Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 9/3/24

At the Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 9-3-24, the Board voted in favor of a zoning change that will allow for 12.38 acres that were previously the Goldtrap-Gardner Boys and Girls Club baseball field that has been disused for 4 years to be developed into a 68 lot single family residential subdivision with 1,200-2400 square ft homes expected to sell in the $250,000 price range, 2 detention ponds, sidewalks, and a greenway that will run from the street front on South 88th to the Boys and Girls Club. When the land sale is completed, the Boys and Girls Club intends to use the money from the sale to make improvements to the Goldtrap-Gardner facility including a new state-of-the-art recreation center.

Brandon Hebert who applied for the zoning change said that the Boys and Girls Club is “very excited” about the potential sale of the property.

Director Settle said that it “looks like a great development.” He asked about whether the plans would still allow a back way to reach Chaffin and Woods schools without having to walk on Dallas. Hebert answered that there is a sidewalk on one side and the greenway.

Director George Catsavis mentioned having heard worries from residents of the nearby Brighton Place regarding traffic. Hebert said that the City reviewed the traffic statement that was submitted with the application and that there were “no concerns” from staff regarding traffic. Director George Catsavis mentioned that the current zoning for the property would allow for a development of duplexes to be built. Hebert agreed and added that the plans that are being proposed for the single family development would be less population dense than duplexes. Deputy Administrator Rice said that with the traffic in and out of the development being split between Dallas and South 91st that the “impact will be minimal.” Director George Catsavis said that he would abstain from voting on the issue “because I’m just not sure.”

Director Good called the plan a “great use of the property” but said that he would be abstaining from the vote because he serves on the Board of the Boys and Girls Club.

The Board all voted in favor of the zoning change except for Director George Catsavis and Director Good who both abstained from voting.

The Board voted unanimously with no further discussion in favor of a zoning change for 6000 Midland that will allow for the vacant building that previously housed the Lighthouse Restaurant to be used as an event center.

The Board voted in favor of a zoning change that would allow two existing metal buildings on a property in the Extraterritorial Judicial Area at 9800 Hwy 271 to be used for auto repair and offices but would include requirements including an eight inch waterline to be installed, trees to be planted near the street front, and wood or masonry opaque screening for storage and garbage.

John Alford who represents the applicant, Bobby Altes, spoke. He said that the Planning Commission “quickly passed” their recommendation for the zoning change and did not include the proper motion for the amendments including the water line, trees, and screening. He said the requirements, especially the water line, were “unfair” and that the property should be grandfathered in. He voiced opposition to the property owner having to spend to bring in an 8 inch waterline. He said that the City paid for water line expansion at Riverfront Drive for the benefit of a privately owned RV park and that the City “need to step up” and “do it for this other end of town.”

Director Morton asked about the 8 inch water line that was required recently to be run on the adjacent property owned by another member of the Altes family. Rice confirmed that it was required and has not been run yet but that there is still time for it to be run under the agreed upon deadline. Director Morton asked if the property would be safe without an 8 inch line for fire protection. Fire Chief Fuller said the minimum per State fire code is 6 inch to support a hydrant and Utilities Director McAvoy said that 8 inch would be needed “ensure proper flow” and that a 6 inch would probably work for a fire at one building but if spread that the 8 inch would be needed. He said that the ISO certification for fire safety certifies that the line exceeds the minimum and reminded that Fort Smith currently holds the highest ISO rating. Fuller said that what the buildings are going to be used for requires a greater flow than what a 6 inch line can provide and mentioned that the planned 8-10 10,000 square ft warehouses on the adjacent property will also require more flow in the event of a fire. Director Morton asked about the cost difference between a 6 inch line and an 8 inch line. McAvoy answered that the 8 inch would be less than 10% more expensive than the 6 inch. Director Morton suggested that the City consider absorbing the cost difference between a 6 and 8 inch line. Director Morton said “We have put in lines before for economic development.” and mentioned the City paying the difference for a development in Chaffee Crossing to install a bigger line than the minimum. He said “We owe it to the people to be fair.”

