I am taking one to get this one.

Oh, you went.

Good evening.

And welcome to the fourth recitation board of directors' study session on this August twenty-sixth of twenty twenty-five.

With that, we will go to the first item on the agenda.

Departmental Service Objectives to the Finance Department in preparation of the twenty twenty-six budget cycle.

I'll turn this to Andy Richards to go through what was reported.

One of the first steps here is we have collected from all the different departments, the service objectives for 2026 as well as their KPI measurements and outcomes from their 2025 uh service objectives.

Now this was done.

These are uh compiled and put together um you know within the last couple weeks and then you had your your strategic uh session Friday.

Um so you know, if there's anything that needs to be implemented from the outcome, I mean we can definitely modify that as we go through the budget process.

Um, but I'll stand for any discussion or questions you have and answer them as best I can.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

This time we will uh go to the board director Rigo, you recognize.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I I have a uh variety of questions across a few different uh departments that I would you know hope the uh department head, if they're here, you know, would be able to to speak to.

There's kind of some clarifying questions based on the stuff that was written down here.

Is that all right?

Yes, you you may proceed.

Go ahead.

Well, the first ones uh are in city administration, that's the first um section there in the packet, and on page six, um there's a couple of things, Jeff, you know, talking about a service objective being identifying a solution for funding mechanisms to facilitate capital improvements for water treatment and transmission infrastructure.

Um you mentioned in the paragraph underneath there that you know there was a a suggestion around a rate increase providing capital funds that was not implemented, of course.

So, and then you it says here, and I assume you wrote this, no funding mechanism for these water projects exists, which I'm not disputing that characterization, but when you say that a main service objection is is trying to identify those funding mechanisms, I mean what what what do you have in mind?

What are you eyeballing?

Well, I'm I mean, in terms of more appropriately would say no funding mechanism has been determined, I guess, instead of exists.

I mean, it certain certainly does exist, and I think that it is it is going to be a um discussion that revisits uh water rates to some degree and uh you know uh any any other um funding that we can identify that can go towards those projects, and I don't know what that is currently.

And so I I just wanted I needed to mention it here because that needs to be something that we uh particularly as we as I think as we get through hopefully the modification of the consent decree, we get those projects bonded and underway and moving.

The the next focus, the the next main focus that we need to do is turn our attention to the water projects and how we intend to pay for those improvements that are needed.

And that's that's the I was trying to relay here.

Okay.

I think Director Martin had thoughts on this item as well.

I have a uh a question on city administrator.

So when you're done, I'd say that just had one other one under item three you talked, Jeff, about continuing to identify efficiency of city service delivery and facilities management administration intends to reorganize and right size city staff.

Uh talk a little bit uh for us about what right sizing means to you, because you talked about obviously the natural attrition uh of you know retirements or people stepping away, perhaps vacancies not being filled, uh but you also talk about reducing operating costs and ensuring that the city organization is not too big.

So I guess I'm looking for some definitional uh structure from you about what right sizing looks like and what your definition of too big is.

Right.

And as far as too big, I don't know.

But the but what it is, what I do know is that we have passed in 2025 we passed a budget that had an operational deficit.

And you know, we're we're starting the process for 2026 and we're looking at well what things are going to change uh as we look at the 2026 budget in order to make adjustments to live within.

I mean the board has has emphasized to me and others on staff, and Andy and I have agreed and you know, we've talked administratively as how are we going to uh put forth a 2026 budget that meets these goals that the board uh has has relayed to me in terms of uh not passing a an operating deficit.

Well there there are there are many ways to do that, but we've also talked about other needs that the departments have, equipment related and and things like that, that and we talked some the other day about we recognize that there are a lot of needs.

We recognize that there is a a finite amount of dollars to this, and if we're going to start meeting some of those needs in terms of equipment, well then other things need to give.

We have financial policies in place that's you know, if we're uh going to budget a um anything that it starts uh putting a uh our reserve fund at less than 25 percent, then we're not supposed to consider capital in addition of capital.

If it gets well, I think below 20 percent, we're supposed to start talking about reducing the staff sizes.

And so um that that's is really where we're getting to.

If we're looking at do we have too many people on staff, do we have too many budgeted positions?

Can we afford to allow vacant positions to uh to expire or go away or be removed from our budgeted list?

And and that's where we that's where we start talking.

Do we have, you know, I think eleven eleven hundred or so, eleven twenty-one in terms of budgeted full-time positions.

Is that too many for our uh town our size with the revenues that we have and the the uh the things that we need to accomplish with our budgets?

Okay, and then the last thing I had in there was uh a couple sentences later you say for 2026 administration prefers to pull back new initiatives.

What new initiatives would you like to see pulled back?

Well, in terms not specific new initiatives, but anything in addition to what we're trying to do.

I think there is a and you know, the this is my impression of staff is that they we feel like we have a lot of things that we're trying to catch up on or finish before we start into something new.

And my my impression with with these sentences, these this phrase is to say, you know, we need to focus on the things that we're currently doing, finish those, get those in a good place before we then try to go on with something new.

Because I think that I think that goes hand in hand with some of the the comments I just made in terms of uh staff has a finite amount of time, we have finite amount of resources to dedicate to doing projects.

We need to do the ones that we are doing and do them well before embarking on something new.

Now, obviously that doesn't mean if there's a a new board objective or the new direction from the from the board or the residents, frankly, that says we need to do another particular thing.

We certainly will we'll give a look at that.

But you know, in terms of we're not in terms of trying to find new things, we need to focus on finishing the things that we've already started and getting those in a good place before we then embark, try to embark on something new.

Thanks.

Director Kemp.

Uh yeah, just a conversation with Director Ego.

Do you ask those questions because you have a differing opinion on them?

Or do you ask those questions just for further clarification?

Uh I think that it's more in the line of clarification in the sense that we are, you know, trying to start uh we're starting this budgetary process.

We, as we talked about discussed on Friday, are perhaps trying to feed inputs into it differently or more specifically on the front end.

And so I was just looking for some you know clarification on those things.

And and I would say in in all of these processes, you know, you we're we're gonna reach a point where the general become you must become specific.

Uh and so the sooner that we get to specifics, the easier it is to uh begin to allocate the resource.

I appreciate your last statement there, because I I think the statements in the memo I agree with, and every point that you're asking about I actually agree with that uh Jeff has made in the statement.

