Good evening and welcome to the Fort Smith City Board of Directors meeting on this August 19th of twenty twenty-five.

Um these meetings are being recorded, uh being transmitted live for the benefit of residents who cannot attend with us in person.

At this time, we're going to ask Director Rego to give the invitation and Director Christina Cassavis to lead us in the pledge.

Please bow with me for a word of prayer.

Um here and now departed, who's taking time at any point in their life to contribute to the life of this very special wonderful community.

Amen.

Here.

George Get Savage.

Yeah, the August twelfth special meetings.

All in favor?

The first item this evening is a tax back resolution in favor of Project Synergy.

The beneficiary of this resolution is actually Train USA, Inc.

Train is investing $5.56 million in equipment to expand its production capabilities at its existing facility at 9900 Air Circle in Fort Smith.

This investment will increase train's local workforce of 272 employees by 63 new employees with an average wage of 25 dollars an hour.

The tax back program allows companies that invest in property or equipment to build or expand their business in Arkansas to receive rebates on the sales taxes paid for construction materials or production equipment.

With that introduction, I'll stand for questions from the board.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, are any public comments on this item?

None indicating.

Okay.

This time we understand a motion to adopt a resolution.

Some of the as revised.

Some of Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

It just time we'll entertain board comments on the item.

Director Neil Martin.

Yes, good news.

Um $25 an hour.

Uh average starting salary, 63 new employees.

Continued growth.

That's very good.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I concur.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Directors Rego.

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kim?

Yes.

George Get Savage.

Christina Kit Sabis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Vote item number two.

Item two is a resolution in support of the continued funding for the Fort Smith National Historic Site as the proposed federal budget includes recommendations for budget reductions to the Department of Interior.

The mayor's office and our grants and government relations coordinator Chris Hoover have been reaching out to her congressional delegation and working with our partners at the Choctaw Nation to bring light to this issue, resulting in the resolution before you this evening.

Chris Hoover is here and will address and further introduce this item.

Thank you, uh Acting Administrator Dingman and Board of Directors.

Hope everybody's having a good evening.

On May 2nd, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget, an enterprise arm of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, transmitted to Congress the administration's discretionary budgetary recommendations for fiscal year 2026.

Embedded within these fiscal priorities is a proposal from President Trump that calls for substantial reductions in appropriations to the Department of the Interior with particular emphasis on the operational framework of the National Park system.

A particular concern is an additional recommendation that contemplates the reclassification of numerous National Park Service Managed sites, potentially including the Fort Smith National Historic Site, into state level jurisdiction.

Such a shift would not only diminish the stat the stature and visibility of these landmarks, but could also jeopardize the long-term preservation and national recognition.

The resolution before you this evening seeks to affirm our collective commitment to safeguarding the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

It urges the continuation of its federal designation under the stewardship of the National Park Service and advocates for an increase, not a diminution of its funding.

The site is not merely a regional interest, it is a cornerstone of our national historical narrative, and it deserves to be treated as such.

When the city learned of this potential cut and funding, we immediately drafted letters to members of our congressional delegation, including United States Senator John Bozeman, United States Senator Tom Cotton, and Congressman Steve Wilmack.

An additional letter was sent to Congressman Bruce Westerman, who not only uh represents Arkansas's fourth congressional district, but also serves as the chairman of the House uh House Committee on Natural Resources, which is the committee within the House of Representatives that adds oversight of the National Park system.

Within the board packet are the letters that we received concerning this issue.

Uh, it is important to note that the administration's discretionary budgetary recommendations for FY26 are simply just at that recommendations.

Congress ultimately holds the power of the purse.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to take a moment to recognize Sarah Jane Smallwood Cock and Brian McLean, who handle government affairs for the Charlton Nation of Oklahoma.

Fort Smith served as a critical stop on the Trail of Tears, and all five of the five civilized tribes can trace their journey along the trail through Fort Smith.

In July this year, the Charlton Nation of Oklahoma ran a resolution at the Intertribal Council of the Fives of Civilized Tribes, which supports the continuation and funding for the National Uh Historic Site.

This resolution passed unanimously and would not have been possible without the work of Brian and Sarah, along with uh Tribal Chief Gary Batten.

This resolution is included in your board packet.

Also in the audience tonight uh are Darren Huggins, who is the acting superintendent for the Fort Smith National Historic Site, uh, along with uh Lauren McLean, John Beard, and Cody Faber.

And I believe Mr.

Huggins has a brief statement of thanks he would like to share this share the board.

Good evening.

My name is Darren Huggins, acting superintendent of the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

As acting superintendent on behalf of the park, the park staff and our French group, I want to extend a heartfelt thanks and your support for this resolution.

To the board of directors, to Mayor McGill, hard working staff, our tribal partners that are present.

We deeply and we are deeply grateful for this resolution put forth by the intertribal council of the five civilized tribes and the city of Fort Smith and you as a board of directors.

Your actions clearly demonstrate the unwavering support you have for the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

Additionally, I had the opportunity to speak to National Park Service Midwest Region Director Herbert Frost.

Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make it here tonight due to scheduling conflicts.

But uh Mr.

Frost asked me to convey to you his sincere appreciation and thanks for the resolution supporting the Fort Smith National Historic Site and the National Park Service.

Your continued partnership and support for what make a meaningful difference in our shared mission together.

Now personally, let me say personally from me.

Um as a tribal member, I have ancestors who have traveled the Trail of Tears to their new homeland in Indian territory, what we know is Oklahoma today.

Connection to the park, as you can see, is is deeply rooted.

Um to the mayor's office and this board of directors.

I want to say thank you personally, and to our tribal members that are present here today.

Uh I want to say Yakoki Fina Hoki.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And I spend any I pin stand pending any questions from the board.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any public comments on this item?

Yes, we have uh three.

First being Joey McCutcheon, and each will have two minutes.

I want to thank the board for bringing this tonight.

Mayor McGill, your leadership on this has been remarkable, and I really appreciate that also.

Um we've got to keep our history before us.

If we don't keep our history before us, we're doomed to repeat it.

All history, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Fort Smith National Historic Site does just that, and the folks we've heard from one of them tonight do a marvelous job.

And I think it's incumbent on everyone in this room to reach out to the president, to our U.S.

Senators, to our congressmen, to our state senators, to our representatives, and show them the leadership that this board has demonstrated because we need to keep this.

It captures our history, and Fort Smith would not be the same without the Fort Smith National Historic Site.

And I appreciate the resolution.

I appreciate you laying out our history because we have an unbelievable history in Fort Smith.

I've asked you once before, I talked on this issue before, I've asked you once before.

You know, I I wish we could dedicate time, just a small amount of time, to the history in Fort Smith at every board, even if it was a minute, because we've got some wonderful history, and we've seen it in terms of the Trail of Tears, you know, the West, the South, the Civil War.

I mean, take your pick.

Fort Smith has been the leader uh in our nation.

And once again, I I thank you all for for uh standing strong on this.

I hope once again that you'll reach out to anybody you can.

Uh there's things that need to be cut.

I'm usually leading the bandwagon to cut things, but this isn't one of them, and we all know that.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Next we have Andy Postrick.

Hi, thank you.

My name's Andy Postrick.

I'm uh advocate for traditional development patterns, and as far as traditional development patterns go, this is just about as traditional as you can get.

It's the most important thing in the city to me.

Every city has a focal point.

Uh usually in Arkansas it's a courthouse, but for us it's the historic site, and so I feel like it's sort of taking the heart out of the city if we if we lose the ability to maintain this for what it for what we have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Joe Elskin.

Um I would double down on what these guys said, but that would be like an explosion, right?

You double down on what Mr.

McCutcheon says.

Boom.

But um, yes.

I uh I wanted to thank you, uh, Mayor, for the work that you've done and what everybody has done.

I fully support enhancing this park, and yes, I will be reaching out to thank you, Joey, to our congressman.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Well, they have the comments from the public.

That's it.

Okay, thank you very much.

This time we'll adopt a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second, thank you.

Comments from the board.

Mayor.

Director Rigo, you recognize.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say uh Mayor, thank you for your leadership on this.

Thank you for uh the trust you placed in me to uh represent the community at the Intertribal Council uh when we received the invitation from Chief Batten uh from the Choctaw Nation.

Thank you to Sarah Jane and Brian for your help during that event as well.

Um it was a real privilege to speak um with the five civilized tribes uh about this issue and to um stand strong with them uh with the resolution that they passed, and I look forward to voting for this tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Okay, and Mayor, if I can say one thing.

I just also want to recognize uh Jennifer Petrovitch, who's your assistant.

Uh she has been integral in helping me draft all this and uh Sarah Jenny as well.

Um we've spent a lot of time together um learning about the tribe, uh drafting these resolutions, and uh uh I've gained a whole lot.

So just want to say a special thank you to her and and to you.

We have an amazing staff downtown.

Thanks to them.

Um if there are no further comments from the board, madam clerk, please call the roll.

Directors good, yes, Kemp?

Yes, George Gitzavis?

Yes, Christina Kitzavis, yes.

Settled, yes, Martin, yes, Rico.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Well, we will go to item number three.

Item three tonight relates to a technical change related to industrial development bonds issued for Owens Corning in 2023.

Owens Corning seeks to assign responsibility for the lease agreement to a different corporate subsidiary and requires the city's authorization of such change.

The resolution before you this evening authorizes that change.

I believe that Ms.