Director Good said the City “can’t go into every economic development initiative and put forth water lines.” He said that there needs to be criteria to judge which developments are big enough or small enough for that.

Director Christina Catsavis asked Alford if his client is happy or unhappy. Alford said that his client is unhappy because the application didn’t include the extra requirements. He said his client wants either to send the issue back to the Planning Commission or for the Board to approve the zoning change without the amendments. He expressed disapproval of the water line adding a cost of over 3/4 of a million dollars to the project.

Director George Catsavis said “I sense there’s some tension between the City and Altes, more than normal.” McAvoy said “We hold everyone to the same standard, an 8 inch minimum size.” Director George Catsavis said “I don’t think Mr. Altes is getting a fair shake on this.” and suggested that the issue be sent back to the Planning Commission.

Director Martin asked about the additional requirements not being approved by the Planning Commission. Rice said that the requirements are all conditions that are listed as staff comments and the recommendation of the Planning Commission was “contingent upon approval of staff comments.” The motion is routinely made to include staff comments and that mention of the staff comments is “physically said every time.” She also mentioned that the requirements are almost identical to the ones required of the adjacent property.

Director Morton asked what size water line is on the property currently. McAvoy answered that it is a 2 inch. He added that the last time there was a fire in the area the insufficiently sized lines were sucked flat and could not provide adequate water to fight the fire.

Director Good expressed concern about the City paying for the water line potentially setting precedent that would result in every future development having the right to ask for a water line at the City expense. Rice said “Historically, the cost of the development is on the developer.”

Director Martin asked why that area currently has 2 inch lines. McAvoy answered that the area was part of the existing water infrastructure purchased from James Fork over 20 years ago.

Director Christina Catsavis said there was “some confusion around this item” and that the water line would be a “huge personal cost to any developer.” She suggested sending the issue back to the Planning Commission.

Director George Catsavis asked if the issue were sent back to the Planning Commission how long it would take for it to come back before the Board. Rice said that it could be put on Planning’s October agenda and then the Board’s November agenda.

Director Settle asked how the property being in the new annexation area would affect the issue. Rice said this property if annexed would (for anything other than a single family or duplex residential development) have to go through the Planning Commission process and Board approval for a zoning change. Director Martin asked if the requirement for the 8 inch line would change with annexation. Rice answered no, that it would stay the same.

The Board voted in favor of the zoning change including the requirements for the water line, trees, and screening with all but Director Martin, Director George Catsavis, and Director Christina Catsavis voting in favor of the change.

The Board voted unanimously with no further discussion in favor of an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance that would remove container storage as an approved use in Commercial Heavy zoning areas, require conditional use approval in Industrial Light areas, and would allow it in Industrial Moderate and Industrial Heavy areas.

The Board voted to purchase a set of 5 water slides for Parrot Island Waterpark that are available at a deep discount because they were built for another park elsewhere that backed out on them. The project will cost a total of $4.2 million for the entire project including the slides and installation, concrete, and other related expansion work. The funding will come out of the General Fund. The City will make a down payment of $1,260,000, pay to have the slides delivered, then pay the next 30% when the slides are delivered, and then pay the final 40% when the installation is completed.

The purchase of the water slides was initially approved by the Board at the 7-9-24 meeting with the plan at that time being for the County to pay the other half of the price of the slides, but the County did not approve spending for what would have been their half of the purchase price. Following their decision to not fund the purchase of the water slides, the County proposed leasing their half of the park to the City. The lease and the purchase of the slides were both originally discussed and tabled at the 8-6-24 meeting. The lease was tabled again at the 8-20-24 meeting.

Fort Smith resident Joey McCutcheon spoke in opposition to the purchase. He called the expansion “adding more bells and whistles.” He suggested that the money could be better used to address consent decree sewer problems.

