Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 9/17/24
The Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 9-17-24 with Director George Catsavis leaving about 2 hours into the 3 hour and 15 minute meeting was one that featured a lot of citizens speakers and at several points included expressions of frustration including raised voices from both the citizens in the audience and members of the Board.
The meeting began with the public hearing on whether to annex 86 properties totaling 637 acres located at Hwy 271 and Hwy 253. The island of property is surrounded by city limits on three sides and the Oklahoma state border on the fourth side. Benefits to property owners of being annexed include access to all City services, lower insurance rates (because Fort Smith has the best possible ISO rating , a 1, and the fire service currently serving that area only has a 4 rating), and City maintenance of streets. Negative impacts on property owners if annexed include an 8 mill increase in property tax, a higher sales tax rate of 9.5%, having to follow all City codes including property codes and the animal ordinance and the prohibition of discharge of firearms. Amendment to the code would be made to allow for fireworks to be sold from permanent structures on major streets and arteries during specific periods (to accommodate Hale Fireworks that operates at 8520 Hwy 271). Fireworks sales from tents would still not be allowed. Amendment to the code would also be made to allow for Pajaro Gun Club that operates at 802 Old Highway 271 to continue their operations.
JP Hasset who owns a commercial fleet autobody repair shop in the proposed annexation area spoke. He expressed concerns about how he was “gonna be handcuffed” by the annexation and that property owners in the area currently “feel free” by living outside the city limits. He expressed concerns about not being allowed to shoot guns on the private shooting range on his property.
Joey McCutcheon spoke against the annexation. He expressed concern about the cost of maintaining roads within the annexation area.
The Board did not comment on or discuss or vote or take any other official action at the meeting because the stage of the process at the meeting was just the public hearing step.
The Board voted unanimously to remove the 5% local preference from bidding on consent decree projects. The change was proposed in hopes of receiving more bids and potentially reduced costs. The local preference will not be removed from any other bidding.
Joey McCutcheon spoke and expressed his view that because the Board “have not prioritized” projects (including water infrastructure projects and projects related to the Foreign Military Sales program) that there is a need for outside bidders to perform the consent decree work.
Director Martin said that he spoke with contractors and heard that the local preference issue has only been an issue twice. He called removing the preference “a good opportunity for us” because it is “not impactful” but also said “I don’t like it.”
The Board voted unanimously to authorize the City Administrator Geffken to propose a plan to the EPA and DoJ for modification of the consent decree with a 2036 deadline (10 years more than the current deadline) and negotiate with the EPA and DoJ with a financial plan committing to hitting revenue targets to cover the cost for the consent decree and for there to be 60 day comment period with 4 public meetings held before the Board votes on approval for any agreement that results from the negotiation. The plan includes annual water rate increases of 3.5% from 2025-2030 (in accordance with the rate covenants approved by voters when voting for the sales tax for consent decree sewer work), 18% increases in 2031 and 2032, a 16% increase in 2033, a 15% increase in 2034, a 12% increase in 2035, and no increase in 2036. The rate increases would only occur at the specified rates if sufficient revenue is not raised from other sources including bonds, borrowing, and grants, and taxes. The plan states that the City would take steps before it expires to extend the sales tax for consent decree sewer projects at a full 1% rate for the remainder of the consent decree. The issue was discussed at the 8-27-24 meeting, tabled at the 9-3-24 meeting, and discussed again at the 9-10-24 meeting.
Rick Tinder spoke. He stated that he was unprepared to speak on the issue but did say that the Board had “lost their mind.”
Jerry Donaldson spoke and said that there are $115 in hidden costs per month per tap other than sewer use rates and that it would amount to an extra $41,300 per tap over the entire consent decree period. He said the city is “between a rock and a hard place.”
Dan Williams spoke and said that Geffken “should not be the one negotiating.”
Chris Cadelli spoke and expressed his “disappointment” in the City’s handling of the consent decree. He encouraged the Board to “decline any future non-essential junk” like the recent purchase of waterslides.
Crystal Cadelli spoke and expressed concerns about the “lack of transparency and consistency with this board” and the negative impact of rate increases on seniors and low-income residents.