Um but I do appreciate what you're talking about at some point.

The general statement has to become specific.

Um, I don't know if we're there yet, you know, or when we get there, we we get a budget in October.

But I think the budget in October ought to reflect what we're reading in this, and that we we who are not in the day-to-day need to know from you the standpoint of the professionals, which department has these job postings that have been vacant for a long time, and and if we were to not fill those spots, you know, the dollars it brings in and the transparency of it, I I think for me those outcomes are great.

Um and I I just was wanting to make sure I was questioning kind of our our drive and focus of it.

I I I like the white I like what I'm hearing, but I do want specifics, but I definitely don't want to go a different direction.

Thank you.

Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, so I I think uh what Director Rigo and Director Kemp talked about is is kind of what I'm hitting on.

One of the things that I saw as I went through here, I saw uh I did see a lot of generalities.

I did see a lot of non objective objectives.

So for instance, specifically around uh city administrator, facilitate discussion around housing, homelessness, and struggles of homeless individuals in the city.

What's the outcome?

I mean, to me that's not really that's just saying we're gonna do something.

I don't see any actionable items associated with it.

When I'm when I'm looking at at some of these objectives, and you you go through here and you look at police, it's massive.

But then you look at at other departments, there's not much there.

It has to be massive.

But if you look at police, you see you saw specificity in there.

Reduce something by X percent.

Um that's what I want to see.

This doesn't really tell me anything.

We had a discussion, you could have solved that in one meeting.

And not to say that that we had one meeting, but what I'm what I'm getting at here is there needs to be some specificity around these objectives that drive us forward in something.

So I can we could have been reducing homelessness, the point in time count by X.

I know that we don't, you know, we don't uh we don't control all of that.

But but on all these service objectives across the board, we need that specificity.

Like we are actually we're there's some measurement associated with it.

And like with with the homelessness was here, I mean I s I see some other things going on, but I don't necessarily see what we accomplished here.

And so that's what I want to see.

I mean, I've I've got a number of other items here that uh that I want to that I want to hit on, and I don't want to go too long in terms of what we got, but because we're here and because of the comments that were just made, I I want across the board these to be more specific and have some either percentages, decreases by X amount, increases by X amount, whatever in these service objectives as we as we move forward.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh Director Rigo, you may continue.

Mayor, I was just wondering if from a from a format standpoint, you know, because I have questions not on every department, but a number of departments or comments, and I'm sure it sounds like Director Martin does too.

Would it be possible to just go through sequentially through the uh agenda item and just stop at each department and say, hey, does anybody have any comments or questions?

That's sort of an option, or or you could uh you could address the items that you have.

Um either way.

So you want to go department by department.

I I think I mean that certainly would be good.

I mean, if nobody has a comment on department, we'd go through it pretty quickly, and then that way we're not skipping any, or we're not okay.

I'm not jumping ahead to one and somebody's backtracked to a different comment.

Okay, why don't we just do that?

Okay.

Okay.

And what department are we going to is is up next?

Courts.

Okay.

Any comments on the courts.

Okay.

Okay.

Internal audit.

I don't think anything was provided for internal audit, right?

Go ahead.

I mean, there is a a list.

My only thought was I think we should ask um our new internal audit director when they get started to participate in this process, you know, to look at what's on the page here, see what she might like to change or have differently.

But I don't know what what the rest of y'all think.

I no, I would I would 100% agree.

I I think 2025, there wasn't any answers given to 25.

Obviously, we didn't have a director, so thank you.

What's the next department, yeah?

Uh human resources, human resources.

Yeah, I had some issues with HR and and maybe specifically the 2025.

Um, and I know that we're we've got new leadership there, but um my so uh conduct at least 12 stay interviews, conduct at least 10 exit interviews.

My expectation is we're doing that, we're doing exit interviews on everybody.

Is that a true statement?

Like that that to me does not seem like an object objective.

Like that should be kind of normal course of the.

So yes, that's why in if you look at the 2026 objectives, I I overhauled everything that we're doing.

Because in 25, to your point, the objectives that were in place were more measurement-based that goes that tied back to the KPIs as opposed to true objectives.

Okay.

And so that's why if you look at 26, those things are not in there anymore, and it's more truly future focused on these are these are things that we're gonna work toward and and and try them to and get taken care of.

Okay.

And and remember, like like I mentioned earlier and some mention as well, get specificity around some of these growth decreases, that kind of stuff.

So thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for H.R.?

Yeah.

Um so turnover remains about above 17 percent.

What is our strategy to maybe reach a lower voluntary turnover target?

Um I mean that is definitely something that we measure and and we look at and use uh metrics from uh the Department of Labor to see where we're at.

Um that's definitely something that we could look at and I can take to heart for 26 and and look at.

Yeah.

Well, the partnership with Peak Innovation Center, does that translate into some actual new hires for us?

I I hope for it to, yes.

Uh that's a program that uh just started here in the last couple of years.

They may be familiar with the program through the chamber uh that they do to try and place high school seniors that are not college-bound and not trade-bound uh to bring them to work because we do have a large contingent of employees uh that that are not that don't need a degree for what they do.

And so that's why I see that as a benefit to help address some of the staffing needs that we have and find those 18, 22-year-olds uh that are entering the workforce and try and get them you know coming straight out of school, put them to work.

I love that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Director Neil Martin.

And one other thing I wanted to add.

One one of my problems with HR in general is and not necessarily here, but just HR in general, is a lot of times in their recruitment efforts.

It's just I'm gonna put a posting out on a website and expect that people are going to come to me rather than our the HR teams.

Again, not saying you guys do this, but HR in general, going to career fairs, going to uh recruit people and recruit the best people possible for a certain position.

So I'd like to see that um some kind of measurement of that uh and how some of those efforts translate into new hires.

Obviously, we want to we we're we're trying to be an employer of choice.

So I want us to be able to be doing that on the HR side, like uh showing why we're the employer of choice and and recruiting people in specifically like we're doing with Peak on the high school or high school folks, but also the folks that have been in professions for a while.

And and we do that.

We we do participate in in employer fairs or I mean in job fairs.

We actually have one coming up at the U of University of Arkansas that actually Ben Marks is going to help us with UAFS or University of Arts.

UAF.

Okay.

Uh for engineers specifically.

Okay.

And so yeah, we do participate in those.

We're going to continue to participate in those.