Christina Stage, the plant leader for Owens Corning, is in attendance somewhere.

Maybe there she is.

Uh, if you have any questions of Owen's corning.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any public comments on this item?

Uh none indicating only Miss Stage to answer questions.

Okay, thank you for being here.

Uh at this time we'll entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Comments from the board.

Just one question.

I know that with with this there were some positions that were created associated with that.

This doesn't affect it, right?

No, this doesn't affect anything.

It's just a technical change in in uh the lease agreement.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Madam Clerk, call the roll, please.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Get Savis?

Yes.

Christina Get Savas, yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero up.

Okay.

Thank you.

At this time we're going to have a going to a public hearing regarding proposed annexation in the area of Highway 271 South and Texas Road.

Uh Mr.

Dingman, any opening comments?

Uh, just that item four, as the mayor mentioned, as a public hearing related to the proposed annexation of approximately 45 acres in the vicinity of Highway 271 and Texas Road.

Deputy City Administrator Maggie Rice will address any further items.

Okay.

This time we will formally open the public hearing.

Um, Madam Clerk, are there any citizens' comments on this?

None indicated.

Uh Maggie, do you have any comments?

I'd be happy to introduce the item if you'd like for me to.

Okay, would you please?

Sure.

As Fort Smith has grown and expanded its incorporated areas, several unincorporated enclaves remain.

Historically, the city has annexed land at the request of property owners, not as a direct action of the city.

As a result, some lands were not annexed, including some that are surrounded on all sides by the city limits.

One of the enclaves is in the area of Highway 271 and Texas Road.

This enclave is 45 acres and has 20 parcels, nine residential and 11 non-residential.

When a city's incorporated area is completely surround an unincorporated area, Arkansas Code allows for that property to be annexed by city ordinance.

The Arkansas legislature adopted Act 314 abolishing extraterritorial jurisdictions.

In the absence of an ETJ, the city no longer exercises land use control over the enclaves.

On July 8th, a resolution was passed setting the public hearing for tonight.

In compliance with state law, staff published a legal description of the area to be annexed as well as mailed certified letters to the owners of all 20 parcels within the enclave notifying them of the public hearing and their right to present their views on the proposed annexation.

Staff hosted a public input session for property owners within the area proposed for annexation.

The meeting was attended by approximately 10 property owners.

In addition, staffs met with several property owners individually to answer questions and explain the process.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Okay.

Are there any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

Okay.

With that, we will formally close the public hearing and we will go to item number five.

Thank you, Mayor.

Item five tonight relates to properties owned by Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

At the July 15th study session, the board discussed issues and of operations and maintenance at the privately owned Rose Lawn, Holy Cross, Forest Park, and Washington Cemeteries.

The current volunteer board of the nonprofits cited issues with achieving financial sustainability in the operation of these cemeteries and requested this study session discussion.

The cemeteries do contribute to a perpetual care trust according to state law, but these trusts do not generate the revenue required to operate the cemeteries.

The board of directors asked staff to evaluate options and bring an action item forward at tonight's meeting.

The first option staff evaluated is continuing the status quo of operations.

This becomes an issue when the cemeteries cannot afford to maintain their properties, spurring public complaints for of code enforcement and property maintenance violations, which then must be addressed by the city's neighborhood services department.

Applying the regular code enforcement tools, this option results in the city abating the nuisance through a third-party contractor and then placing a lien for the cost of the abatement against the properties.

This has resulted in nearly $86,000 in liens assessed against these properties in the last two years.

Continuing to operate this way will only increase the amount of liens on these properties with little expectation that the items will be paid.

The second option evaluated was the city leasing the properties, but in such a way that the city has authority to maintain this privately owned property while still allowing Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

to operate the cemetery functions.

While staff and the city attorney discuss the scenario, it is not truly a viable option as a city incurs the cost of maintenance but obtains no public benefit to this arrangement outside of what could be achievable through the regular code enforcement process.

A third option is for the city to acquire ownership of the four cemeteries in question and continue to operate them as cemeteries.

The city could acquire ownership in exchange for the amount of liens owed as consideration.

The city would then take on the responsibility of full-time maintenance, perpetual care, and operation of the cemeteries just as it operates at Oak Cemetery.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Sarah Deuster compiled estimated budget figures to demonstrate the impact of this option on the city's operating budget.

Those numbers are in your budget packet and show $961,000 in initial startup expenses for equipment and improvements, and then an annual increase to the existing cemetery budget of one and a quarter million dollars to staff operate and maintain the additional four cemeteries.

This was a quick estimate, and if it moves forward, it will need to be refined to address the actual needs.

Of course, the fourth option is to do nothing, which results in unkempt properties in violation of the property maintenance codes.

There are provisions in state law for insolvent cemeteries to be handled by the State Insurance Department, but this course of action will undoubtedly result in a lack of maintenance at best, and at worst the abandonment and derelict properties of these cemeteries.

Included on your agenda is a resolution expressing the board's intent for the city to acquire and operate the four privately owned cemetery properties.

If this resolution is adopted, the appropriate conveyance documents will be drawn up for board approval at a later date, and the city will plan for the increased maintenance operations.

With that, the staff will stand for questions from the board.

Okay, thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, any citizens' comments on this item?

Uh yes, we have four that have signed in.

Uh, one is Mr.

Ed Ralston, who has signed in to answer to answer questions only.

Okay.

Thanks for being here, Ed.

And then first we have to speak is Joey McCutcheon, and each will have two minutes.

I just want to say I appreciate people like Ed Ralston who are seeing that that our folks in our community have a dignified burial.

They're deserving of that.

But I think the city is once again dropped the ball on this issue.

The first option that we're talking about here for two since 2023, liens have been accruing.

Uh eighty-five thousand dollars in liens have been accruing.

And where has the administration been in enforcing these?

Because I can tell you, if a citizen on the north side of town, Mr.

Good, has a lien on their property, that's going to be enforced.

This is hypocrisy.

It's a bad option.

Option number two, we lease, but we get no public benefit.

So we spend private dollars on public benefits.

We know where that leads, Mayor McGill.

You got sued over it.

I didn't sue over this issue because I respect the people involved in this, but that we've already acted unconstitutionally.

When we gave north of $80,000 to the cemetery, it's a different matter, though.

These people deserve dignity.

The third option is also a bad option.

Ownership.

But we need to do something because we have got to preserve the dignity.

I mean, you know, we spend four million dollars on Parrot Island, but we we won't be able to.

This is we're looking at close to two million dollars here that I'm not sure that the city can afford at this time if you believe all the talk we've been hearing.

Um and and then we go to Oak Cemetery.

I brought that to Mayor McGill's uh attention back in in July of 2021.

It was in a state of disarray.

To the credit of this board and this city, Oak Cemetery looks remarkable, and I I appreciate you doing that.

But we need to do something here.

You know, we talk about going to the legislature to to pass the the perpetual care funds to why didn't we do that in the last legislative session?

We've been talking about this for years.

Again, that takes leadership, and who's responsible for that leadership?

Issue after issue.

Thank you.

Next we have Dan Williams.

Good evening, board.

Um I just wanted to share that I was at that study session and there were some ideas brought up.

I haven't heard anything past those ideas.

Uh Mr.

Kemp had brought up maybe getting a hold of some churches and things like that and helping out with it.

I haven't seen any emails or anything on the news media or anything out on the website.

Um so my question is you know, we we already have property that we're trying to sell in the city.

I don't think we need any more property.

I do feel like we um need to take care of our cemeteries, and I appreciate that the city is looking into this, but I don't know that any of those options are really viable to help uh with the with a greater issue.

I I do want to bring up uh that Doug Mazell, but one of the city uh guys that inspects the property, uh, had written up someone in the north side, and I got a call from another pastor in town because I have several men that can go clean up property and and help out, and this was an elderly lady.

Uh I went to see the property, left a message uh almost a week ago.

I haven't had my phone call returned.

I really don't know looking at the paper what needs to be done, but the lady was scared, she's an elderly lady, and the address is 3404 Kelly Highway.

If anybody wants to look into that, uh but those type of issues, those letters that y'all give, and you say seven days, the elderly don't understand really what you mean, and I understand there's a grace period if they'll contact you, but it does create fear.

This particular lady has two sons that live out of town, they can't come in and get it done.

So I think there's a way we can handle business differently if y'all really want to help the citizens uh and and say you care, and it's probably not spending any more money.

By the way, that Parrot Island, I think there's a slide that was been down for a couple years, it's still down, not even counting the news slides.

So and last we have Joe Elskin.

I just wanted to suggest that uh I know that the Catholic churches make ask for a donation yearly, and I and I know that my husband goes and and we eats around you know, in in the cemetery where our families are buried.

So I feel like the first step, at least minimum step, would be to reach out to the churches, reach out to them and ask for them to do their part.

All right, thank you for bringing this up.

The cemeteries are very important.

Any other public comments, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

Okay, thank you.

This time we need a motion to adopt a resolution.

Well, mayor, I'll make a motion to adopt option three just so we can start the conversation.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, thank you.

This time we'll go to director's comment.

Uh Director Rego and then Director Joy for Savers.

So it's an important topic.

I mean, we're talking about over a hundred acres of cemetery uh spread out over four sites, as everybody knows.

The reality is there's no cost neutral way to care in perpetuity for these cemeteries.

There have been good conversations that have been had bringing up the challenges and the difficulties around the access or lack thereof that we have to the fund that's been paid into uh over the years at the state level.