Russ Bragg spoke in support of the negotiation. Though he acknowledged “Nobody likes the consent decree.”, he encouraged the Board to vote unanimously to approve the negotiation to show a “unified presence” to the federal agencies to show the City is “seriously committed to get it done.”
Brian Westney spoke via audio recording. He suggested that a “Save the City Day” be held in which backhoes would be volunteered and citizens would pitch in together voluntarily to do the digging needed for consent decree repairs.
Joey McCutcheon spoke and expressed concerns about the federal government taking over the utilities department and it going into receivership. He said that the proposed negotiation is “not a negotiation” and that the “time for negotiation was years ago.”
Lee Kemp spoke in support of negotiation saying “I want us to fix our future.” He also suggested that Director Morton be involved in the negotiation.
Director George Catsavis said that the total cost of the consent decree work still to be done is “gonna be over a billion with inflation.” He said “Let’s let the City tighten their belts.” and that the City needs to “stop spending on fun and games.” He asked if the Chevron ruling would be a factor in the consent decree. Utilities Director McAvoy said that it would not because the consent decree ruling is already in place.
Director Christina Catsavis said that the City may not have the right representation in Aqualaw’s Paul Calamita. She said “I don’t think he believes in us.” and that Calamita doesn’t feel that the City is working on the consent decree but that she feels that the City is working hard on it. She called rate increases “crippling.”
Director Settle mentioned how long the problems leading up to the consent decree have been going on, since 1980s when he was in kindergarten and Director Christina Catsavis was not yet born. He reminded that he voted against entering the consent decree in 2015 because he wanted the issue to go to court instead. He said that the Board has been trying to hold rates down. He said the “EPA and DoJ do not want to do anything to help us.”
Director Morton suggested that the word “revenue” should not be used in the plan but the words “funds” or “funding” should be used in its place to be clear that it is intended to be inclusive of funding sources other than utility rates, including bonds, borrowing, grants, and taxes. He also suggested that the plan include targets for funding presented in terms of dollar amounts rather than percentages. He said that the City “really don’t have any choice but to agree to negotiate on these terms.” Of Calamita, he said “He’s got a hard task.” He said that it is the first time that the federal agencies have come to the City with discussion of more time to complete the consent decree. He suggested that the Board pass a resolution that they would pass the increases mentioned in the plan if the negotiation is successful. He also suggested that the Board also pass the water rate increases needed to fund the water department operations and meet the bond covenants so that the City will be able to issue bonds. He called the negotiation on the consent decree a “wasted effort” without passing both sewer and water rate increases. However, he said “I don’t like it.”
Director Christina Catsavis said “We’re going to have to tighten our belts.” and suggested “no unnecessary spending.” She acknowledged that there would also need to be rate increases and said “I don’t want a 25 million dollar fine.” that would result from failure to complete the consent decree on time. She mentioned that construction is being done on consent decree projects every day of the year that the weather permits.
Director Rego said “rate adjustments are a fact of life.” He said that an “irresponsible attitude” caused the problems many years ago that have lead to the current situation. He also reminded residents of the City’s Project Concern discount program that cuts water and sewer rates by half and trash rates by 25% for residents who have a household income of up to 200% of the federal poverty line and encouraged residents to apply to participate in the program.
Director Martin agreed on the need for “budget tightening” saying that the City has “gotta hit 2025 really hard across the board.” He mentioned the need for a member of the Board of Directors observe the negotiation (as they do in other consent decree meetings and negotiations). Director Christina Catsavis chimed in that she would like to volunteer to do it and said that she was going to attend whether she was invited to or not. Director Martin expressed his appreciation for the public’s efforts and sacrifices and struggles in relation to the sewer problems including increased rates, taxes, participation in meetings and offering feedback to the Board, and enduring sanitary sewer overflows.
Director Settle motioned to add an amendment to the resolution authorizing the negotiation that there would be a 60 day comment period with 4 public meetings held before the Board votes on approval for any agreement that results from the negotiation. The Board voted unanimously in favor of that amendment. Then the Board voted unanimously in favor of the amended resolution to authorize the negotiation
The Board voted to approve the Street Department’s Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, the Safe Fort Smith Plan The plan, funded by a federal grant, and approved to be conducted at the 9-5-23 meeting identified and prioritized projects to improve traffic safety and reduce the number of traffic accidents and fatalities. The plan allows the City to be eligible for future federal grants to implement the plan’s identified projects.