Fort Smith resident Terri Hargrove spoke in opposition to the purchase. She suggested that the City should prioritize spending for fixing water and sewer problems before the water park. She said that using the money on sewer work would show the federal government “how earnest we are” about working to fulfill the consent decree requirements.

Fort Smith resident James Giltz spoke in opposition to the purchase. He said the purchase is “not a fiscally wise use of our resources.” He mentioned that 70% of the water park attendees are from outside of town. He expressed concerns about the increased maintenance cost of the expansion. He suggested that the money be spent instead on water and sewer infrastructure or sidewalks.

Director Christina Catsavis called the purchase “really irresponsible” and said she was “surprised we’re even considering it.” She suggested that the money instead be put towards the water transmission line. She said that in a recent visit to the waterpark that her daughter enjoyed the park with its current amenities.

Director Morton suggested that the general fund money that is typically used for things like for Parks, Police, Fire, and Streets should be kept separate from Utilities. He said that other cities would “never take money away for the consent decree” and that there are “100 reasons why you would never do that.” He called the waterpark a “great asset here” and “something other cities nearby don’t have.” He said that it is not practical to approve slides with the “uncertain” lease with no assurance for additional parking and troubles with other partnerships with the County. He called the clause in the lease that would make the City responsible for demolition of the park at the end of its lifespan “completely unreasonable.”

Director George Catsavis said “our priorities are the consent decree” and that City has to “take care of our priorities first.”

Director Good mentioned that the County is faced with a recent “financial challenge.” He said “We can take care of business and still do perks.” He said “I don’t believe we’re being irresponsible at all.” He mentioned the $635 million needed for the consent decree and $30 million needed for the water transmission line and said that the additional $2 million not already appropriated for the slides would only be a “mere drop in the bucket” toward addressing those issues.

Director Martin asked if the lease were not approved and the County were held to its existing agreement if the county would still be responsible for their share of the maintenance costs on anything the City adds. City Attorney Rowe said that that is “a question to be answered” and not something that is clearly addressed by the existing agreement.

Director Rego mentioned that the majority of Quorum Court members voted to support the slide purchase, but that it just did not achieve the super majority that is required by the County for appropriations.

Director Settle mentioned the public initially saying that the City could not afford the water park and then when it was put to a public vote 64% voted for building it and that there was opposition regarding affordability of adding the Flow Rider and the green slide but both have proved popular with visitors. He called the purchase “opportunity to do something for kids of our community.” He called it “an economic driver” mentioning the people who visit from elsewhere paying sales tax while they are in town. He said that the expansion would bring in an additional 400-500 people per year. He called it a “great opportunity at a great cost.” He said that every other Arkansas city is “jealous of our park.”

Director Morton mentioned the park being something for military families moving in soon to do that they didn’t have back where they are coming from. He mentioned that during a 2019 visit to Cavanaugh Elementary School that the children voted that they would be in favor of buying a new water slide. He said “Kids love that park.” He called the purchase at the discount price “a one-shot deal” and said “We should bring a good thing to the city when we can.”

Of public feedback she has heard regarding the purchase, Director Christina Catsavis said “I haven’t had anybody for this.” She said that the yellow slide is “always out of commission.” She said “We need to take care of what we’ve got before we start adding things.” She also said “There’s a reason we don’t let kids vote until they’re 18.”

Director Good said “There is a portion of the community that wants things better than they’ve always been.” He said “Not all citizens use every amenity we have.” He also mentioned that the Fire Department does training for floods in the wave pool.

The Board voted in favor of purchasing the slides with all but Director George Catsavis, Director Christina Catsavis, and Director Martin voting in favor of the purchase.

Next, the Board was slated to vote on whether to lease the County’s half of the Parrot Island Water Park for $1 per year resulting in the City of Fort Smith having sole control of and responsibility for the park instead of sharing control jointly and splitting financial responsibility equally with the County.