Um but frankly whatever option is chosen, whatever route we take, there's going to be a cost associated with it.

And so obviously a budget is a budget prepared um, you know, honestly or or uh uh put forward in an optimistic way.

But I'm curious from my colleagues what what is the level that or the range, if you will, um, that you would be willing to spend to care for these cemeteries.

I mean, I think that's an important because it's never going to be free in any option in any way or any way that you try to devise or scheme or uh cajole or encourage volunteers, there's going to be a cost associated with it.

And so if the conversation is that somewhere between $900,000 and $1.2 million is too much.

What is a better amount?

And if we decide amongst ourselves what is amount an amount that we think we could contribute or put towards this, well, then maybe we can at least make progress or parcel out the acquisition of the cemeteries maybe over a few years or something like that.

But I think we have to sort of reckon amongst ourselves with what we're willing to spend on this important topic.

Okay, thank you.

Is Ed Ralston here?

Ed Ralston, I need to ask you a question.

Yeah, don't want to excuse me.

I'm gonna shoot straight with you.

I'm not interested in leasing or behind the cemetery.

I don't mind helping you all.

I think unless you would give you $7580,000 for lawn whatever.

But my what what happened to the eight hundred thousand dollars that was borrowed to go to the cemetery?

So there was eight hundred thousand dollars borrowed collectively between first national bank and first security.

And two hundred thousand.

200,000 from First National that was forgiven, and there's six hundred thousand still owed to first security.

Where did the money go?

Well, I'm not I know you weren't involved in that.

So fair question, right?

I would say the majority of the money went into infrastructure improvements, and if you look at the facilities today versus what they were before the money was borrowed, they're vastly improved.

Rose Lawn is vastly improved.

The majority of the money was spent at Roselawn.

There was a change of the guard at the board prior to myself and Marty joining the board, and so and honestly, there was not very good accounting done.

So I couldn't tell you to the penny what happened to all the money, but the money is still first national forgave their 200,000 loan, so that's no longer in play.

What do you mean?

Fort Smith Cemeteries, no individual owes the money, the nonprofit Fort Smith Cemeteries, of which I'm a board member now, not at the time of the borrowing or expenditure of the funds.

All of that had come and gone prior, and you know, the reason that that all kicked off was they were dilapidated at the time.

So the cemeteries were in that situation five years ago, and effort was made to improve.

That has since not worked out great.

They are improved over where they were physically, the physical grounds are improved, although now we're seeing the effects of a shortfall in budget.

You know, over the last couple of years, whether we like it or not, whether it was legal or not, the monies that were supported from the city to our organization to help MO did make a difference, and they were at least presentable at the time.

But without that money, and there is no other giving, right?

I mean, the only money that comes in the door is when we open and close a grave or happen to sell a plot.

That's it, plus a very small stipend that comes from the state from our perpetual care fund.

And just the fact that we may not like it as a community, but unless we want these things to be in complete disrepair, and I'm in complete disrepair.

We have two employees, two and a half employees for both of these, and I don't have the answer.

Marty and I have worked really hard to try to come up with what the answer is.

And unfortunately, there's no backstop, there's no churches formally affiliated, there's no volunteer group, and we've tried, we've had multiple board members make efforts to raise money.

It just hasn't been fruitful.

And I hate that.

Uh I hate that as much as anybody.

We put a lot of effort into this.

So the last thing we want to do is come say, hey, take this place over.

Um, whether it's our job as a as a city or not, I think as a community, it is our job, and here we are.

So I don't know what the answer is, but I can tell you, if we don't work something out where there's a financial situation that that gets improved, they're just gonna look worse and worse.

We had a worker accosted today, somebody pulled up in one of our one of our two.

We can afford two.

We have two lawn guys, one of our lawn guys gets cussed out by a citizen who's not happy with the shape of the lawn.

Fortunately, it was handled and and you know, is as best as our employee could handle it, but that's not unusual.

And so that will only get worse, I can assure you.

I don't have a great answer, but you know, the it is what it is, and I don't have anybody buried there, right?

I mean, I don't even have family there.

My family's in Charleston in the cemetery that's very well cared for by our church there.

That's not the case here.

There's not a single church in this community that gives a dime to any of these cemeteries.

It's not a corporate citizen that gives any money.

There's some families that do, a little bit.

That's it.

So it's where we are.

I don't like it.

Well, you know, two months ago we were scraping scrimping and scraping to save every penny we could, and now we're talking over a million dollars out of the parks department.

So I can't.

I met I met Sarah and we toured Sarah from the parks department, we toured, and she's a professional, she's responsible for upkeeping.

Oh, I've not seen the million two, so I cannot speak to the to the validity or and I wouldn't try to as to what it would take to maintain it.

I know for us now, we run about a hundred thousand dollar annual deficit now between what we do bring in and what we spend, and we clearly don't spend enough.

You know, we need to spend more to take care of it the way that it needs to be taken care of.

Whether it's a million dollar net or 500 or a million five, I I honestly could not tell you.

So the last resort would be for the state to take it over.

That will be what happens next.

What's wrong with that?

I can't say that there's anything wrong with it unless we want if as a community we're happy with the state of Arkansas running these cemeteries out of Little Rock, and they don't currently do that in any, there's not a cemetery that they've taken over yet.

So I don't know whether they'll do a good job or not.

The way I look at it is if they do that, they're doing it with taxpayer money because they're not selling product to any customers.

Their money in Little Rock all comes from us.

So whether it comes out of Little Rock or it comes out of Fort Smith, I'd like to think that in Fort Smith we do a better job.

They have a billion a billion dollar surplus almost every year, a billion dollars.

Maybe that's where it belongs if we don't want to do it here, and we'll see where they do a good job.

That would be my choice.

That would be my choice.

Sorry.

Okay, that's your decision.

Director.

Okay.

Director Chris Abbott.

So if if the city were to buy the cemeteries and take them over, how does the perpetual care fund work?

Does that change or what are the mechanics of that?

So that's a great question, and we don't have that sorted out yet.

What we I think we have is a city or a state that is very agreeable to work with us to, you know, if I could wave a magic wand, I'd take our 600,000 perpetual care fund, and I would hand it to the bank, we'd be free and clear and hand the operations to the city, and this thing would be solved.

And I think that can happen.

I talked with Zach Ledford today, I talk with him regularly.

He's the local president of first security.

Um, and they graciously made the loan in an effort to make this thing work.

It and it hasn't worked out, unfortunately.

So they're on the hook.

I feel bad.

I don't want anybody to be be, I don't want anybody to lose money on it.

And I think that the insurance department, which is where the the cemetery manager, perpetual care cemetery management in Little Rock resides, they're agreeable to work with us towards that resolution.

I don't think we would have any expectation that the debt would transfer to the city.

You know, I don't I don't think that's required, and I don't think that the city actually needs the perpetual care fund either.

On a go forward, the idea would be that the cemetery would not continue to operate as a perpetual care fund cemetery, but as a municipally managed cemetery.

So you know when we sell a plot now, 20% of the proceeds we have to send to the state, and that goes in, that's what creates the perpetual care fund that we then get a little bit of earnings from.

Yeah, so if the city were to run the cemeteries, when someone buys their plot or they're opening and closing it, um they'd pay in 20% that to the city, and we would use that for the continued maintenance, something similar to that.

Well, my my thought would be if the uh city own the cemeteries when you sell a plot you keep 100% of it, and that's revenue that you then use to offset the cost of the expenses of operations, and you don't send any to the state, and the state's not getting say the state's getting, I mean, they're they're keeping for us to use the earnings off of in the future, but I would think that the perpetual care activity, which means you send the money in, that wouldn't occur in the future.

So any revenue that was created, just like in Oak Cemetery today, if you sell a plot or you charge for the services of opening and closing a grave, that's revenue it comes in, which there would be that to offset the million dollar estimate that that Sarah put together, there is income that comes in that would offset that.

And for us, it's around $300,000 a year.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Good and then Director Neil Martin.

Thank you, Mayor.

Let me first start by saying that um the nonprofits uh and the board did not create this problem.

You know, the planning financially, how this was going to be maintained perpetually is the problem.

You know, there's just not a good option that we're given.

You know, I don't like the idea what if the city did nothing.

You know, I sat on this board for years listening to citizens and people with loved ones in multiple cemeteries, complain about the upkeep and maintenance of their loved ones.

You know, Mr.

McCutcheon talked about our history.

You know, this is our history, not just history, these are our loved ones.

You know, so you know, it was said something about you know the giving to these properties.

You know, I don't believe any churches uh have been given to the cemeteries, but I know for a fact the individuals and private people have given to Washington Cemetery, and I'm sure if they've given to Washington, that there are other individuals and private people giving money to uh other uh cemeteries.

So if the city did nothing, does not work for me, letting the state take it over, definitely does not work for me.

Um we know that this is labor intensive.

The numbers that Sarah came up with included uh personnel and included um uh equipment, uh and of course, you know, the labor.

Um I said it's a labor of love, this is labor intensive, and again, as stated before, this is perpetual work.

This is nothing that is going to go away.

You know, we have to look at this.

And I really like the question that Christina Kasavits just asked about the perpetual care fund.

And my guess, I'm hoping that if the city does take over these properties that we could maintain that you said percentage uh for perpetual care.

We put it back into operations.

Um and just one last thing.

