Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 8/27/24

The Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 8-27-24 was a longer than usual meeting at about 3 hours and 40 minutes long with a strong amount of citizen participation. Director Settle was only present for the first 30 minutes of the meeting (and was not still present for any voting). The evening started with a special meeting section so that the Board could vote on applying for federal grant funds available as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to be used for planning for active transportation safety improvements on Grand Avenue and a partial bike lane with sharrows along Park Avenue and Kinkead from North Greenwood to Albert Pike to Kinkead to Waldron. The grant would be for 80% of the projects with the City covering 20%. The total for the planning on Grand would be $300,000 with the City’s share being $60,000. The total for the project on Park would be $1,250,955 with the City’s share being $250,191. This issue was discussed and tabled at the 8/20/24 meeting. The two grants were discussed and voted on separately with the planning grant for Grand Avenue being first, however there was a lot of overlap in the discussions between both grants. And in the comments from the speakers there was a lot of discussion that pertained to both items and also that pertained to the Move Fort Smith active mobility plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan that were discussed and tabled at the 8/20/meeting.

Sue Brucker spoke in opposition to the grants. She expressed concern about the cost of the City’s required 20% matching contribution and that the grants work via reimbursement where the City pays the cost up front and is then reimbursed by the federal government. She expressed concern about the Directors having enough time to digest the large Move Fort Smith and Comprehensive Safety Action plans and concerns about transparency.

Carris Belizario spoke in opposition to the grants. She expressed concerns about the costs. She mentioned seeing the rental bike racks on Grand being full and that they are not being used. She voiced her view that there are already ample areas for walking and biking on the existing sidewalks.

State Representative Cindy Crawford spoke and praised the citizen engagement at the meeting. She urged the Board to listen to the citizens and also to push the vote back. She said that people have to move their vehicles for sidewalks and that she has heard of people who are having “property taken away from them.”

Carrie Salley spoke in opposition to the grants. She expressed concern about the strings attached to federal grant money, the costs of the City’s matching funds for the grants, and the costs of the Move Fort Smith plan projects and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan projects. She said that driving cars is made more difficult by road narrowing. She said “The River Valley is a driving cars population.” She voiced concerns about eminent domain being used to acquire land for trails.

David Crowell spoke in favor of the grants. He mentioned being a Scout leader and hiking and cycling on the trails. He expressed excitement about planned potential upgrades to the Old Railroad Trail. He said that Fort Smith is a “care culture” “because we’re built that way.” He expressed support for pedestrian safety improvements to help residents who are without cars.

Jerry Donaldson requested that the Board table the grants until 2025. He encouraged the Board to listen to the citizens. He said that the availability of bikeability and walkablility cause him to choose to continue living in the neighborhood he lives in He expressed concern about the fiscal position of the City and suggested that the consent decree be addressed before spending for other expenses.

Tony Williamson spoke in opposition to the grants. He expressed concerns about the strings attached to federal grants. He related to the federal grants to the Covid “man-made virus” and the “government agenda pushed on people.” He suggested that other expenses should come first and suggested that the issue be tabled to next year.

Brian Westney voiced his view that the existing active transportation amenities including the new bike trails at Chaffee are not being utilized. He expressed concerns about the City taking property without telling anyone. He suggested that other funding sources be used before resorting to federal grant funding.

Valeria Kisch voiced her view that the “equity” wording in the Move Fort Smith and Comprehensive Safety Action plans means that “everyone is going to be equally miserable.” She spoke of her experience living in communist Hungary where roads were not maintained and everyone was forced to use public transportation, bike or walk. She expressed concerns about the corruption in government money.

Becky Hartsfield expressed concerns about grants for traffic and pedestrian safety coming at the expense of “losing our sovereignty” as a City. She expressed concerns that the plans directed toward walkers and cyclists would be at the expense of drivers. She expressed disapproval of the Move Fort Smith Plan’s goal for people to drive less. She suggested that the 20% matching funds would be better spent on the consent decree.