And so this is not to say this is all we're going to do.

This is this is a divergence from what we have done traditionally going back to the comparison of 25 to 26.

But this this gives us an opportunity to say, okay, where where have we been lacking in?

That's why I see these objectives as.

Where have we been lacking in organizationally as an HR department and what things do we need to work toward for the future?

Whether those are definitively measurable or we're going to work to, you know, obtain more students, but I couldn't tell you what a fixed number of people would be that we would try and reach out of a program with peak, because we've never done that.

Well, with with our work of our HR team, we can significantly improve and address uh deficiencies in staffing.

Um and so that's what I look to you guys to do.

Don't just wait for people to come to us, we've got to go to them.

No, when and when we when we have job postings out, for example, the one that's that's going to come up next week, the ones that we've been doing, we don't just post it on the what on the website and sit back and wait.

We do post it out to other ancillary sites uh through LinkedIn, through other places.

Uh now some of those do cost money.

Yeah.

Uh and so there's dollars associated with that, and so it's up to the department if they want to allocate those resources to expand those recruitment sources.

But uh there are other no no cost or low-cost ones uh through UAFS to push out uh you know positions when we have those for the school.

I want to see HR out actively recruiting there.

So I do too.

And that's that and that's what we're wanting to do here, not only again, not only for the college side, but for the high school side of it too.

To cover both both bases, an engineer as well as an equipment operator.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Any other questions for HR.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Uh the city clerk's office is next.

If anyone has questions for the clerk.

No.

Okay.

Um purchasing is next.

And Andy and answer those questions for purchasing.

Any questions for purchasing?

Okay.

Uh next is information technology services.

I I I would like some additional information on those outcomes or additional information for for the outcomes on on IT.

I can't find it here in my uh in my in my packet.

But James is James is approaching.

James is coming.

What page is that on?

28.

28.

Uh 27 and 28, yes, sir.

So go ahead, sir.

I wasn't necessarily there wasn't necessarily anything that I wanted to necessarily talk about, but it's just on the on the 25 objectives, just maybe a little more detail on some of those things that we've done.

Not saying you we have to talk about it now, but that's kind of what I was what I was looking for.

When you say we could like objective two, we have continually assessed the state of physical information security systems, maybe provide a little more details what that is.

As much as you can share public.

That is, as you know, sir, that is uh the difficulty.

Um, you know, we can talk a little bit about some of the staff training that we do, tightening up the firewalls, uh having our EDR solution, but uh again, we don't want to go too specific on some of them.

But uh we'll definitely take that feedback and uh provide a little more information.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Any other questions for James?

Okay, thanks, sir.

Communications is next.

Jeff, did we I think we went past finance?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well we'll go back to finance.

Sorry.

Uh uh the question I had was just around uh it's on page 24, item number five.

Uh it says continue the development of the city's formal long-range financial plan.

Is there a target uh for that, Andy?

You know finishing scope, scale, et cetera, like when do you want to have that in place?

Well it's financial finance 2026 service objectives.

So yeah, I'm just go ahead and just ask the question.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, what's kind of looking ahead.

Use your microphone.

Use your microphone, Andy.

Oh, sorry.

I mean, and is this something, I mean, this seems like it's a a new thing, or is it something you want to do a different way than it's been done before?

Well, there were there was a uh there was a solution that was that we did that we uh uh entered into under um previous administrator.

And it was a you know, it's basically a software.

We dump our numbers in there and it allows us to build certain assumptions and things like that.

And so that's been kind of uh implementation process that we've been going through kind of as we have time.

Um under the budget scenarios, I've kind of questioned whether or not uh it's even worth continuing on with that.

I think we can I think we can build a long rate plan on our own without that.

Um that's kind of the decision point that that we need to make.

I think we'll make that during this budget process.

But as far as, you know, we've already got pieces of long-term planning in play across the city.

Um it's just a matter of typically just a matter of pulling in our operating or kind of our normal operations and forecasting out, making assumptions about inflation and turnover and salaries and things like that into the future.

So that's something that we can get implemented probably within the next year.

I think that's what part of the the target was to get it completed in 26.

Okay.

Thanks.

Yes, Director Kemp.

Yeah, I think you're alluding to that ERP implementation uh software.

Is that what you're talking about when you were talking to him about that?

No, this is a this is another kind of a smaller piece solution.

But the ERP system is our entire um accounting HR, everything.

Are there lessons that are that have been learned from that and how our departments are adjusting because of that?

Um Yeah, I mean that the the ERP implementation, I mean that that was started back in 2018.

Yeah.

So when they implemented that.

And so when we're in year seven, I mean, that was a huge learning curve for everyone in the city, I think.

Um but I mean we're seeing, you know, we've already seen a lot of efficiencies and and benefits over just people time and growing into that system.

Let me ask you, what the spirit of my buddy George that sits beside me and ask a pointed question.

What do you think as a CFO are the things that we should be thinking about in efforts to budget without budgeting a deficit?

If we say we don't want to budget a deficit as the CFO.

The CFO?

I mean, I mean the f the the risk areas right now is the general fund.

We've all talked about that.

The other areas are safer at this point.

Um so that is that is the biggest concern is how do we fund the general fund.

Obviously, there's there's two ways to go about it.

You either increase revenues there or you shrink expenditures.

You can do it through efficiencies or you can cut programs, or you can do both.

And the fast and the the biggest ticket item that we have is our people.

So that is, I mean, if you if you're gonna make if you're gonna balance this budget, you can't, I mean, we can go in and say nobody goes to training or travel.

I mean, that's gonna help, but that's dollars and cents.

That's not gonna, that's not gonna balance the entire budget.

And that's not sustainable long term.

The long the long-term approach is to like Jeff said is to right size the programs in the general fund so that it can afford that stuff long term.

You know, one of the issues that I think we're gonna run into, we're compiling all the budgets right now.

We don't have the full picture yet.

I hope to have it soon, uh, at least get a glimpse of what it will look like.

But we're compiling all that, all the departmental budgets and the revenue projections that's being worked on currently.

Um but but the one thing we are facing is um you know inflation, and the biggest the biggest ticket item right there is health insurance.

I don't know if you guys have I don't know what everyone else is experiencing, but you know, we have we're having to raise you know health insurance premiums by a large margin.

And um we're trying to do it very gently, probably we're hoping to do it in a two-step process.