Um as far as the uh community being involved uh in our cemeteries, you know, it has been a pleasure to speak to so many people over the years about the upkeep and maintenance over the past few years of our cemeteries.

You know, I know Rose Lawn and Holy Cross have done a complete turnaround.

Uh they've had to remove some trees, they've had drainage issues, they've repave the streets, uh they have columbariums, you know, there's just been a huge investment.

And as a citizen of Fort Smith with relatives in a couple of these cemeteries, I know I, for one, if needed would, you know, make donations.

But as a city director, I believe that it's our responsibility to take care of these properties.

Thank you, Director Good.

Director Neil Martin.

I want to clarify something the Director uh George Katzavas said.

Um he made mention of this coming out of the parks fund.

And can you clarify with would this be coming out of parks or would this come from general fund?

Because this isn't this isn't part of the capital uh capital improvement plan where we're getting one eighth cent for for for parks.

So I believe anything like this would come out of the general fund, is that correct?

Is that correct?

That's that's correct.

This would be a general fund obligation.

Could you may I could you program it into the capital improvement flow?

Potentially.

I mean it is a it is a it would be operated by the parks department.

Um if the board chose to make cap you know dedicate some of those dollars towards capital improvements at some of these facilities, that probably is appropriate, yes.

So just to a reminder that when we got our 2024 audit, um the audit looked good in 2024, but they expressed concern about the general fund and the amount of carryovers and and large projects that were that happened in 24 and then spending in general fund in 25.

I think it was to the tune of 22 million dollars that our um general fund balance was going to be reduced.

We st we have plenty in there.

We have we uh it's not gonna deplete the the fund, but it's getting it dangerously close.

Adding another million, adding uh another two million, uh I think uh puts it in a position that is is even more even more difficult.

Um you know, we talked uh Mr.

Ralston when you guys came and spoke to the board uh about various funding mechanisms, and um one thing I wasn't aware of is my father and my grandparents are are uh buried in a cemetery outside of town.

Uh my mother pays um money every every year for upkeep.

Has that something that's been tried by uh Fort Smith Cemeteries?

And is that something we would potentially need to do in order to take before we take this step that the city take ownership?

No, we don't actively request funds from families of people buried there.

No.

We don't have it, we don't have a database of records of who's buried there and who their loved ones are that we could done for money that we could ask, right?

I mean, you could do it in a charitable giving way, and we've sent out lots of you know requests for giving, but no, there's no mechanism to have a broad based here's who all is buried, here's who their loved ones are, and so here's your bill for the year.

I mean, um I'm just talking about Paris, Arkansas, Little Paris, Arkansas, right down the road.

Um so you know, I'm I'm not I'm not for moving forward in this direction.

I think we've got some other things that we need to we need to uh to look for um in terms of of getting this done, uh potentially having other funding mechanisms.

I'm not wild about uh moving it over to parks.

I was I mean I was I would be in favor of moving 4.2 million dollars in slides over to parks.

Um but this would cause significant challenges to that plan.

Um so I I just think there's I think there's uh there's challenges just in general with this, and I think we've got to look at some other other options in order to make it.

So Neil, I I I would just to your your point of other options, so just so that we're clear on where we stand as a board who's currently responsible for these the um you know the last multiple times that we've had to we've had budget shortfalls that we've passed the hat amongst the board and chipped in to make payroll, and so we're not doing that as a board any longer.

If anybody wants to send a check, we'll take it.

But our next move, if we don't get this placed with the city, our next move is to get this to move forward with the state taking over.

So that's just what we have to do because otherwise it goes into def, you know, they go defunct and nobody likes the way they look or they're operated.

So that is where we'll go.

And I that's not a I'm just telling you what we have to do as a as a board.

We wanted to start at the city level, and if it doesn't work at the city level, then it's gonna go to the state level because I mean they have to be operated, in my opinion, they need and they have to be maintained.

It's our responsibility, and so if that if that's next step, what does that look like?

Don't know.

But would you go to I'd talk to the people at the state that we talk to regularly that are in charge of it and figure out what their mechanism is for whether you call it receivership or whatever the there is a process prescribed by law how that works.

I can't tell you the details of it, but that's you know, the keys will get handed to Little Rock.

You you say that there's no this would be the first cemetery that's gone through this.

To my knowledge, yes.

How is that possible?

With I mean, we've got we've got cemeteries all over the the state.

I mean I'd Charleston, Paris, just the ones, and they're not in this shape.

The vast the vast majority I would say are operated by churches, and they fund it and they take care of it as a as a church.

There are others that are run by cities, and there are some like this that probably are not in the condition that we would be happy to have them in.

But I I mean, I don't know.

I've got Director Kemp and then Director Good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I have a string of questions that would make this meeting much longer than we have time to give to this topic tonight.

Um I am as it stands right now.

Uh we're I feel we're putting the cart before the horse.

Um I would actually counsel you against turning this over to the state.

Um I received zero follow-up from my comment about let's put a community effort around this, and then it came to this regular meeting agenda.

Uh I'm a full-time pastor.

I can meet with anybody I want at any time of the day at any time.

I'm very available.

And uh I I would I would like and welcome to be a part of some of the work.

I have ideas, uh, some of those ideas have already been referenced about community efforts.

I was even at a lunch meeting today where we were talking about putting together a task initiative where homeless people could help beautify Fort Smith.

I think the cemetery could be a benefactor of some sort of effort like that.

Um there's a lot of options besides throwing in the towel here, but I I just I'm not for budgeting a deficit for fiscal year 26.

And here we are talking about a million dollars.

Is it high?

It's higher than I thought it would be when I ran my own little AI mock-up plan, you know, somewhere around a quarter of a million, but then I thought everything the government's gonna do has cost twice as much, take twice as long.

So I was expecting like half a million.

But either way, I I think there's a in my mind a sharedness among this across the community.

I think handing it to the city is a wrong move, and I'm nervous about voting for anything that adds a million in today's dollars, and for the decades on end, because of a bank deal that the onus is on the bank that lended that.

That I didn't give the six hundred thousand dollars, you know, they did.

Um, and I'm being asked to consider that.

And then I'm you know, there's just a lot of string of questions here for me that I think this belonged in a study session, not a regular meeting.

I'm open to talking about this.

I want to talk about this.

I did a funeral out there two weeks ago at Roselon, and it was bad.

I agree.

But at the same time, to put this on the city in perpetuity is not an answer that I can vote for at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh first let me uh say that I agree with uh Director Kemp that this you know is a large undertaking, and the funding part of this by no means do I take lightly.

Yeah, I I know it's problematic before I made my statements.

Um, does there need to be more discussion to explore more options?

Yes, you know, but I know that it needs to be done quickly.

You know, have we you know considered, you know, talking to the county?

You know, is that an option?

Um I don't know, but whatever happens, I do understand, Mr.

Austin, that we need to act quickly as you do as well.

And then I wanted to make a comment to Director Martin uh about what would happens.

Um, you know, if nothing if if nothing happens.

So what I've seen and what we all see, you know, some cemeteries just fall into states of blight.

They're just neglected.

You know, some are maintained by a nearby community or neighborhood church.

I've seen and have family members in uh Morrelton who families take care of the cemetery.

So the options are not good if someone doesn't step up because at some point a church will change membership, family members die, and these cemeteries will fall into states of neglect.

Uh Director Christina Savage.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I mean, clearly there's not the will to proceed tonight, so I'm fine with withdrawing uh the motion that I put on the table.

Um I think this is an important topic, and we have to act quickly on it.

And unless there's a majority of us who agree with Director George Kittsavis that we should uh just deposit the keys with a bureaucrat in Little Rock and let happen whatever uh happens.

Uh we've got strategic planning session coming up this week.

We've got budgeting started.

Um I mean, we are not talking about how to spend the last million dollars that the city of Fort Smith collects or possesses or has.

Uh and I would think that there would be a way, if a majority of us agree that something should be done to help the situation, that we can find a way to reprogram and make sure that there's a utilization of, again, somewhere in the range of 500,000 on the low end, probably to the budget proposal that was put in front of us of 1.2.

There surely there are some dollars available that could be programmed differently to go towards something that is an important um spiritual, emotional uh need in our community, which is caring for people uh that have passed away in their final resting place.

And I just think that if we can't find a way forward, um that will be a failure.

Director Christina Cassaves.

You know, when when I'm going through like initial startup costs and it's saying capital outlay, other equipment five hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars, that seems excessive.

Uh you know, I I don't know that it's really gonna cost what it's looking like it's gonna cost.

I mean, is there not already some equipment that's being used?

I guess this is there there is some equipment.

Um can we not just come in and use the equipment that exists without having to spend nine hundred thousand dollars?

I haven't seen the list of the equipment.

Like I said, I have not seen any of the detail in the million two or the or the equipment.

I can speak to the equipment that's there.

Um we hire a person with a backhoe to do the digging, and the tractor that's there is my tractor that I let them use for free.

Um, and that's the equipment that we have.

That Sarah, can you uh follow up on that?

Absolutely.

We're essentially starting from scratch, and honestly, we don't have the equipment we need to operate how we are now.

So this we feel that this is a very, very conservative estimate that we have presented to you.

And if we take this over, I would anticipate us asking for more.

This I initially approached this doing an apples to apples based on acreage.

Well, reality, whenever you get out there, we took our staff out there, and we got to thinking it's a very large undertaking.

And for me, if we're gonna take it over, we need to do it right.