Joey McCutcheon suggested that the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan should be passed before the grants are applied for. He said the plan becomes a “communist manifesto” and that “equity analysis” is discrimination. He expressed disapproval that the grants would be starting with the #12 and #3 on the plan’s priority list. He said that the only way of achieving the plan’s stated ultimate goal of zero traffic deaths would be to take all cars off the road, so the plan’s goal is actually zero cars. He said that it is not about safety. He suggested that instead of grants that a tax increase be voted on instead.

Molly Echevaria spoke in opposition to the grants saying that they “undermine local freedom.” She said that prioritizing some groups neglects the challenges of others.

Van Buren resident Kim Ferguson spoke expressing concern that nearly exact plans are being crafted all over the nation because the federal government is supplying Safe Streets For All grant funding for the projects. She said the “plan isn’t local.”

Jo Elsken spoke in support of the grants. She said she is “saddened” the “fear of government and changed culture is creating a lack of information.” She said she trusts the government’s system of checks and balances. She said that she speaks for the “silent majority” that think the grants are a “no brainer.” She mentioned that other cities are using grants for their improvements.

David Ingram spoke in opposition to the grants. He said that the Build Back Better agenda is a United Nations agenda and the projects in the grants are UN projects. He expressed concerns about the strings attached to government grants. He expressed concerns about one world government. He said “Fort Smith is not a progressive community like Fayetteville.”

Deano Traywick spoke in support of the grants. He mentioned the cycling organization he is a part of attending an event in Conway recently where that City embraced cycling. He mentioned that more such events are planned in other cities. He said that federal grants are commonly used for roads, water, sewer, and other projects. He said that the plan isn’t “taking away vehicles” but “provides options.”

Director Rego said that some of what had been talked about in the meeting “bears no resemblance” “to what is in front of us” on the agenda item and reminded that the item up for a vote was only for the application for the planning grant for potential Grand Avenue safety improvements. He said that the grant would be for a plan to make Grand a safer place to walk and drive. He noted that Grand avenue was the #3 top priority in the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan. He said that it would take until May of 2025 to find out if the City is awarded the grant, then planning would take up to November 2026, then implementation would be up for consideration.

Director Good said that he has personally seen the rental bikes being used. He expressed his desire for the citizens of Fort Smith who pay federal taxes to get part of those back. He said that the Board “cannot allow scare tactics, miscommunications, and people’s biases to keep up from doing the job before us.”

Director Morton asked for clarification that with the Grand grant just being a planning grant and the Park and Kinkead grant just being a demonstration grant to test a small area that if the grants are awarded and the plans are written that the City could still decide against doing an implementation if there were strings on implementations grants that they did want, that they could get the plan 80% paid for even if they opted to spend the City’s own money for implementation. Mobility Coordinator Mings confirmed that that is how it would work. Director Morton asked Streets Director Meeker if the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan was about anything other than reducing traffic accidents. Meeker answered “Absolutely not.” Director Morton said that he participated in the committee that made the plan and that it is “all about safety.”

Director Martin mentioned that in the 1980s citizens voted to widen Grand Avenue. He expressed concerns that the plan might be narrowing Grand from 5 lanes to 3. He said “I don’t think we can do that” to go against a “voted on item.” Meeker said that a “road diet” or any other “narrowing is not what is being proposed on Grand.” Director Martin mentioned images he’d seen via email that showed narrowing for buses and a median. Meeker reiterated that they would not be doing that or any road diet. He said that with the volume of traffic on Grand there would need to be another parallel route to narrow it and that Grand does not have that so narrowing it “would not be a solution.” Director Rego asked with the vote taken in the 1980s to widen Grand if the Board would be within their legal rights to make modifications now. City Attorney Canfield said that they would. DIrector Good voiced his view that sometimes things are voted on by citizens that “address their concerns at the time” but that “times change” and “communities change.” Director Rego voiced his concern that Director Martin was concerned about Grand Avenue being narrowed based on pictures rather than Streets Director Meeker saying that won’t happen. Director Rego asked how there could be images of the plan before the grant for planning. Director Martin said that they were not in a plan, but in a word document received via email. Meeker said the pictures were included by Mings and reiterated once again that a road diet on Grand “will not happen.” Director Good mentioned the changes in Grand in recent decades with Westark Community College having grown into the University of Fort Smith, the bus system being created, and the increased numbers of people biking and walking to and from school on Grand. Administrator Geffken said that he “would not agree to or recommend narrowing of Grand.”