We may not get all the way there next year, but maybe the following year.

But you know, so the so the the big ticket items is how many employees do we have?

And so how many of those employees are connected to the general fund?

Right.

That's exactly right.

I mean we have um I don't have the breakdown on me, but I mean, there's a large portion in there.

And of course, some of those get our allocated programs as well, so we gotta take we can factor that in, but um but you know, some of our larger programs aren't allocated in the general fund, you know.

Can we be efficient there?

You know, we gotta go where the money is, right?

I mean, we can't just um cut all the bare bones, you know, copy paper.

I mean, that's not a big that's not gonna make a huge dent.

We've got to do, and that's not really a sustainable approach in my eyes.

My eyes is is, you know, we're either going to right size the programs in the general fund, or we're gonna look for revenue sources to fund those.

That's what is sustainable in my eyes.

So as a new guy sitting here, I mean you if you make adjustments to utilities, that doesn't impact the general fund.

Because it doesn't, it's not mainly it's not funded through general fund.

No.

So you know, beyond parks, police and fire, what other personnel is even funded out of general fund?

I do.

Everything everything else.

Um, public safety is the biggest is our biggest expenses by far out of the general fund.

It's not allocated.

Um parks and um but most of the other ones are support administrative type functions.

I mean I don't get the vibe that Sarah Deuster's got oodles of employees that are just sitting around the shore.

Right.

We we we did talk last year about reallocation of dollar, reallocation of percentages, what what was being funded by what and by what percentage.

And we got our original uh plan back and I think I had issues with it because I wanted uh I wanted those allocations to look a little different.

But that's another place that we could we can see some but see my understanding was I mean, once again, as a new guy, I mean I'm only seven months in.

I'll throw that disclaimer out.

You have you have more tenure than I.

But that looked like that was going to hurt the general fund.

That's correct.

Yeah.

The way that was presented, correct.

Okay.

I was gonna say, so if we make those adjustments, well, I mean we're still kind of we need to have I think within our own my own view, but it's if it's not clear to me, and it's probably not clear to many people.

I need to see a clear path of like how we can do this.

And uh I don't think, you know, we talk about essential services, you know, police and fire.

I mean that I don't think is how you go out finding a way to get this done.

So I think then we have to find other other parameters as we look at this.

I mean, it might tightening up other departments, say like utilities tighten up something, that might help with the debt service ratio, and some of some other things.

But they're they're not necessarily contributing to the budgeting of the deficit.

Is that correct?

One thing that um one of the things that may be an upside for us this year is I mean, we're hearing we're hearing things about property tax assessments going up.

And we're I'm trying to verify that.

I think people have anecdotal experiences of seeing this happen.

So you know, I don't know what I don't know haven't quantified what that increase is gonna be yet.

Well what is five or ten percent.

Yeah.

Um but that does two things that kind of that kind of that uh helps the general fund in two ways.

One we have uh property taxes, it's usually about eight and a half million that comes into the general fund that funds all these programs.

Um but we also have the police and fire pension contributions that are funded by a half mil each.

Um and you know, the general fund is in a position now where we've been having to fund subsidize our lofty contribution fund to make those Lofty contributions.

So we're we're up to about 1.92 million dollars a year subsidizing those pension contributions where the the funding, the idea is that half mil that property tax is going to pay for all those for those pension contributions.

So to see um if we can get a five percent or realize that or higher we're getting it in the general fund, that increases our resources, and also it decreases the burden of us having to move funds over to um that lobby contribution fund.

So that's one of the upsides that I'm hoping for as we go through this.

Are we being competitive in our insurance?

I mean, are we are we shopping that around?

Are we making that a competitive look?

We talk about benefits.

Uh we're self-funded.

Health insurance, we are we're a self-funded um health insurance plan.

So that is um, you know, we're we're we're basically in our own pool, risk pool.

We pay the c the we've had we've seen a uh a pretty good increase in claims in twenty-five and in twenty-four.

And so um and then I think you know, just seeing what other things you know, I know the the insurance in the marketplace um were requesting large insurance premium increases, you know, I take that to mean the health care cost trend rates are starting to snowball.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions for Andy?

Any other items related to finance for the moment?

Um I guess we're down to uh communications.

Any questions?

Director Rigo.

Yes, I may add two uh questions slash statements.

Uh on the descriptor here on page 31 on the graph, it talks about my Fort Smith app downloads, Josh, monthly.

For 2024 it says zero current zero target of fifty for next year, aside from the fact that that based on the trend sounds like an aspirational target.

Um is there a cost of any sort associated with the MyFort Smith app?

I mean, is this something we should you know let go or or move on from if the if the So we we previously had the MyFort Smith app.

Um we switched to something called Text My Gov and we're looking at going back to another app system.

It's not gonna be the same back end, but yeah, there will be a cost to it.

But so is this not this is not really even a germane statistic for us anymore if my Fort Smith we're not it we didn't get we didn't have any downloads last year because we started to get rid of the system at the very beginning of the year, and then next year we're looking at implementing it again.

Okay.

And then talked about board meeting uh online attendance statistics.

What's kind of what do you what have you observed as sort of the average um viewership on like an individual meeting?

Anywhere from 350 to 500 views per meeting.

Yeah.

Thank you.

So the uh that's what I want to talk about.

The math works out to about 800 users.

Like if I I just took that 22,000 divided by four four times set twenty-eight, which would be the number of meetings.

That's about eight hundred, so kind of square that away with what director is.

So some so uh some of the meetings obviously get a lot higher viewership.

Right.

Um but yeah, on average I'm seeing about 350 to 500.

That may I may just be accounting for YouTube, but there's two sources that I'm getting the numbers from YouTube and Granicus, which is our street.

Which one's higher?

YouTube is higher?

Yeah.

Um I mean, those are pretty good numbers.

You're gonna beat 25,000.

Yeah, definitely.

I yeah, I set an attainable goal for sure.

Right.

Um I mean I think that's that's that's encouraging.

Yeah.

I mean, we we get a we get a few people here and uh maybe two or three hundred people here in attendance.

And that's a joke.

And um but adding that to another 500 that's watching online you know I think that's I think that's really good and I would like to see that number get bigger.

Obviously I think we'd rather have people here.

I mean because that that's really where you can kind of interact with more but I mean that's a good number.

I think that's a good number.