We need to have everyone have the same standards.

It needs to look the same, held to the same standards as we do Oak Cemetery.

So right now, this is what we have that we think we can make that happen.

Do we have equipment at Oak Cemetery that could be used around to the other cemeteries without having to buy new equipment?

We do not.

We only have one backhoe and one mini excavator, and they are shared throughout all of our parks, and we use them.

We have more of a need than what we have.

Yeah, because when I'm and and I know you're always very thorough.

Um, you know, when I look through like uniforms, eighty-two hundred dollars, I mean, I don't think anyone's wearing a uniform right now.

Is that something we could cut?

You know, is there a way that we could make this doable even uh going back to Director Rigo's plan of maybe we take over one at a time as we can, you know.

I I I agree it doesn't look like we have a consensus to move forward.

I would hate to just vote this down and be done with it.

I would like to keep the conversation ongoing and find a solution.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that's a good question.

Just building off what Director Christina Kitsavis said.

I mean it the central question revolves around do you believe as a representative on this panel in your heart that the city should have a responsibility for these properties?

And if you don't, and if you are not movable from that position, then it should be known and we should count noses.

But if your objection is financial or predominantly financial, or even 5149 financial, then as Director Kitsavis and I are saying, it would seem like there's many, many ways to approach the financial question and the conversation should continue.

And so I I mean it's not me trying to put anybody on the spot here tonight, but we do have uh some things coming up like the strategic session and like budgeting starting, and it would not be productive if four people's hearts aren't in caring for this at all.

But if there is a majority and the question is financial, then we just have some work to do with the pencils.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Settle.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um a couple of questions, and maybe uh Jeff, you can help with that.

This whole uh $600,000 loan perpetual care state of Arkansas.

I'd like to get clarification from the state if we do take it over in some capacity.

Does that does our perpetual care go off and pay the debt that's served there?

What I don't want to do is take it over and the city is stuck with that debt.

Okay.

So I I we need that question answered before we take it over.

I think it's to me it's a pencil thing right now in my head.

I I I have a problem with that much when we spend 224,000 at Oak Cemetery, and then we're going to turn around and ask for an extra 1.2 for three, you know, three other parks, you know.

My next question is who's who's coming up next.

You know, if we do this, is there gonna be, you know, uh my mother's buried at uh uh Woodland Park on State Line Road?

Are they gonna come to us and said, hey, we need the same thing?

So I want us to be prepared if we decide to go on this route.

Is there other cemeteries going to be asking the same thing?

Because that's a fair thing.

But to me, Jared, you're right.

If we got budget, we've got uh strategic sessions, we should have this in open discussion and part of our budgeting process and see what it is.

But we really need to think about how we do this.

If it's Neil said to me, is it the A team?

Do we use them to mow?

Do we do things differently than hire you know 1.2 million dollars worth of labor a year to do this?

Is there different ways of doing this?

So I I'm willing to keep the conversation going uh as you requested, but I also want to know if there's a different ways of doing this without spending uh 1.2 every year of general fund dollars because you know there's other needs and other people want things on a um on a perpetual basis, not a capital basis.

That's right.

Okay, director camp.

Colby, um, if you don't mind, can you speak briefly just to can the city even do this?

Can we partner with Fort Smith Cemeteries with them being a nonprofit?

Or can the city also do income services?

Say the I know we've talked about parks here, but you know, frankly, the streets department's done a great job mowing along the interstate off-ramps and on ramps.

It if they had extra time, could they go over and mow a portion of the cemetery and offer those services?

Can you speak to what what can we do without retaining?

I think you're gonna have a constitutional problem if the city uses its workforce or our dollars just to provide to a private nonprofit entity.

I mean, that's that's unconstitutional.

You can't do that.

Um can the city have some arrangement?

I mean, can can the city acquire this or have it donated to city?

Of course the city can do that, uh, because we operate another cemetery.

But no, just to just to use a street department or or parks if they've got time to go help and assist, uh, you're gonna run into constitutional prohibitions.

Okay.

I make a motion that we table this.

I think there's a lot of due diligence that should be done.

I'm a pencil person.

We do not, in my opinion, we got pressing issues here that I mean the grass is is very brown these days, but I would say um we need to do some due diligence in my opinion.

Point of inquiry.

I I had motioned to withdraw a little while ago.

Is there a anything beyond that that's required?

Okay.

Okay.

I just don't want to see this lost in the hopper.

So I mean, uh can we have this back on or something at a reasonable timeline?

Let's hear from Director Christine Gassavers before we know.

I guess what I'm I'm having a hard time getting to is it's not costing 1.25 to operate them right now.

Is that correct?

That's what I'm having a hard time getting to, is I don't understand why the cost is going up quite significantly.

I think right now one of the things that they put in the packet that says operating at an extreme minimum, I think.

This we're presenting this as we're going to maintain it to the same standards as Oak Cemetery.

Okay, because we need to be uniform.

And again, like I said, this is a very conservative estimate.

We met, we probably met for three hours talking about how this looked like.

We felt bad that it was this much, but if the expectation is the same for Oak Cemetery, then this is the least it will cost.

Okay.

Thank you, Sarah.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Sorry.

Did I hear you right when you said you'd have one backhoe for all the the part all the parks?

We have one backhoe and one mini excavator because sometimes you don't have to do that.

Yes, but we don't use that at all of our parks.

So we use it for we've started doing a lot of in-house construction as part of our budget cuts.

We redid a supervisor, reclass that as a four-person, so we're doing a lot more earth work in-house.

Did you ever get the two trucks you needed?

No, sir.

That's been what, three years, four years?

We are requesting that for the third year as part of our 2026 budget requests.

Well, what are you don't get help?

Hey, I'm not sure.

It's our decision.

A list of the other equipment in the Capitol outlay for the 589.

They're not going to be able to back home that would be shared among all the cemeteries or it would.

Okay.

And that's why we included a trailer in that so we can haul it instead of roting it.

We did consider, hey, maybe we can road it to the different cemeteries.

They're pretty close, but you'd have about two to two thousand to twenty five hundred dollars a year in replacing tires.

Do you do you have that equipment list though?

Yes, it's the full list of equipment.

Let me get it.

Is on page it is cut off on my print out.

But it is in the packet.

It has the estimated start-up cost.

Page 39.

Thank you.

That has the breakdown of every single piece of equipment to start it up.

Okay, I see that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, Jeff, if we do table this tonight, I'd ask that the administration uh see what it would cost for private entities to mow these four pieces of property and get a c cost so we can kind of compare what the cost of a private company would be versus what it would be for us on a 10-day or 14-day mowing schedule.

I would say that um Sean has solicited that uh information from private companies, and I think it's a 10,000 dollar, 10 to 11,000 a month.

Um for all four.

Mowing for I think that's just for three of them now.

I mean but other things for all was properties.

I don't think you included Washington, but that's very smart.

Uh that that is that is correct.

Uh when this discussion first started with the board.

Well, first off, good evening.

Uh when this first discussion first started, and we started getting complaints on these cemeteries.

We initiated our enforcement action.

We went out there, posted notification, inspector met with the police, I believe, and uh we sent out our notices and we've been documenting.

Uh in the meantime, we've uh reached out to uh different contractors to see what they would they went out and evaluated the cemeteries to see what they could do the mowing twice a month for us right now.

And uh right now I have one bid for uh mowing twice a month for 15,500 uh for two mowings per month for the three cemeteries.

I was not aware that Washington was included on this, but I can have those bids redone.

And I had another bid uh back from King Irrigation, who's done it the last two years.

Their bid did not change for 11,169 dollars, and I have another tentative bid uh for 10,500 per month.

Per month for for twice a month mowing.

Thank you.

Yeah, if you would let's let's look at all four and so those I think should be part of a discussion.

Thank you.

Director Neil Pan.

And on a side note, Pastor Williams, this is the guy that will look into uh 3404 Kelly.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

How many uh how what is the number of our residents interned in those cemeteries?

Any idea to be anybody's yeah?

I believe there was discussion of 55,000 gravestones.

I think that's the event of available grave space.

I don't think that's necessarily the amount of people interred there.

What were you saying, Ed?

We don't three forty thousand.

Come come to the microphone, please.

Ten tens of thousands, correct?

Right.

We we trade to do a count and it's um the system at Forest Park is all in books.

Nothing has ever been in to a computer until three years ago, and we started with Rosaline Holy Cross because they're smaller.

So I you know, we said 50,000 probably, but of those we might be able to locate like 35 45.

There's several acres and outskirts that we know people are buried on, and we don't even um I don't know if we have the ability to name them or find them.

How many acres of property?

94 total total and at three in good question.

Is this just okay where it's on Holy Cross Forest Park?

Okay.

Thank you.

I think we should turn them into memorial parks.

At the end of the day, if we do nothing, we will regret it.

Uh our citizens will not stand idly by and watch that property uh deteriorate.

Yeah.

30 plus thousand of our residents who intern there.

And we should do something about it.

Any other comments?

We have a motion to table.

I I withdrew the motion for item three, so or for option three.

So there's nothing on the table anymore.

Okay.

Ms.

Mr.

Ralston and all the folks involved.

Thank you for your time and your continued dedication on this and for uh your willingness to continue working with us.

Thank you.

Well, we got to vote on the table.

I was going to say a point of clear.

Do we need to table this?

I mean, he withdrew his motion, so I mean, is there am I table?