Director Martin asked where the local match required for the grants would come from. Meeker said that it would come from the funds from the sales tax for Streets, Bridges, and Drainage. Director Martin asked how much is in the Streets fund at this point. Engineering Director Snodgrass answered $14 million in unobligated funds and a balance of about $50 million in obligated funds.

The Board voted to approve the application for the Grand Avenue planning grant with Director George Catsavis and Director Martin voting against it and all others voting in favor.

The demonstration grant for Park & Kinkead was the second of the grants to be discussed and voted on.

CC Holleman spoke in support of the grant. She expressed concern about young people not staying in Fort Smith after high school. She voiced her desire for taxes paid to the federal government to come back to Fort Smith instead of going somewhere else. She said “We want progressiveness here.” and “It is time for progress in Fort Smith.”

Sue Brucker spoke in opposition to the grant saying that in the previous grant vote that the Board had “not heard the voice of the people”. She suggested that the Board’s fiscal responsibility is to allocate funds for the consent decree before the road.

Carris Belizario spoke in opposition to the grant expressing concerns about increased indebtedness and that existing active transportation amenities are not utilized.

State Representative Cindy Crawford spoke in opposition to the grant expressing concerns that the grant requires things like paying workers on the project the prevailing wage and “environmental justice areas, climate change, and equity.” She said that it would be a “vote to sell us down the river.” She encouraged the Board to listen to the people.

Carrie Salley spoke in opposition to the grant expressing concern that once the City gets one grant then it will be the “starting point” for applying for more grants. She also expressed concerns about costs of maintenance and policing for trails and trails going through unsafe neighborhoods and becoming overgrown.

David Crowell spoke in support of the grant saying it was “on the right path” even though “we do have objections here.”

Jerry Donaldson spoke in opposition to the grant mentioning the “struggle to retain our freedom.”

Tony WIlliamson spoke in opposition of the grant expressing that Fort Smith doesn’t want to become like other cities with financial troubles from borrowing. He said that the “fountain of government money” is going to stop. He expressed concerns about strings attached to federal grants and worldwide agendas that are “not in our country’s best interests.” He voiced his concerns about trusting the federal government in light of their actions during the Covid pandemic.

Brian Westney spoke saying that you can’t build without a plan so you “have to have a plan” but that he wants to “hold” the Board to their “word that it’s only a plan.”

Valeria Kisch spoke saying that there is “no such thing as a free lunch” and that contractors love to work for the government “because they can overcharge.”

Joey McCutcheon spoke calling the meeting’s discussion a “dog and pony show” and mentioning that Geffken applied for a $25 million grant “without permission from one Board member.” He said that the City’s required matching contribution for that grant would be $5 million. Geffken said that applying for that grant was within the scope of his authority.

Van Buren resident Kim Ferguson spoke in opposition to the grant saying that Comprehensive Safety Action Plan is a plan already. She also expressed concerns about the cost of the City’s required matching contribution.

Jo Elsken asked if the Board had received emails in favor of the grants. Director Martin answered that he had received some in favor and some against. Elsken spoke in support of the grant saying the City spends a lot of money on amenities to get people to come to Fort Smith and participates in the Tax-Back program to get companies to come in. She voiced her view that the grants for traffic improvements are part of bringing people into Fort Smith. She also expressed her hope that the City will continue to look for other grants for other purposes and amenities.

