with new ideas.” He said that it keeps bigger benefits going to the same organizations. He also expressed frustration that there is nothing in the scoring regarding the project’s impact on children saying that kids are “the most vulnerable group we need to focus on.” He also expressed a preference for scoring for projects that impact single parent families.
Administrator Geffken reminded that scoring criteria and the direction the Board wants spending to go in are under the control of the Board. Gabucci said that 2025 is the last year of the program’s federally required 5 year plan. She called next year the “best possible time to reset our priorities”. She said that when the new 5 year plan is written there will be City research, public hearings, Board input, and input from the agencies involved in the programs included in crafting the new plan.
Director Christina Catsavis noted that the amount of funds available through the grants are limited and that to divert them would take funds away from organizations including Next Step, Hope Campus, CSCDC, and the Community Rescue Mission. To address Director Settle’s suggestion on emphasis on children, she mentioned that Community Rescue Mission is helping families. She said that blight is a concern but that she did not know if the CDBG and HOMES grants are the “right place to pull funds from.”
Director Rego mentioned that the largest recipient of CDBG funds last year was Fort Smith Housing Rehab Assistance, second largest was the Community Rescue Mission, and other recipients included Antioch food pantry, Boys Club, Girls Inc, Children’s Emergency Shelter, and Hamilton House. He said that those organizations serve “quadrants of society that should have access to this assistance.” He expressed hope that the Board and citizens inform themselves about the process and recipients and participate in the meetings to craft the new 5 year plan.
Director Good spoke about having heard from the agencies applying for the grants at the public hearings on the grants and having heard about the “real impact on families” associated with those projects. He acknowledged that “increasing possible applicants” is “always a good thing”. However, he expressed concern that with the limited amount of money available and agencies already receiving a very small percentage of their requests that with more applicants the “pie gets cut into smaller pieces.” He also mentioned that blight comes from households “prioritizing necessities” over the external appearance of their property. He said that programs that help with things like food and dentistry also address blight in an indirect way by addressing those priority needs. He said that he would “hate to see” funding taken away from those worthwhile agencies.
Mayor McGill mentioned that the Boys and Girls Club is exploring an opportunity to create a space for teenagers and that the Salvation Army is adding additional space for single females with children. He said “We are making progress in some of these areas.”