I'd like to see it increase and continue us you know uh encouraging that and and and sharing that out but you know I think that's now does it this doesn't include people watching it back like after the fact.

Okay.

So this this isn't necessarily live.

Yeah it's not live numbers.

It's all viewers it's viewership all time can you can you tell who's watching it live?

Yeah I can I mean I can distill that I but I didn't go into the numbers deep enough to know.

But typically you know I'll I'll check it you know the day after or whatever it's you know around 100 to 120 typically interesting all right thank you.

Director Kemp Yes hey Josh how can we and how are we and how could we expand even with uh I think of like older residents that are not online.

You know is there ways that we can be thinking about how we're communicating with them.

I mean is there you know publications that would let us slide in on them or you know that's just a question I have for you.

Yeah I mean we do have the like uh Director Martin just said we do have the public access channel that's Cox Channel 214 and we um show all of our board meetings on there and advertise on there as well but yes and and we're also putting out uh things in publications um about the city now not specifically towards watching board meetings um but we could do that as well yeah I was just thinking through like maybe those I know there's publications that are now seeming to pop up and when we have a huge project or huge process or plan yeah that's been approved we might think about finding those channels to targeting people that are not online.

Yeah and we do try to do bill inserts and mailers a couple times a year as well so on on those views does that indicate someone watched from start to finish or they just checked in for five minutes or yeah it it there is a drop off rate I don't know what that is right off the top of my head but you can see how long people are are watching watching the video as well.

But I'm I'm happy to get any of that information to you all just cure yeah okay any other questions for for uh for Josh?

Okay.

Thank you sir.

Yeah.

Next group is Citizen and City Services Joshua questions after that uh we have the engineering department I do have questions.

I thought it was coming up.

It certainly is thank you Josh so I know billing accuracy remains high but how do you how do we and how can we continue to address that small percentage of uh errors that are creating citizens' frustrations like what are things that are working there in that and because when when we hear about on their you know I got this bill that was nine thousand dollars you know and and so can you speak to that?

Yeah and so this me um this uh KPI is more so for actual billing errors in the system and a lot of that we're just put different controls in place we learn and then and then change our um internal policies and kind of our processes to make sure those billing errors don't happen.

Now I think a lot of different things and even Lance would attribute to now that we're going back to manual reading we also have you know the read errors that are a big part of that too.

And so he's working on that because we do have the issue with the encoders on the Zender meters but this metric alone is just for my team that does the actual billing and that team actually having any kind of errors within the actual bill run nothing before that on the reading process that um is under currently with Lance.

Then what's the timeline for the solar LED retrofits to actually achieve that 60% for our facility cost.

You know is that going to take a while to actually actualize?

Unfortunately yes and so I'm hoping around half the year we should be able to start seeing that right now they're still within the design and um interconnection survey um an evaluation phase with uh OGE and with uh Arkansas Valley uh they're a little bit behind they've got like any different um project even some delays on materials but they're looking to be able to break ground in quarter uh two and twenty-six and should be able to test and launch within uh quarter three of twenty six okay director neil martin so real quick um we talked about billing accuracy what def what defines that is that when a bill goes out the door and and somebody calls back in and we we go through that whole process or kind of talk me through that because I've got some questions about the ninety eight percent and what that actually means.

Okay, Director Neil Martin.

So real quick, um we talked about billing accuracy.

What def what defines that?

Is that when a bill goes out the door and and somebody calls back in and we we go through that whole process or kind of talk me through that?

Because I've got some questions about the 98 percent and what that actually means.

Yeah, and so a billing uh error is basically something that happened within the bill run that we missed on some of our checks that we do against uh some of the high reads and different things like that, and if one went through, then that's actually on the billing team that we didn't catch that, and it becomes a billing error that then we have to adjust because if something with my team didn't have to be.

So the bill goes out to the the customer.

Yes.

So when I look at that 98 percent, if you start doing the math, 35,000 bills that go out.

That uh that 2 percent equates to 8400 bills.

Yes, but you're doing the math based on um an error per 10,000 bills.

And so if you look at that 98 percent, you're looking at our metric is less than 10, and that's where we're at right now.

And so that's less than 10 errors per 10,000 bills.

So you want to keep that metric within the So I can't I can't take 35,000 bills, roughly, multiply it by 12, and then multiply that by 2 percent to get me the 8400.

Yes, we want to be less than that as far as that'd be 8400, which equates to 700 bills a month.

But maybe I need a little more explanation as to what that is.

Because that that even though it's two percent seems really high.

Yeah, and I'll give you the actual um formula and metrics on the industry standard for that one.

Okay, all right.

Anything else for Josh?

Thanks, sir.

The engineering department is next.

And I don't know if Ben for questions.

Any questions for engineering?

Well, I I do, and maybe we get into it when we talk about this, but I I really want to talk about the the overlay, how uh how that process is defined.

And again, we don't have to do it now.

I want to double do it, but um that street overlay process I've I've got questions about because I do get complaints from people about streets in the city of Fort Smith.

Uh whether that's a pothole, where that needs a street resurfacing, I'm not sure.

But that's something that that I feel is consistent.

I don't know if it's it's valid.

I mean, a lot of people they'll talk about Rogers Avenue, they'll talk about zero, they'll talk about Midland.

Uh those are state highways, there's nothing we can do about it.

But um I've had I've had kind of issues with some of the streets that we do, like my neighborhood got done.

And I know that there's other streets that are worse than mine.

So um I when we get to it, when we talk about this, I think we need to talk about what that formula is, or at least we have some kind of explanation come back to the board as to what that process is and how um streets are getting on the list to be resurfaced.

There's there's actually a project that we're talking about on the list here that we can break down and kind of go through.

It's uh basically a street rating sign rating, and well you hire a firm that comes through with a camera that goes through and basically counts cracks, counts signs and I I saw that we haven't done that since 2005, is that correct?

Uh that was for the master plan.

That's the master plan.

And so this one, I believe the last one was maybe three or four years ago.

I'm not positive on that.

Okay, but I'd have to double check.

So they go and they take pictures of every street or or or some kind of measurement of uh of every street, and then that goes back to you know, age and all these other things, factors come into this is what we're gonna resurface this year, what we're gonna resurface next year, the year after that.

Well, what they do is they actually just give a rating on the the streets themselves, and then it's on our end typically to go ahead and divvy out which streets are actually going to get additional work.