Fort Smith resident Joey McCutcheon spoke in opposition to the lease and expressed concerns about the consent decree resulting in receivership and high rates. He called the slide purchase vote a “symbolic vote” that will be noticed negatively by the EPA and DOJ that are watching the meeting.

Fort Smith resident Terri Hargrove spoke in opposition to the lease and said the City needs “to hold the County accountable to their original contract.” She expressed concern about the need for additional parking with the expansion and ambiguity on that issue in the lease.

Fort Smith resident James Giltz spoke in opposition to the lease calling it a “really bad deal” regardless of the slide purchase. He expressed opposition to the City taking on all of the responsibilities without actually owning anything and said the lease is a “terrible set of risks without advantage.”

Fort Smith resident Jo Elsken spoke in opposition to the lease. She said the park is a “Sebastian County amenity” and the responsibility should not be on just the City. She said “You need to really look at this lease.”

Director Settle motioned for the issue to be tabled to negotiate for a better lease.

Director Morton called the lease a “really bad lease.” He voiced disapproval of the clause making the City responsible for demolition. He said that the EPA and DoJ know that it is not appropriate to pay for Utilities with the general fund. He said that they are “never gonna advocate for that” and have never asked for that. Administrator Geffken agreed that they have never asked for that but instead “have been forceful with us to raise rates” and/or sales taxes.

The Board voted to table the issue until the second meeting in November with all but Director George Catsavis and Director Martin voting in favor of tabling.

The Board voted to table proposing a modification to the consent decree to the State and the EPA that would result in an end date to fulfill the consent decree requirements of 2036 (giving the City 10 years longer than the current end date of 2026 that the City says it will be impossible to have the work finished by). The proposal would include a plan for finances for the work and a schedule for the work that would honor 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. This issue was discussed at the 8-27-24 study session meeting.

Director Morton motioned to table the issue to give the Board time to understand the financial plan and to hold 2 public hearings for the Directors to answer public questions about the plan. He expressed his view that the best chance of getting the 10 year extension would be to assure a financial plan to pay that will not be “overly burdensome.” He said that if done properly, with borrowing and bonds or passing a sales tax, the plan would never require more than 3.5% sewer rate increases every year, not the 18% and 19% increases in some years that were suggested by the federal government.

Director Settle said that he needs a map showing what consent decree projects have been done and what projects are still left to do. He expressed concerns about inflation.

Director Good said that public hearings show transparency.

Director Morton again advocated for the creation of the Water Advisory Committee and suggested that the best consulting firm in the country could be hired to work with them to help figure out the most efficient order for the consent decree work.

The Board voted unanimously to table the issue and for it to be discussed at the next study session meeting, then for the 2 public meetings to be held, and the issue to be voted on at the September 17th meeting.

The Board voted unanimously to approve bids for various water treatment chemicals from AR Lime Company, Brenntag Southwest, Carus LLC, Chemtrade, Citco Water, Donau Carbon, Enviro Tech, Pencco Inc, Thatcher Company, and USALCO.

Director Martin asked what the total spending for the chemicals would be estimated to be. McAvoy said that the combined cost for drinking water for 2024 would be $3.2 million and for 2025 would be $3.3 million-$4 million and the cost for waste water for 2024 would be $1.1 million and for 2025 would be $1 million-$1.4 million. The exact amounts depend on production.

Director Morton noted that there were not the high amounts of inflation in this year’s bids that have been seen in recent past years.

During the Officials Forum section of the meeting, Director George Catsavis suggested the creation of an Animal Advisory Board. Geffken said that the City already has an Animal Advisory Board. Director Morton, Director Martin, and Director Christina Catsavis said they thought that that committee had already been disbanded. Geffken said that he will check. Director George Catsavis mentioned that a citizen has offered to donate an air conditioner to the Fort Smith Animal Haven shelter for free and asked Geffken if he has heard any progress on that. Geffken said that he had not heard about that but agreed to check into it.