Do I need to table this so that it stays on our pending list?

If that's what you wish to do.

Yes, yeah.

I would like to table this item for future study sessions.

Second, thank you.

Madam Clerk, is there any further action on that?

Just need to call the roll.

Please call the roll.

Directors George Gitzabis.

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Can't.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

We'll go to item number six.

Item six tonight is consideration of phase one of a project development agreement with the Marisco Inc.

for an analysis of the city's water meter system.

This item was discussed at the June 24th study session and then presented at the July 22nd regular meeting where it was tabled to this evening's meeting.

Phase one of the project will evaluate the accuracy of the city's water metering system and then define the feasibility of using energy services performance contracting principles to use revenues recovered by replacing the water meters to fund the water meter replacement program.

Amerisco has defined how it will go about this evaluation using methods that it has used in other cities and how it will ultimately use the results of the phase one study to tell us if we recovered ribbon if recovered revenues will fund the replacement project.

If the project proves viable and the city moves ahead with phase two replacement of the meters, Amerisco will guarantee the city will recover the revenues required to pay for the project.

Moving to phase two will require further approval by the board.

If the feasibility study does not show enough recovery of lost revenue to fund a project, the city will not move ahead to phase two.

This process will evaluate both the replacement of water meters and the incorporation of electronic meter reading infrastructure as part of this process.

Amerisco will help the city identify the best combination of new water meters and electronic meter reading technology to suit our needs.

The specifics of these recommendations will be developed for phase two.

If the phase one study shows suitable revenue recovery to pay for it.

Chad knows Chad Nobles with Amerisco is available to answer any further questions the board may have, and both Lance McAvoy and myself are available for questions as well.

Lance Acting City Administrator Dingman did an excellent job summing up uh everything that I was going to say, so I'll stand for questions.

No, that's fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, any citizens' comments?

Yes, we have eight signed in.

Um Mr.

Chad Nobles is here to answer questions.

Okay, thank you.

And then first we have Kim Fodge.

And each will have two minutes.

Good evening.

Um I just want to say that I'm against Amerisco uh performing an investment audit uh on this project.

Um if I'm understanding the relationship between Amerisko and this um and the meters, I think that this is a conflict of interest and raises concerns about the validity of the results of the audit.

Um how can we be certain that the results won't sway to the benefit of Amerisco?

In my opinion, I don't think that we we can't.

Um I'm against the meters themselves.

Forty-three million dollars is quite an expense.

Um, and I think we need to just get back to basics with the water department.

We need to fix the leaks.

Uh we're currently under a conservation order right now because of major water leaks, and they continue to develop all the time.

Um we need to just take the money that we would spend on these meters and use it to fix the leaks.

And Christina Katzabas has posted about this several times, and I just want to let her know that I'm complete agreement with everything that you've stated regarding this subject.

Thank you.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening.

Um, I want to echo what um Ms.

Fodge just spoke about.

And I do believe that is reasonable thought that they could uh sway in their favor to make a 43 million dollar sell.

You know, I have I've spoken multiple times on why I'm against these meters.

And I have done a lot of research and read um, you know, several communities that have invested in these AMI technology.

Um I can't uh describe every single incident, but I did send you guys an email referencing so you can read the articles yourself.

But you know, Jackson, Mississippi sticks out the most to me because they were in an infrastructure crisis like Fort Smith is and um they were pro it was proposed to them that these AMI meters were going to help them significantly and so they invested in them and ended up having to um ask the federal government to come in and rescue them because the the F the meters failed and it was a 90 million dollar loss for the city.

Um so I just don't think that Fort Smith is in the position to risk a failure in that to that magnitude.

And I think that we need to focus on our current infrastructure, fixing our water lines, fixing our waste uh storm wastewater drains.

Um there's a lot of things that we really need to focus on and not take any unnecessary risk.

You know, it and I hate to bring it up because I don't want to keep hammering on the slides, but we have 4.2 million dollars just sitting on the ground that's an eyesore, and it if we can't even get that erected, then why you know why are we moving on to something else?

Thank you.

Next we have Andy Postrick.

Uh hi, thank you everybody.

Uh my name's Andy Postrick.

I really like the idea of these meters, but um, if you get a pulse of the public, sort of feels like this is moving really, really fast.

We don't have a clear understanding of what this will mean for us, and I just think that it's too big and too fast.

Um I understand that the meters are aging and they're in in need of replacement.

And um, if I can just harp on an old subject that's maybe off topic, but uh if we switch to a frontage levy system, we won't have to worry as much about aging meters because we would be billing people based upon how much pipes they use, which is really what you guys are spending money on in the water department.

There's no section of the city budget that's for water, so it it there's an incongruity that when we build uh we bill our residence for water usage instead of property plant and equipment.

Um but for me, like I said, I like this idea, but uh I think if I were in your chair for now, it would be a no vote until we just understand more and get more public insight.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andy.

Thank you.

Next we have Molly Ancheveria.

Good evening, members of the board.

I stand to oppose this item, the proposed deal with Amaresco for investment grade audit of our water meters.

This agreement raises serious concerns and jeopardizes our communities' well-being.

I do share this and echoed on social media.

This feels more like a lopsided deal than a true collaboration.

Amoresco enjoys robust protections while the public is left vulnerable taking all the risk.

This agreement poses significant challenges conflicting with Arkansas FOIA's openness.

If we uphold state law and disclose the information, the financial strain of legal battles could fall on taxpayers, a burden that we've already borne recently, having paid over $2,000 in FOIA violations, including this year's um cases.

Moreover, I oppose AMI metering that these systems raise privacy issues, increase utility cost, and offer questionable benefits compared to traditional meters.

The agreement secrecy provisions could further obscure these concerns with a breach offering no safeguard for us with potential cost spanning 20 to 48 million dollars.

We deserve clear insight, not hidden details.

This could deepen distrust in you, our government.

I urge you to reconsider this item.

And if you do go forward, please uh demand a revised contract prioritizing transparency and reconsider the AMIs entirely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Dan Williams.

Good evening again.

Originally what got me started coming to these meetings was water issues.

I saw thousands of people post on Facebook because y'all were raising the water rates, and I thought I better go to that meeting.

And I went and there was a handful of people that came.

And so anybody that's watching online, you really need to get involved because we have uh greater issues than water.

However, um in the last all the meetings and everything that I've come to, we still really hadn't solved the problem.

So I'm gonna save y'all 125,000 tonight by telling you what the problem is.

The problem is the water, but it's not the meters, it's the leaks that we have, okay.

And there's a lot of other things you can do to find water leaks like benchmark testing, which I heard talked about a few months after I started coming through the meetings, but I have a suspicion that we haven't done any benchmark testing, even though we have the capability in the city to do some.

We may not be able to do the business ones is what I heard.

I haven't forgot, but I bet we hadn't done one.

And you know whose fault that is it's yours because you're in charge of getting these things done.

Next we have Joe Elskin.

I um hesitate to speak on this subject because I feel naive about it, but um I do think that an upgrade in meters from what I read in there, it sounds like fantastic.

I just think that it's something that we can't do right now, and it bothers me.

I don't like the contract because on page 47, investment grade audit.

That's uh observation, use and operation of premises.

Our meter readers do that.

Base year water consumption and billings.

Isn't that already in the system?

Uh so basically what they are offering is stuff that I feel like we can do, some of our own.

And that's why I said I feel naive that I say this, but it's an opinion.

But thank you for tackling this.

And last we have Levon Morton.

Why did you go first?

I've learned some.

Okay.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

I'm Levon Morton.

I'm a resident of Fort Smith.

So uh I just want to say first, I agree with the concept of of the project.

However, the contract we have is is not uh what we need.

I mean, it need there are several parts of it that need clarification.

I'm gonna start going through those.

I may not have time to cover them all.

But the when you're looking at this, I think you have to look at the old meters, the pre-17 meters, and the new meters separately.

I I fully expect that the results on those two will be very different, and that might mean they have to increase the sample size on the 5-8 meters, because it's got to be statistically accurate, statistically relevant, so the sample size has to be large enough.

Although when you split it, that might lower the sample size.

But you may get to a point, and this is important, where you discover that only the old meters need to be replaced.

Well, maybe the cost of that's five million dollars, and you get it back back within two years.

Whereas the old the new meters, the the cost of that would be uh $15 million, and it takes 10 years to get it back.

I would, if it were me, I would do the old meters and stop.

Um second thing is we need more time to decide.

Section Section 1.2 uh says we have 120 days, it needs to be at least 180 days, and you may uh decide it needs to be longer.

The data that they produce needs to be furnished back to Fort Smith.

And also this contract reads that we're committed to amoresco for phase two.

We don't know what phase two is.

We need a detailed contract on what phase two is before we look at this.

So uh and I I understand that we should be committed to amorous scope for a period of time, but there needs to be a limit.

There's no limit on it right now.

It looks like we're committed forever to them.

Is it two years, four years, ten years?

Some period of time is reasonable, but not forever.

Um so there has to be an end date.

They they need to provide the detailed calculations on the revenue.

We need to be able to look at ourselves and decide which categories.

We may decide we only want to do the commercial meters because that's where the money is.

And there aren't that many.

A couple hundred, three hundred.

Um, and that might be worthwhile and might produce a lot of revenue, and the cost of those meters would not be would not be enormous.

Um, I think the where are we on measuring the water going to Van Buren and Mountainburg and whether that's accurate.