How often should we be doing that?

I don't know that answer, Matt.

Uh you think two years?

Yeah.

Every couple years, so it's been three or four.

Uh do you know the last time it had happened?

Yeah, it's been three or four years.

Yeah, it's been longer than two.

I know that for sure.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Thanks, sir.

Uh the planning and zoning department is next.

Anyway.

Any any questions for Maggie?

Well, okay.

Sorry.

Uh community community development.

Maybe we just say if we've got something, okay.

Motion so they don't have to come up.

Any anyone have any questions for Candice?

Building building safety?

No.

Neighborhood services?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Next.

Oh, neighborhood services.

Police department.

I just had one about uh item number four uh looking ahead for 2026 administrative division acting within a new framework established in 2025.

We'll seek to expand the reserve officer program.

I just wondered, you know, kind of what's the size that's in mind for the reserve officer group, and do we currently have any reserve officers?

And if so, how many?

So we do currently have some reserve officers.

I'm gonna have to, Dan, can you?

How many reserve officers we have?

Five.

We have five.

He can probably speak to this better than I can just division.

What's kind of the target, you know, ideal size for for that group.

Sorry, so we don't actually have a target per se right now.

Uh what we're looking to do, so our reserve program kind of it used to be fairly robust.

Uh used extensively to augment patrol in special events and things like that.

Um with our Khalia accreditation, there was some push for a change in how they're trained, meaning uh there was an understanding that it was an hour for hour every you know, they had to have exactly the same number of hour for hour training as a regular patrol officer.

And that's clearly impractical for the average person to go through a 17-week academy.

Uh so we saw the program shrink to include really just prior full-time people who used to work here.

And the vision is to get back to citizen volunteers.

And in order to accomplish that, what we're gonna have to do is we're gonna have to develop a training program that is CALIA accredited, some something that is compliant with CALIA and gives them not necessarily hour for hour the same training, but the same quality and scope of training that are given to our regular full-time officers so that we can get back to the idea of citizen volunteers, and we can gauge interest.

We're we're at the infancy of it right now, so uh once we can really gauge interest and figure out kind of how big it can be, uh, then it's gonna be a question of how big do we want it to be.

And the reserve officers aren't paid at all.

They're not paid at all.

Okay.

Thank you.

One thing I did have a question on.

I I saw that we've got the 2024 service objectives.

Any reason?

Did we just 25 not get done?

I just I think they just measure on the 12-month annual basis.

25 is in play, they're just measuring historically done this.

Okay.

But you know, I I go back to what I said earlier.

You guys were very specific.

Uh item 26.

This would be measured by a 10 percent decrease.

Um we'll reduce the number of cruelty to animal cases by 20 percent.

Um bike officers will reduce trespassing incidents by 15 percent.

I mean those are those are those are good.

That I mean, we're we're we're we're shooting for something.

Um and I like the numbers associated with it.

So I I really appreciate I mean this was a lot.

This was a whole lot, and and I appreciate it.

Not no not necessarily do I need that much, but you guys have were very detailed in this.

Twenty-eight different measures, twenty-seven different measures, service objectives.

I mean that's that's really pretty good, and and you guys should be commended for the level of specificity and detail that you guys put into this.

So thank you all.

Okay.

Anything else for police?

Yes.

You know, I and I don't know if it's a question for them as much as if they want to weigh in on it.

I understand if they didn't, then it is it's a question for me and the board, and trying to wrap my mind around this.

The Cranke uh property, I know they talked about establishment of a new police precinct.

Um as much as I get I think it would I would favor that because it puts police on this side of town that I'm that I'm responsible and serve and live in.

But I would also say the police response time is already good.

Um I start thinking about when we talk about projects and new projects, thinking about how this is gonna get funded and the magnitude of it.

Uh but even if with the conversation of leasing vehicles, which I'm I'm I'm for uh from the study session based on what I've heard, uh you know, the need of the shop may not be as much as it was by the fact if we didn't do the leasing of the vehicles and things.

So I guess I'm trying to figure out is this the direction that we still feel is is good and or is this putting a burden on you all as a police department you know to is it really going to add efficiency for the police department or is it kind of one of those things that it was a project that was birthed and the city administrator believed in it wanted to make a bold move but I mean we're talking about a pretty big project here.

It it is a big project and one of the one of the biggest advantages that I could see to it is with our department being downtown any time an officer on the south side of town or east side side has to go back to the police department it takes a long time.

So they're out of service possibly if they're needing go get more paperwork or supplies or things like that.

So it would help in that sense about having stuff that's closer for them to use but obviously funding is something that we're we're working on for that so I mean that's going to involve the board obviously in that as well but that was kind of some of the thinking about that as well just trying to get more of a presence in that area where people can come to the police department easier if they wanted to on that side of town and be more visible right on 71.

Thank you.

That's supposed to be a service department also right the service department is going to be for the entire city I believe for anything under a one-ton vehicle will it not save money being under one roof I'm I'm sure it would.

The police department was going to have a training facility and a precinct there.

And then the southernmost building was going to be I think utilities.

Well it was going to be a a a mixture of uh service department for uh for many departments and that is still you know the the focus on the property is the uh the efforts for the police department um you know things like a a centralized fleet location for those types of things we've put on hold in terms of is that something that we want to do is it something that ultimately we think will benefit us.

I mean I think the the the uh the three buildings on the on the property as as they said two two of the buildings are are uh intended for the police precincts in the training center uh that third building may also be available for that type of use we haven't we haven't determined that yet I mean I think that third building is in a bit of question as to what we end up doing with it the the centralized fleet is still a possibility we just haven't determined that that makes sense for a separate question do we not pay the county to use our training Brazil yeah by being here that was a point that Director Dennis just brought up we do have some employees in other areas and we do I think we share with the expenses there.

I don't know that we pay rent but I think we we share with some of the save us money.

Yeah that that function is our training function that would be moved to this new save money it would save us yeah it would save us having to pay it would be our stuff that we were paying for instead of paying for the counties.

So is the vision that our training facility also might get customer base by these other agencies would they would do we envision that they may come use our stuff?

Yes we want to be a premier training agency for this region.

We're the largest agency in the region and we want to attract that kind of you know other agencies here and have a nice facility to to show them and train them in.

So we do a regional training academy already so it would definitely help us with that.