Deano Traywick spoke in support of the grant saying that bike lanes in Conway were an option some in his organization took advantage of on his recent visit and that bike lanes support economic development and reduce traffic congestion.

Talicia Richardson spoke in favor of street safety improvements expressing concern about the fatalities on Grand. She mentioned the vote for widening on that street being to allow for the economic growth including restaurants and retail. She expressed her concerns about children risking their lives going to school and voiced her view that the City has a responsibility for traffic and pedestrian safety.

James Giltz spoke in support of the grant expressing his “concern for efficient operation of government and efficient use of funds” saying federal grants are “our money we can’t get back unless requested.” He said the grants are tax money coming back to Fort Smith to improve the City. He said of the strings attached to grants that the “only string I’m aware of is that you did what you said in the grant application.”

Terri Hargrove spoke in support of the grant calling it a “step in the right direction” and saying “our city needs it.” She expressed concerns about the safety of children walking to school.

Director Rego mentioned that the planned project would provide a safer bike lane from UAFS to Northside. He said spending $250,000 of budgeted money is “not taking on new debt.” He mentioned that the project would run near the apartment complex on Kinkead that had been empty for a long time and had become blighted but is soon to be back to being occupied. He mentioned that the trails at Chaffee were funded with grant money.

Director Good said that the majority of citizens “are not represented in this room” and the people in attendance are “not a representation of the citizens of Fort Smith.” He mentioned the need to be “inclusive in our actions as a city.” He said “When you don’t take action, that’s what robs the next generation.”

Director Good said that the claim that there would be $5 million in matching funds required for the $25 million grant that Geffken applied for was incorrect. Geffken agreed saying that the grant would require zero dollars in matching funds because Fort Smith would be considered a “rural city” and therefore not required to contribute a matching contribution. Director Rego clarified that the $25 million grant being discussed was a grant for the Bass Reeves Legacy Loop trail and that the City was not awarded the grant. Director Christina Catsavis asked where the grant was awarded to. Geffken said that it went to other grant applicants and that the I-49 project did receive some funding.

Director Christina Catsavis asked about the conditions mentioned by Representative Crawford. Geffken said that it does include conditions about Build American, Buy American, and paying the prevailing wage for construction, and that the applicant must “demonstrate an effort to consider” environmental justice and climate change.

Director Morton asked if the grant was received if it would require the City to take on any debt. Geffken answered “zero.” Director Morton clarified that the Utilities Department is an enterprise fund and that the funds that are collected from the Streets, Bridges, and Drainage tax and the Streets Department turn-back funds from the state cannot be spent in other areas than Streets. It would not be possible to spend those streets funds on the consent decree. He mentioned that no other department in the City has an outstanding debt except for Utilities.

The Board voted in favor of applying for the demonstration grant for Park and Kinkead with Director George Catsavis and Director Martin voting against it and all others voting in favor.

Then the Board held the study session session portion of the meeting. They heard from Attorney Paul Calamita from Aqualaw who has been working as legal counsel for the City in regards to the Consent Decree. Recent meetings with the Department of Justice have resulted in an offer to extend the time the City has to fulfill the requirements of the consent degree to 2034 and the DoJ has offered a choice of three different financial plans that all have that same extended end date. Only one of those options honors the sewer rate freezes from 2023-2025 and maximum sewer rate increases of 3.5% from 2026-2030 that the voters approved when they approved the 5/8% sales tax to go to consent decree sewer projects. From 2015-2017 there were sewer rate increases of 167% and then there have been no further increases since 2017. Calamita said the large increase from 2015-2017 was and no increase for so long are both “fairly unheard of.” The current deadline for completion of the consent decree is 2026. With there turning out to be more work needed than originally anticipated, the 2019 flood, Covid, and inflation it is the opinion of the City that they need until 2036 to complete the work. As it is now, unless the decree is modified, the City could be liable for penalties of thousands of dollars per day for every day over the 2026 deadline. Calamita expects that the federal government might be open to the 2036 due date if presented with a reasonably “expeditious implementation schedule” that pushes tens of millions of dollars worth of work forward into the next 5 year period and “considers financial capability.” Calamita expressed worry about being able to significantly expand sewer construction work with having “exhausted local contractor capacity.” Calamita called the sales tax the “most equitable and effective way to fund” the work. He said the rate freezes and rate increase caps that accompanied the tax are not consistent with inflation.