We talked about this six months ago, that we were going to do that to see is that where part of the water loss is that when you measure the water coming out of the treatment plant and getting to our billing.

Have we done that yet?

I mean, those there's only nine of those places, and we we could we could do that ourselves and not pay anybody for it.

But it's really important that we know what phase two is if we're gonna do this.

And again, I support uh doing something like this.

And I'm not saying amoresco is the company, they may be, uh they may not be.

But this is the concept of the project is good, and it could give you a lot of information we really need.

So thank you.

Thank you.

That's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this time, we will uh ask for a motion to adopt the resolution.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

Okay.

That just dies for a lack of motion.

Okay, thank you.

We will go to item number seven.

Item seven is a resolution approving a three-year renewal of e-builder software, which is used by the water utilities department to track and manage consent decree information.

Director of Water Utilities, Lance McAvoy will address this item.

Good evening.

We have been using eBuilder since around 2016.

Um in the memo I said that it was a document storage and retention software, but it does a lot more than that.

It is an actual project and program management software that we use not only for the consent decree, which was a requirement that we had something as part of the part of the agreement uh with DOJ and EPA, but um we also use that for water and non-CD wastewater projects.

In addition to it being a document storage and retention software, it is also financial reporting for projects or groups of projects.

So when you have asked in the past how much have we spent on a CD project or a water project, and I'm able to come up with something very quick, um, that was pulled out of eBuilder because we keep those records with that project.

That's a requirement of the CD, so we do it across the board.

We can also determine we have a have it set up that we check a box if it's a CD project, and therefore, if you wanted to know what we had spent year to date, we can pull all the invoices based on what's in e-builder to give you that cost.

Uh it is also for financial planning.

We set up budgets in there, we can see where the the expenditure has been and where it's going to see if we need to come back for either a change order or if we're going to come in under budget.

We've tracked that very closely, as well as do we need more for legal, more for easements, less for legal, less for easements based on historical trends on what we're seeing on cost.

Um, all the payment applications and invoices for our CIP go through e-Builder.

So these are often uploaded by both engineering firms, sometimes by contractors, and that allows us to then compare what we have in our notes to determine if we are billing being billed appropriately.

Once we have reconciled that billing, it goes through an electronic signature step that is required for our bonds for risk mitigation, and then that is paid out of Munis.

So nothing's paid out of e-Builder, but uh it is used to track those uh payments.

Um communication tracking.

So a lot of times I'll have a project and I send out a mass email to everybody, all those emails it's copied to that specific pro project, so we can track that, and that's really come in handy when we've looked at FOIA request on certain projects.

Uh plan review and collaborative spaces, we have that where an engineer can upload the actual plan that they have, and we can actually red line it utilizing um Bluebeam or Adobe Acrobat, something along those lines, and it keeps a copy of what was originally put in and then what we modified.

We have that where an engineer can upload the actual plan that they have, and we can actually red line it utilizing Bluebeam or Adobe Acrobat, something along those lines, and it keeps a copy of what was originally put in and then what we modified.

That way we have an audit trail, and that's great.

Should we lose an engineer and need someone?

Um again, project uh progress tracking.

We can do that on how much money we spent as well as where we are in the project.

And then the last one is file sharing, and up until three, I think it was three years ago, the CD uh was submitted to EPA, DOJ, and the state utilizing CD ROMs.

About three years ago, I got a phone call from EPA in Dallas saying, hey, we no longer have CD ROM drives, and we don't have one in the building.

Is there something else we can do?

We were able to utilize the file sharing capabilities of e-Builder to give them a site where they can go, it's a secure site, they pull it down, they download it themselves.

We then get confirmation that they have received it, and we have met the criteria of our reporting.

So that's just some of the capabilities that eBuilder does and that we use that for.

And I would like to thank uh directly Director Martin because he asked those questions about is this more than document sharing?

And it is, and I want to thank you for uh asking those questions.

Um it is a subscription software, it is based in the in the cloud.

Um I know that we have well over probably 10 terabytes of storage already that's that's related to different projects because we had one FOIA request that took over four terabytes to pull it off.

Um so there's a lot of information that's stored there.

Um with that I will stand for questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh there in citizens' comments, Madam Clerk.

None indicating.

Okay, just time we've entertained a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved, second.

Thank you.

Comments from the board.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Directors good, yes, Kemp?

Yes, George Gitzabis, Christina Gitzavis, yes, settled, yes, Martin, yes, Rigo.

It's approved, six in favor, and zero opposed.

Item eight.

Item eight is a resolution authorizing acquisition of temporary construction easements for a consent decree project, Mr.

McAvoy.

Yes, these are um basically we need to have access to certain property do the construction.

Then when that construction is done, that temporary easement is relinquished back.

However, we do um pay for that inconvenience to the property owner.

Uh the value is about a hundred dollars each, and we have provided the list of the uh property parcel numbers and their current owners.

Um to keep this project going forward.

We ask that you approve this.

Okay, thank you.

Any public comments, Madam Clark?

None indicating.

Motion to adopt, so moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Please call the roll.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin, yes, Rigo.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kittsavis.

Christina Gitzabis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Next item.

Item nine is a resolution authorizing acquisition of three sewer utility easements connected to a consent decree remediation project.

Mr.

McAvoy.

Yes.

Um, these are actual easements, so we will take ownership of the easement for these.

Uh it is three different easements.

It is for basin SS007.

And we ask that you go ahead and approve this as well.

This is so that we can continue consent decree projects.

Okay.

Any citizens' comments?

None indicating.

Motion to adopt a resolution.

Absolute.

Second, thank you.

Any board comments.

Please call the roll.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego.

Good.

Kim.

Yes.

George Kitsavis.

Christina Kitzavis.

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Item 10.

Item 10 is a resolution authorizing acquisition of three sewer utility easements connected to a consent decree capacity improvement project, Mr.

McAvoy.

Yes, this one is not under contract yet, but we are preparing.

This is one of the large capacity projects.

So we utilized ARPA funds to do phase one, which was near Martin Luther King Park, and a little bit south of there.

Phase three was over by the Kelly Ball fields.

This is phase two that will connect those two.

And there are um three easements, believe it's three.

Um, yes, three easements that we need to acquire so that we can when we do bid this out, which it is getting very close to bidding out and will be part of the work that is done in the first bond issue for the sales and use tax.

We can have everything ready to go to begin that.

And this is for a wet weather project under the consent decree.

Okay, thank you much.

Any citizens' comments?

None indicating.

Motion to adopt resolution.

Second, thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Getzavis.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Item eleven.

Item 11 needs to be withdrawn from the for from consideration for this evening, if you don't mind.

Okay.

Thank you.

With that, we will go to item 12, which is a consent agenda.

Thank you.

There are eight items on this evening's consent agenda.

We have a resolution accepting a public trail easement and approving reimbursement to Arkansas Colleges of Health Education for construction of a public trail.

Resolution authorizing change order number three to the contract for roof repairs.

Resolution authorizing acquisition of utility easements related to the Highway 45 widening project.

Resolution authorizing acquisition of temporary easements related to the Lake Fort Smith water transmission line phase five project.

A resolution authorizing a solid waste holler contract with Lakeshore Recycling Systems.

A resolution authorizing a contract with Western Arkansas Planning and Development District for E91 services related to the River Valley Communications Center.

A resolution authorizing a construction manager contract with Pashir's construction for the River Valley Communications Center project.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any public comments, Madam Clark?

None indicating.

Okay.

Any items on that agenda that you would like to pull for separate the system.

B any others?

I have a question on E.

Okay.

Any others?

Okay.

Let's take a look at B.

One of the items that we've seen in past audits from our internal auditor was documentation of inclement weather days.

I see this is uh moving it out 90 additional days due to uh due to weather.

Do we have that I they have documentation?

I think Dale Crampton put documentation in this packet showing weather related days, but do we are we in agreement with that?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Item E.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just had a question in regards for administration on I know it's been brought to my concern, and I've already spoke to the city administration.

I just want to verify by voting for this that we're trying to continue to allow marks recycling to kind of clean up.

Uh there's some work that needs to be done there, and I think some of that's in their defense due to some processes that in their own company that were unforeseen for them and that they're working on that.

Does this relate to any of this or will that voting for this impact any of that effort?

I'd say voting for this does not impact that effort.

I know uh Dwayne is in consistent contact with our provider about the issues that you mentioned and the status of the materials stored on their facility, and we're working with them to alleviate that problem.

Yeah, because Twin Rivers uh the concern was employ a couple hundred people, over a couple hundred people, and you know they're under audits all the time, and uh, I think it'd be good to continue to the the neighbor approach down there that it's being overseen.

So thank you.

Okay, okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

There were no citizens' comments.

None indicated this time we entertained a motion to adopt all consent agenda items.

So moved.

Thank you.

If there are no further comments, please call the roll.

Directors Rigo.

Uh yes to items B through H, and I abstain on item A as I'm a employee of the Arkansas Colleges of Health Education.

Thank you.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis, yes.

Settled, yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Motion passes with seven in favor and zero opposed on all items with the exception of item 12A, which is six in favor and in uh I'm sorry.

Six in favor, no opposed, and one stick abstention.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Just time we will go to the officials forum.

Um question, where are we with denowli?

Uh in this mail.

Um I've picked up on it a couple two or three times.

Did they did they get your permit reissued with Arsaw ADQ?

Anybody know?