Do we think grants is a play here at all with this facility Jeff?

It is and that is something that we're continuing to look for yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay thank you.

Thank you.

And I would just say because it's not a question so I mean that I have no problem uh interjecting here I mean I would really caution us to be too hasty in liquidating an asset that could be liquidating the property that could be a potential asset to you know law enforcement moving forward because I have to imagine even if it takes us a few years to secure grants or funding of that nature that the costs of owning a reasonably sized facility that's mostly on concrete I mean they've got to be fairly de minimis.

I mean is it what's the annual I mean it can't be enough to make a savings dent uh on the things that Andy's talking about.

So if it really does seem like I'm just saying this for the record if it really does seem like there's some good possibilities for utilization of this law enforcement as an asset for law enforcement in our community even if it takes a little time to fully realize those things, I think patients would be uh virtuous in this instance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next is a a new department public safety communications Any questions on that one?

Uh fire department is next yeah questions for fire?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

The service objective number two for the coming year talked about continuing to lessen the potential for property damage from flooding by regularly cleaning and clearing debris from ditches, channels, and drainage structures.

Obviously that's good, and I'm appreciating I know everybody does the work that goes into that.

There were some percentages given on KPIs in that regard for cleaning, mowing, spraying major drainage easements, rights away as interchanges, detention pods, uh, three times a year.

What is the is there any thought given to uh making any changes to that um tempo?

Or do you kind of like explain the three times a little bit?

Is it three set fixed points you have on the calendar?

Do you have flexibility for when you know we might get rainier or or someone might come across something that's overgrown more than expected?

Like what's the just give us a sense of how much of your radar screen uh keeping those ditches and channels clean and clear occupies, because it's very important and appreciate what is done.

Well, and and there's there's two different groups mowing that.

So some channels aren't easily accessed by equipment and those are mowed and maintained by the the A team.

And so how often we get to that is dependent upon simply how many A team members we get, you know.

And so like this year, this summer we've had uh less A-team members than normal, so it's been taking a little longer to get around.

We're gonna we'll definitely hit three times a year on everything, but it's taken a little longer to get around.

If it's something that's with our regular MO crews and everything, so we're yeah, we're we're getting more than we're doing better than than three times a year uh with those uh for sure.

I mean we're uh you know, if we get it if we happen to get a complaint on something, we'll we'll go out and mow it.

But we're generally getting to it most of things before that that happens unless there's we've had a period of rainfall or something and where it's been too wet for us to get out and mow, but but most things we've been we've been able to keep up with.

And like for instance, this year too, we've taken on the interchanges that keep Fort Smith Beautiful used to used to maintain.

There were four uh interchanges on I540.

We've actually taken over five though, uh one extra one.

And so we'd like to take on a couple more if we had our full staff back that wasn't frozen, we'd we'd take on a couple more interchanges actually.

Uh yeah, and I just thank you.

And I would just say, you know, again, is this is one of those things as we move into the budget and we think about priorities, keeping the the ditches and the drains and and the channels that the city is responsible for is very, very, very important.

And I would uh think that we would all agree that that would be something as we're talking about priorities that we want to make sure that there's always the you know not only the the people for that.

I mean you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you have, so sometimes you gotta redefine the objective or or what you expect from them.

But you could if we need to make sure about equipment and things like that, because this is one of those ones that you know it's it's very controllable, and when there's negligence in that area, it's something that really stands out to people, and then because it has knock on effects into people's yards and property and things like that.

So just as we're looking at things with uh reasonably fresh perspectives and eyeballs, this budget cycle, you know, let's just make sure we keep that as a top priority.

Thank you all for the work you do.

Thank you.

Yeah, and our biggest issue on the mowing and I'll just add that to you, is is staff and having the staff available to do it.

We're pretty well equipped.

It's just having people to to make all that happen.

Right now we're we're doing we're doing fairly good with it.

So Director Neil Martin and Director Kent.

Yeah, one thing I'll say publicly is uh I I consider you one of the best at I call you up or I I send you an email, say there's an issue that it gets taken care of.

I mean it it it's yeah, I'll second that.

I mean uh there's I don't think anybody is better than that.

No, there isn't thank you.

I appreciate that.

So I I think you set a high standard.

Um and I appreciate that.

And I think all these people uh would as well.

Um talk to me about uh potholes, because that potholes comes primarily from your uh from your department, the filling the potholes.

So engineering does this uh the overlays, but when we have a pothole, um your team goes out and does that.

What what's the methodology in which you do that?

Uh are those uh somebody lets you know, or you guys are when you're out driving around, you see them, you fix them.

Kind of what's the what what's that look like?

I know that's well uh I mean uh I, for instance, myself call in three or four a day to have tickets made for potholes for the pothole crews, but also we take citizen complaints on those and uh any time we have time we have uh send we send a crew out with a pothole crew out to start running streets and start running a grid and filling in all the potholes they see.

Do you is that are you able to get through that grid of the entire city in a year with that with with that team?

I mean it kind of sounds like that's more of not necessarily ad hoc, but maybe not as frequent as as you would like.

But are y'all able to cover the entire city?

Yes, I would say we can we can definitely cover the entire city in a year, but uh potholes as quickly as they develop.

I mean, they they can develop fairly quickly, uh, especially when you have a when you have a very wet period or if you have a very cold period where you have a lot of freezing, uh you're gonna see a lot more potholes develop.

Right.

Is there any collaboration between you and sanitation?

Because sanitation's on those roads every day.

Is is there any is there is there anything we could do?

No, well, there's there's nothing in particular.

No, I mean sometimes we do get calls from from other departments about potholes and complaints and we take those in, but but there's no official collaboration.

Yeah, I mean I think that would be a a helpful item if if all of us internally were sharing that information with you so that those could get addressed more timely.

I mean, sanitation is on every street every day.

And I yeah, I agree that's a good idea.

So I wish there was some kind of technology that we could put on those uh on some of our trucks that could sense those things and nobody had to do anything.

It would just that we would just know it and you guys would get an alert pothole on the case.

Well, that is true.

One thing with the with the uh that's important about the uh uh that Ben had mentioned about the basically the the street analysis and everything, is they will identify in some way now that it's not a hundred percent accurate, but what they claim is potholes through that through that study.

When they go and video all the roads and analyze the condition, they will identify potholes, and that's the reason it's important because then we can take that information and data and we can cover it and go start trying to fix a pothole.