Nearly every week there is a crash with serious injury or fatality that occurs in Fort Smith. The fatalities per population rate in Fort Smith is better than the statewide average and better than Little Rock and Springdale but worse than Fayetteville or Edmond, OK. 67% of crashes occur on the main arteries. 55% happen in intersections. Crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, construction workers, and other people who are outside of motor vehicles only make up 5% of the serious injury and fatality crashes, but 31% of crashes involving people outside of vehicles result in serious injuries or death. Crashes involving people outside of motor vehicles occur more frequently at night than other crashes.
The top ten priority areas for improvement projects identified by the plan are
Garrison from 2nd to 14th
Rogers from 46th to 79th
Grand from 21st to 37th
Kelley Highway and 50th intersection
Towson from Phoenix to Raleigh
Jenny Lind from Jackson to Louisville
Rogers and Albert Pike intersection
Park from North Greenwood to North 35th
Kelley Highway and 32nd intersection
North B from North 6th to North 15th
The issue was discussed at the 8-13-24 meeting and discussed and tabled at the 8-20-meeting.
In response to commentary at those previous meetings, Streets Director Meeker spoke to correct “misconceptions”. He said that plan is not attempting to alter modes of travel, is not to take away vehicles, is not to mandate electric vehicles, that no United Nations documents were consulted in the development of the plan, and that Fifteen Minute Cities was not a concept that was considered in the development of the plan. He said that equity analysis was required by the federal grant that funded the creation of the plan and that that equity analysis determines which projects are eligible for future federal grant money and is not used for determining which projects are constructed in the city saying “It’s our intention to do every bit of it.”
Andy Posterick spoke in support of the plan. He mentioned that “older roadways cannot pay for themselves” and noted that businesses around some of the high crash sites do not generate enough sale tax to pay for the infrastructure near them. He said that reducing accidents is fiscally sustainable and the Safe Fort Smith plan cuts cost and called that a “good first step.”
Pam Wadsworth spoke and mentioned a recent hit and run accident in which her neighbor was injured as a pedestrian walking her dog. Wadsworth advocated for more sidewalks to prevent accidents.
Valeria Kiss spoke in opposition to the plan and the federal grants to fund it calling it a “marxist agenda.” She said that the plans come out of China and the Former Soviet union. She said that there is wording in the United Nations 2030 Agenda “identical” to wording found in the Safe Fort Smith Plan and Move Fort Smith Plan.
James Johnson spoke in opposition to the plan. He said that there is “a lot of stuff in there that’s communist.” He expressed opposition to planned changes to Rogers Avenue saying that with the changes there will be “more accidents than there are now.”
Brian Smith spoke in opposition to the plan because of “priorities.”
Tara McDaniel spoke in support of the plan. She mentioned it making it safer for kids to walk to the school bus. She said that reduced traffic accidents frees up resources for response to accidents and there will be fewer traffic slow downs because of accidents. She said that as a grant writer for non-profits that she has seen that grants don’t have strings attached. She called the opportunity for federal funding something the City “can’t afford to miss out on.”
Michael Rich spoke in opposition to the plan saying that it contains direct UN quotes and has “direct connection” to the United Nations and their plans for eventual elimination of fossil fuel cars. He said “The UN is not a good organization.” and that they “destroy our national sovereignty.”
Joe Elskin spoke in support of the plan. She expressed her trust for the professional resources used in creating the plan. She said “There are no easy answers” and the Board “have fought for the best answer.”
Carrie Saley spoke in opposition to the plan calling the Move Fort Smith Plan and Safe Fort Smith plan “DEI plans” that “expand socialism” and are “just communist theft.” She expressed concerns about the United Nations’ goal to eliminate driving by 2050 and expressed concerns that the Safe Fort Smith plan “takes away rights of car drivers.”
Brian Westney spoke via voice recording in opposition to the plan. He mentioned that only .74% of the population of the city was surveyed during the creation of the plan. He said that numbers of walkers reported in the survey was inaccurate. He said the “plan is pretty much horse poop.”
Molly Echiveria spoke in opposition to the plan and expressed concerns about “socialist wording”, “economic justice”, “equity”, and “communist ideas.” She said that the number of fatalities was inflated.