They're supposed to be shutting down that that lagoon.

Yeah, if you're referring to the smell that's outside this evening, I don't think that's related to that.

But I've had some comments, phone calls.

You know, they applied for a permit renewal.

We spoke at it.

I do not know the status of that off the top of my head but we can certainly uh find a resolution to that okay so they were they were they were renewing their their they were renewing their license or what or whatever but I thought they were at that meeting they said that they were shutting that lagoon down.

Is uh could those both things happen but they can actually yes they can get their license but they could also shut it down so maybe have their license renewed up to do other projects right and then and then shut that lagoon down after that my understanding too is that that's that one specific lagoon I don't think I think your due diligence would be are there other lagoons within this vicinity and were you meaning just the specific one yeah is it I think we know there are because you all I didn't but you all voted to continue doing business with them a couple weeks ago so there's certainly that was that was our own lagoon or Lee Creek.

Yeah but just a question I had a couple of phone calls.

Well I uh you know uh this continues to just kind of come up we need to put this to bed I I understand that but the one question you gotta ask yourself is is the smell coming from lagoon or is it smell coming from farmers putting fertilizer in Oklahoma and coming this way because at that point because that's where the wind's coming from look at today the wind's coming from storms come from the from the west to the east I mean okay that that's where we got to figure it out mayor is it coming from the lagoons or is it coming from farmers using the stuff.

Okay thank you.

We'll start with director Neil Martin.

Thanks Mayor um you know I one of the things I I think we as a board need to talk about is some of these water conservation measures um you know I a lot of people reached out to me with frustrations and I I understand it with car washes remaining open and I know we don't we don't want to um you know they we have to take into consideration some of these businesses and then they operate but I would like to go back and look at some of the the conservation measures and what we can and can't do.

A lot a lot of people a lot of people dealt with it while businesses ran and ran uh car washes non-essential businesses I mean things that uh um you know we could potentially do without I'd like to at least talk about that as a as a group and and maybe figure out better uh what exactly happens uh when we when we talk about water conservation um the other item I wanted to talk to this board about is we've we've hired our or we've we have made the move to hire an internal audit director um as most of you know or as everybody knows we were using Baker Tilly um up till this point it's ten thousand dollars a month um and we were working towards getting a uh a risk assessment uh completed um we started to scale it back as we met with the audit committee we scaled it back more and more we where we finally left it was doing a risk assessment on utilities only and um you we had various costs and proposals and and things like that related to a larger risk risk assessment but since narrowing it down to utilities only they have come back with 25,000 dollar cost.

We wouldn't pay for August so it basically two months would be 2000 is what we normally owe them.

This risk assessment for utilities would be 25,000 uh be done I I don't have the date it would be done um but it'd be done um within a couple months um is there appetite amongst this board to move forward with them finishing that out seeing as how we're hopefully hire have somebody hired and we'll get them up and running uh but this gives them uh maybe some some data to begin with as uh Baker Tilly performs this risk assessment allows uh Ms.

Strange to get in place and started working and she'll have some data for utilities which is our biggest um our biggest uh I would I would say probably the the the department that we need the data the most need to understand our risk the most so I ask the board is their appetite for that 25 thousand dollars they wouldn't pay us for August so in effect we would just be paying five thousand dollars more than our contract says now does that make sense?

I think it's necessary.

You think it's necessary is it I'd support it and you're also advocating that that's their final work.

Right right I'd be in support.

Same same okay um I so what I plan to do is get with Andy um and our our person at Baker Tilly and bring something to our next board meeting to modify the contract just for that and then um allow them to proceed with that work.

All right.

Thank you, board for share it.

Thank you.

Director Settle.

Okay.

Direct to Christina Christaver.

Well, I'll just um pick up on what Director Martin was talking about.

I think it's necessary because when I was going through and looking at information regarding item six, you know, I went back through and read the 2020 internal audit, and it seems like a lot of the findings have not been remediated.

You know, they talk about failures and internal oversight, weak controls and missing safeguards, um, you know, inventory errors, some active water tabs had no meters installed.

Um use of life consistency applied, five to ten years in records versus industry standards of 15 to 20 years.

I mean, we saw that through a lot of the paperwork in the agenda packet.

You know, I think characterization is end of life for the meters we have are premature at best, like from 2017.

I mean, those are eight years old, as intermeter life expectancy is 15 to 20 years.

Um financial mismanagement, 3.8 million in water meter assets were not properly reconciled.

65% of sampled meters not recorded as capital assets in the general ledger.

You know, it goes on.

I mean, this board is treated as ceremonial.

Meters sold to unauthorized facilities without board approval or proper records.

No way to track which meters are sold.

And this is all from the 2020 internal audit.

You know, we've got to get our house in order before we're presented with things like we were presented a huge capital project and an ambiguous contract that not only violates the spirit of FOIA, it violates the law.

So I I agree.

I think it's necessary, and I think we should move forward with that while Ms.

Strange gets up to date.

Thank you.

Uh Director George Cassavage.

Um Jeff, let me ask something.

What's going on with the with the water slides out of the park?

Well, there's no nothing's been done in months.

We are awaiting the final design and bids on the final design for uh construction of the slides for putting things in the air.

So how long how long is that going to take?

We should anticipate expect it any day.

Then okay, then that's approved and what?

Well, then we'll bring we'd bring the uh construction contract to the board for approval and then they get put up.

And we're still gonna be on budget.

Depends on what the depends on what the number is, yes.

And what about the water slide the gentleman spoke about that's been down the past couple years?

I think it's a yellow slide.

I'm I'm not aware of what the I was out there a couple weeks ago and and I didn't realize that it's been down that long.

But I believe there's a safety concern on it right now.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Umor.

I just have one item.

The leak that's on Glenn Flora and Jenny Lind Road coming up Fienna Hills has escalated to, I would say DEF CON 5.

Uh the streets department has gone out there and patched that.

And I appreciate Mr.

Meeker and their leadership, uh, the potholes, but there's a thousand homes that are driving past this water leak under water conservation measures, and it's it's tearing the road up, they'll come fix it, it's turning the road up.

I just really would like to see that leak expedited in the list and addressed as quickly as it could be.

I understand there are other leaks, but these main thoroughways, um, there's a lot of residents there that pay a lot of taxes and the property tax, and I think they're thinking this leaks getting worse and worse, and I'm trying to conserve water, but the road's getting worse.

So I I just want to put that before the board, so it's not like I'm trying to play favoritism.

I encourage you to look at it if you want.

It's it's pretty bad.

Thank you.

Director Good.

Nothing.

Director Rigo.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, building on some earlier comments, what I was going to mention if we got into the discussion phase of the um proposal, the amoresco proposal, which I was prepared to vote against.

Um I think it's a perfect um uh for us to give some direction to our incoming auditor where I think she would hopefully be able to because there's no doubt we need information, we need some data as it relates to meters so we can make decisions moving forward.

Um, but perhaps we can uh work with her uh and and and direct her to uh present us with uh some options uh for uh attaining the information we need, you know, various firms to work with approaches, things like that.

So even though we uh did not proceed on that item, I think the overall issue remains, and it's something that I believe we should uh talk with our new uh internal auditor about uh when she gets uh when and if she gets started here next month.

Okay, thank you.

Um administrator.

The only thing is the Board of Directors strategic planning session scheduled for this Friday, August the 22nd at 8 30 uh at 5 24 Garrison.

Um also will say that the budget hearings uh is presently tentatively set for Friday, November the 14th.

Um we anticipate having the uh the budget documents to distribute to the board uh month before that on October 14th.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh at this time we're gonna go into executive session and uh we're gonna convene Mayor, if I may sorry.

So we're gonna receive in about two months the initial draft of the budget.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, October the fourteenth.

So would uh it be a good thing between now and then if we have uh inputs or things that we wish to bring up that we would like to see uh input into that document.

That we uh communicate with you about these things, bring them up in meetings, strategic plan sessions, this sort of thing.

Yes, that's correct.

I mean, the strategic planning session, we also have a we'll have a uh study session on key performance indicators and things like that coming up.

So, all of those and any other uh opportunity you may have to share input.

All right, thanks.

Okay.

Anything else before we go into executive session uh to make appointments to the historic district commission, parks and reg commission?

And then we'll also have a performance evaluation of the acting to administrator.

And the following appointments have been made to the historic district commission.

Daniel Fudge has been appointed in to the Parks and Recs Commission.

Has been asked to serve again.

Just time I'm going to ask Director Rivo to Yes, Mayor.

Need a motion to accept appointments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Aye.

Mayor, coming out of the executive session, I have a motion I'd like to make for the motion is to um direct the city HR uh department to post the a job listing for the city administrator position.

Uh it's to be posted on the uh city's employment uh website and on the city's social media channels uh with an open period of the second of September, the day after Labor Day, and to run for 45 days after that.

Uh and also uh make the uh request um if he's so willing that uh director Kemp again serve as the board liaison through this HR process as he ably and commendably and effectively did when we went through the internal audit hiring process.

Happy to serve.

Okay, thank you.

Are you happy to second as well?

We have a second.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Do we need a vote, Madam Clark?

Yes, please.

Okay.

Is there no further discussion?

Please call the roll.

Okay, let's just go.

Uh let's go.

Rigo?

Yes.

Good.

No.

Kimp?

Yes.

George Kitzavis.

Christina Kittsavis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Uh five in favor and one opposed.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you.