Director Christina Catsavis expressed that she would honor the rate covenants that the voters were promised saying “I’ll got to jail.” rather than break the promise. City Attorney Canfield said that the plan is to negotiate for the 10 year deadline that respects the covenants and to “hopefully put together a plan that will be acceptable.” Director Christina Catsavis said “Hope’s not a plan.” and expressed concerns about residents dealing with financial strains from inflation. She urged Calamita to communicate to the government how hard Fort Smith is working in good faith effort to satisfy the consent decree.

Calamita said that he opposed the rate covenants originally and that they were a “political decision” to get the tax passed and that it is hard to run a public utility with freezes and 3.5% caps. He also expressed that it cannot work with bids twice the estimate like the one accepted at last week’s meeting.

Director Morton asked what the fines might be if they cannot reach an agreement and are not willing to pass rate increases. Calamita said that the numbers are hard to give but that it could be $15-$25 million asserted. He called the potential fines “a significant liability.”

Director Morton said the best chance to get the 10 year extension is to honor the covenants until 2030 and then figure out what to do after that. He suggested to “agree on the words then have a financial plan that backs up the words.” Calamita agreed the plan needs certainty, deadlines, revenue generators, and rate increases. Director Morton said that federal loans could be available at reasonable interest rates “once we cure our failure of the bond covenants.” He suggested that negotiations stipulate that if the City borrows with debt for the projects that that will offset demands for higher rate increases. He said that a 3.5% increase for a house that uses 5CCF of sewer each month would be an increase of $2.18 per month. He said that they had to include the covenants to pass the tax. With the revenue expected to be $140 million and there being $600 million in work needed he asked Finance Director Richards and Utilities Director McAvoy if they knew of any other sources of money other than rate increases to make up for the $500 million shortfall. Richards and McAvoy answered “no.”

Director George Catsavis asked if the consent decree clause about rate increases over 2.5% of the median income being a “reopener” is still on the table. Calamita said that that was a one-time deal and was litigated resulting in the Judge agreeing to an additional 5 years. The Judge at that time also cautioned the federal government about the flood. While there was ambiguity about that 2026-2031 extension the City did not waste money on engineering and legal fees to submit a plan that they knew they could not afford to construct. Director George Catsavis asked if the $4.2 million in funds from the general fund that have been being discussed being spent on new waterslides for Parrot Island could be used to fund consent decree sewer work. Geffken answered yes and Calamita said that it could be one of the options. Director George Catsavis said that they “need to consider” that and that it “would go a long way.”

Director Martin pointed out that the proposed modification plan that would honor the rate covenants would result in a total of a 156% rate increase over the course of the remaining consent decree with the 2036 end date. He said that his own sewer bill last month for his family of 7 for 16 CCFs was $135, so in 2036 it would be $300 per month. Calamita said that it could be if required rate increases were not offset by other funding sources and that his household usage is “off the charts” compared with most households. Director Martin expressed concerns about people choosing to live elsewhere because of high utility bills.

Director Morton said that the 3 revenue sources available are bonds, sales tax, and rates. He said that being able to issue bonds is contingent upon raising rates. He said that doing nothing could result in the government ordering a 25% increase and that letting the government do it would be politically “an easy position to be in” but that he does not want to do that. He said “This is the best deal we’re ever gonna get.” and that this is a “window to get something done” and get a “written agreement to get extra years.” He mentioned that the City failed the debt covenant because of having to pay for consent decree violation penalties. He voiced his opposition to using the money being discussed for waterslides for utility work. Director Christina Catsavis mentioned that the money for waterslides could go toward building the water transmission line. Director Morton said that every utility in other places pays their own way and that transferring from other funds doesn’t make sense and that Utilities has to get money from rates. Director Morton requested that any agreement written be sent to the Board to read before it is submitted as a final document to the government. Geffken answered “absolutely.”