Dan Williams spoke and suggested that Geffken be removed from his position.
Chris Cadelli spoke in opposition to the plan and expressed concerns about “World Economic Forum rhetoric”, a “globalist” agenda, and “equity.”
Crystal Cadelli spoke in opposition to the plan. She said “grants typically do have strings attached” “some important and some unimportant.” She said that the City cannot afford the local match for the projects if funded by federal grant money and that that money should be put toward the consent decree instead. She suggested a recall election be held for the City Directors.
Joey McCutcheon spoke in opposition to the plan and expressed concerns about taking away cars. He voiced his opposition to equity.
James Giltz spoke in support of the plan. He said that the plan was made by engineering firms not the UN and aimed at creating safer streets. He said “I trust engineers.” He said that he has seen substantially reduced near misses of Southside student runners near Cliff Drive with recent safety improvements made in that area.
Terri Hargrove spoke in support of the plan. She voiced her support for prioritizing citizen safety. She said that the hit and run mentioned by Wadsworth was not the only one this month. She said that the study determined where improvements would have the most benefit.
Director Rego said that conflating the Safe Fort Smith plan with language from the Energy and Environment Innovation Plan (EEI) is “lying and being manipulative.” He said the Safe Fort Smith plan is about data that supports 10 suggested projects for safety. He said that approving the plan does not obligate any money toward the projects. He said equity is being “brought up as a scare tactic” but “equity is important” and mentioned historical practices such as redlining and segregation. He said that the equity in the plan is based on using federal census data to identify economically disadvantaged areas eligible for the most federal funding. He said it is “good where we can to get that money back in investments in our community.” He expressed concern about “outlandish conspiratorial thoughts” getting in the way of planning for safety improvements.
Director Martin asked if the policy changes recommended in the plan would be adopted with approval of the plan. Meeker said that they would not, that policy changes would have to come to the Board of Director to be voted on as separate ordinances. Director Martin mentioned that there are no roundabouts included in the plan but that traffic circles are mentioned. He asked if approving the plan would empower the Streets Department to build traffic circles without Board approval. Meeker assured that traffic circles and all other big projects would have to go through the Board for approval and that they would come to the Board as Engineering Department Capital Improvement Plan budgeted items. The only items Streets would do on their own are the type of small projects that they currently do on their own regularly like dealing with trees interfering with the vision of roadways, putting reflective backplates on signals, and placing speed radar signs. Meeker clarified that each project would be budgeted and done on a case by case basis, that approving the plan would not approve or fund all of the mentioned projects all at once. Director Martin asked what the cost would be to complete all of the projects included in the plan. Meeker said $20.5 million. Director Martin mentioned that the sales tax for streets and drainage generates $30 million. Director Martin voiced concern that the Safe Fort Smith plan, Move Fort Smith plan, and Environment Energy and Innovation plan have all been made around the same time. He expressed concerns about the reduction of automobiles and push for electric vehicles. Meeker said that the three plans all coming up around the same time was just “happenstance.” Director Martin said that they all came together and that “That’s a problem for me.” He said “I’m for safe streets” “But not in the way we’re going about it.”
Director Settle mentioned that 4 of the 10 projects are state highways and asked if ARDOT has given feedback on the plan. Meeker said that ARDOT has given feedback but it was “non-consequential.” Director Settle suggested that ARDOT should fund the state projects. Meeker said that they potentially could work with ARDOT to fund those.
Director Christina Catsavis asked Meeker about his political leanings. Meeker said he is one of the “most right wing, ultra conservative” City employees. Director Christina Catsavis asked City Attorney Canfield about the fear of elimination of cars. Canfield said “I’m not aware of any effort in the United States to do more than ban cars in particular places and particular time.” He said that there is no mandate for electric vehicles. He said there is no “historic basis for legitimate fear of legislation that would take away private property.” He said that any such effort would have to go through the political system and the court system.
Director Rego mentioned that the City has been making an effort to be more effective in the pursuit of grants. To highlight the pursuit of grants in light of political leanings, he mentioned Grants and Government Relations Manager Hoover came from Senator Cotton’s office. Director Rego said that if the Safe Fort Smith plan is not approved that the City “spent $70,000 for a plan that has no ability to help us acquire grants.”
Director Morton said that if the plan can save lives “I’m all for it.”
The Safe Fort Smith Comprehensive Safety Action Plan passed with all but Director Settle, Director Martin, and Director George Catsavis voting in favor of approval.
The Board voted in favor of contracting with Entegrity for solar projects and to allocate funds from the general fund for the cost of the farmers market solar canopy. The projects will generate 17 million KWH of energy annually and offer a net savings of $100,000 annually and a total net savings of $3.5 million over the life span of the equipment. The projects include 2 off-site solar farms that would generate a combined 8.63 MW of energy (that will have no upfront cost to the City as they would be owned and maintained by Entegrity and would benefit from 50% tax credits), a solar canopy that would cover two rows of parking at the Farmers Market and generate 300 KW of energy (that will cost $1,452,057 upfront and benefit from 30% tax credits resulting in an eventual total cost to the City of about $1 million and outright ownership by the City), and an off-site solar array for Nelson Hall Homes low-income housing that is to be fully funded by the federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grant. Under State law, the current net metering benefits that allow for a 1:1 rate structure and keep large scale solar economically appealing expire 9-30-24. In order to lock in the rate structure, an agreement must be in place before 9-30-24. Entegrity was the only company that applied to partner with the City on solar projects. This issue was discussed at the 9-10-24 meeting.
Shannon Farhat spoke in support of the projects saying she is “very excited” and that the projects are for the “future” and “not the new red scare.”
Joey McCutcheon spoke in opposition to the projects and said that he disagrees “that it’s a red scare.” He expressed concerns about the projects’ ties to the federal government and that the federal grant that will fund the Nelson Hall low income solar project is a part of a $14.5 million federal grant to “start a leftist plan.”
Terri Hargrove spoke in support of the projects and suggested that savings from solar energy could be used for fixing other problems. She suggested that solar panels could also be installed on schools, libraries, and other City buildings.
Jo Elsken spoke in support of the projects. She said “This is the Natural State. I wanna keep it natural.”
Director Christina Catsavis mentioned that the energy savings could be used to help pay for consent decree work and water projects.
Director Morton asked if the City could still step back if the bids are higher than anticipated for construction of the farmers market canopy. Director of Sustainability and Citizen Services Robertson answered that if the bids are more than the $1,425,057 allocated that they would have to go back to the Board for reconsideration. Director Morton said “The City needs to control the construction of those canopies.” Director Morton asked under what conditions the City might want to consider the outright purchase option of the off-site arrays. Parker Higgs with Entegrity answered that it would be something to consider if they decide in the future that it is a better option to buy out the Solar Services Agreement terms to get rid of the financing costs.
Director Settle asked what would happen if utility costs go down as a result of deregulation. Robertson said that the savings from solar would go down. Director Settle wondered aloud, especially if utility costs were to go down, if it would be better to invest the $1.425 million in a CD for 25 years instead of buying the farmers market canopy.
Director Rego mentioned that electric costs trend upwards more frequently than they trend downwards. He called the projects “worth doing” and expressed a desire to use the savings from the solar energy on other projects.
The solar agreement was approved and money for the farmers market canopy was allocated with all but Director Settle and Director Martin voting in favor. Director George Catsavis was no longer present when the vote was held.
The Board voted unanimously to contract with Forsgren for 1.4 miles of street overlays and the associated sewer work. The total cost of the contract will be $2,691,340.94, with $530,000 of that total being for the sewer utility work.
Director Morton asked if the manhole work is consent decree work. McAvoy said that it is
During the Officials Forum section of the meeting, Director Settle mentioned the potential for the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron Doctrine to impact the consent decree because of the Waters of the United States rule. He asked Administration to work with Senators Cotton and Boozman and Representative Womack from a legislative perspective. Geffken said “I’ll reach out to them tomorrow.”
During the Executive Session, Kaity Gould was appointed to the Advertising and Promotion Commission, Mila Masur was reappointed to the Historic Commission, Amy Whittington, Kenna Slaughter, and Richard Morris were all appointed to the Sales Tax Review Committee, and Dustin Perceful and Ann-Gee Lee were reappointed to the Transit Advisory Commission.