Director Martin said that 3 years ago the Board invited the DoJ and EPA to Fort Smith to drive around and see the town and to hear from residents in a town hall. Geffken said he will invite them to come to a Board meeting and “listen to our people and the Board.”

Mayor McGill said that on consent decree issues “doing nothing is not an option.”

The Board heard a presentation from Canopy Northwest Arkansas’s Executive Director Joanna Krause about that organization. Canopy Northwest Arkansas works with the US State Department to help resettle foreign refugees that have been vetted by the State Department and are legal immigrants that are eligible to work in the US. The non-profit organization has been in operation since 2016 and is affiliated with Global Refuge (formerly named Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service). The refugees are foreigners who have been forced to flee their homes because of persecution, war, or violence that do not have an opportunity to return home. Krause presented a video showing refugees that Canopy has worked with in Northwest Arkansas showing that many have become US Citizens and that Canopy has helped 20 refugees in NWA open their own businesses. The video included testimonies praising the organization from refugees who came to the US from Rwanda.

Krause called Fort Smith a “remarkable community” and mentioned our history of refugee resettlement including those from Vietnam. She said that Canopy has worked with 4 families that have been resettled in Fort Smith over the last 2 years. She clarified that Canopy is not seeking funding saying “We have no asks.” but just wanted to inform the Board and community about their organization.

Dominique Sanders who works for Canopy in helping refugees with employment spoke and mentioned that refugees generate revenue for economic growth and bring diverse skills, experience, and perspectives and “add to the cultural fabric.”

Fort Smith resident Dr. Hon Chung spoke in support of the organization. He told of coming to Fort Smith as a refugee from Vietnam himself at the age of 2. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service took his family in. The day his father showed up he went to work. Chung is excited about being involved with Canopy since they are a part of the organization that helped him and his family.

Director Rego mentioned Fort Smith’s “proud, honorable, compassionate history” of housing and welcoming refugees. He said “We’re happy you’re here.”

Director George Catsavis said “Americans are pretty caring people.” He asked where the organization’s money comes from. Krause said that it is a public-private partnership with 65% of their funds coming from the federal government and the rest from foundations and individual donations. Director George Catsavis asked what funds the City of Fayetteville contributes. Krause answered “nothing.”

Director Good spoke of his childhood friend that was a refugee and thanked Canopy for helping “on individual basis, not just economics.”

The Board heard an update from the Future Fort Smith Committee including the committee’s annual report on their goals for the year and the reports they received and discussed from each of the relevant City departments regarding each department’s progress and accomplishments and goals for the year in relation to the Future Fort Smith Comprehensive Plan.

Some of the top goals for the Future Fort Smith Committee this year include further website promotion of the City, creation of Visit Fort Smith guides and community How-To guides, removal of blight, street safety and traffic signal improvements, adequate staffing to fill City job vacancies, affordable utilities, coordination to address needs related to the growth resulting from the Foreign Military Sales project, development and implementation of the master plans for mobility including active transportation, planning for the park at the former Acme Brick site, support for services that reduce homelessness, the second police precinct, expanded amenities along the riverfront and at Chaffee, and making updates to the original Future Fort Smith Comprehensive plan to respond to “significant citywide development over the last 10 years” that has made some aspects of the plan outdated.

Future Fort Smith Committee Chair Tim Varner said that at last year’s update the Board requested the Committee assess the existing Future Fort Smith Comprehensive Plan for current validity. Varner said that it is “still a quality guide” but has “become a little bit dated”. He said that it is “not a scrap job” but needs updates.

Directors Rego and Good thanked the committee.

Director Morton suggested that the committee include time at each meeting to have discussions with a different Director to discuss ideas to address different issues. Varner said that was a “great idea.” and “We absolutely will.”