Right.

Well, I I did email you on Sunday about uh something on bluff and R.

I think it was R.

And I went out there today, because you said tomorrow I'll get a gr uh grade on it.

I think there's a leak there that's causing that.

But you said you put a grade on it.

I drove by it today, great's there.

So just shows how how quickly you respond, and I've got some other things I want to talk about.

That with some other teams.

Um, but I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yes, Kiel.

Uh I just definitely want to applaud what you guys have taken on from Keep Fort Smith Beautiful.

The interstates, I'm on the interstate a lot because it's about the quickest way to get from this side of town to the other side of town in a hurry.

And uh what you guys are maintaining is is looking great.

And uh thank you for that.

And I would agree with you uh as much as we're talking about personnel cuts and different things in nature, especially because you have equipment, or as we as we can pull back contracts that were contracted out back in-house, uh, I think what you all are doing with the staff and the equipment you have is a greater return on the investment for the city.

So thank you for that.

Um the one thing I wonder about, but I think the questions I have are more about how do we communicate better or or even if how you would advise me to communicate, because some of the areas of concern I have are sometimes I think a highway in conjunction that's right there in the middle of our city.

Like example, the intersection at Phoenix and Old Greenwood Road, you know, and you look at that intersection there and you see just like grass growing around curbs and rocks loosed all over it from whatever uh we don't clean up those intersections, right?

Because they're that's a highway.

Well is that correct?

Right there, right there at Phoenix and Old Greenwood Road, we will sweep that.

I mean, if there's an issue there with debris on the road or anything like that, we will sweep that.

So, yeah, if if you let us know.

So I'll just start telling you about some because I feel like that's something I've noticed is intersections that I'm starting to see, like, man, I wish we could get a team over here to just sweep this up, make this look good, take a weeder for a minute.

We send a sweeper out every day now.

We may not weed eat that.

That may be something that falls to spray to kill it, yeah to to neighborhood services there, but uh on the on the weeding side, but as far as anything actually in the intersection from back of curb to back of curb, yeah, we'll take care of it.

And then like I know Rogers is going to be slated to some section.

I don't know whether they're doing all of it in one fill swoop, but when we have a road that's you know crumbling together to now form a uh a mound of asphalt that is adjoined, getting them to come out and grind it and stuff.

Is that something that we can tell you guys and we can work on this this coming year to getting that rectify?

If there's something that, you know, for instance, you know, sometimes you we run into this with tree roots pushing up asphalt, we can we can take that out.

Uh some of it is easy enough, we can just go out there with uh with a milling attachment to uh to a skid steer and mill it off.

Some of it's severe enough we actually need to cut it out and and put back a concrete and an asphalt patch on top of it.

I just thought the other day I was driving by sweet band, I thought, man, I'll have to get a tire alignment if I keep running over these bumps in certain ways.

Thank you.

Yes, go ahead.

Matt uh I'm getting a lot of complaints about mosquitoes, yeah.

No, I haven't been getting a lot of complaints now.

Very few.

Can we do can we do targeted spraying?

Like that that I mean that's up to the up to the board.

The river, Village Harbor, and Hillcrest seem to be the two worst ones.

The biggest complaints I get.

I mean that that was that's up to the board because my budget for that's been cut.

You would cut it out of the budget.

So it was 75,000, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

10.6 percent of my budget was cut earlier this year.

I know there was some talk about us, and with our our fund balance being higher and everything, but we've had just a reminder on that, we've had 10.6 percent of our budget cut out earlier in the year, and we've had to hold to that budget.

So I mean I'm just trying to figure out a way to keep everybody happy here.

Well, uh, you know, uh uh do what I did, put two hummingbird feeders out.

There's other things you can do.

You can plant.

There's an there's a there's a number of different things we can do.

We have the uh the the pellets too.

Yeah, we have those available that we're been handing out to residents that they can put in standing water, the larva side.

I mean, I I will say this.

I I try very much to uh respect what's expected of us on the board that when a decision is made that we uh and a majority decision is made that we move on from it, and there was a vote taken five to two to discontinued the mosquito spraying and the money for it, and and Audre and I voted to keep it and and the rest voted to eliminate it.

Uh well I'll take it back, Director Christina Kitsavis abstained.

Um but I'll just say it for the record because it came up.

In the four and a half years plus that I've been on the board now, I have not been communicating.

It is the single most thing I have been communicating with about is absolute negativity around stopping that uh practice that we had.

I have heard from dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people, and not a single one of them is happy with what we did.

Now, I did not intend to bring that up, but since it came up organically, I wanted that reflected.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from that?

Thank you.

Uh the next is water and sewer.

Yes, I had a comment.

Yes, you recognize.

Um I mean uh this is a little bit semantical, but we talk about these things and we want these things to direct in a helpful way.

Uh number one talks about ensuring adequate, well-maintained water, and this page 60, well-maintained water and wastewater treatment, water distribution and sewer collection systems for all development, and prevent development ahead of properly constructed water distribution and sewer system or adequate water supply and wastewater treatment facilities.

Next sentence, coordinate land use planning and capital programming to ensure infrastructure improvements and extensions are phased to support future land use pattern.

I just happen to think that using the phrase prevent development is not good.

Okay.

And I would I mean I don't think it's a good phrase to use.

I don't think it's the spirit of what we wish to have happen.

I think the the spirit is better accurately reflected in the second sentence about making sure that things support or or are phased to support future land use pattern.

But when you talk about prevent development ahead of properly constructed water distribution, I mean it makes it sound as if we do not wish development to occur, which is not the case.

And it also a little bit makes it sound like that there's all these sort of uh things happening that are far outstripping capability, and you're having you're talking about running around trying to uh stop those people from happening.

I think caution is the the word of the day and prudence, but I've never gotten any kind of sense from any document we've received or any presentation you ever made that you know that there's development that's far outpacing the ability and so the ability to provide to.

So I just think the phraseology uh and the characterization is more alarming perhaps than it's intended to be.

Um maybe that's exactly what you intended, and there's a little bit of a disconnect in what has been communicated with us and what we've been working on.

So I guess a little bit of work is probably required, a little bit of pencil work is probably required on objective number one, uh unless there's something you need to clarify for us.

No, we have had times where development has occurred and then people have come back and said we want water and there's no water to provide them.

So I agree.

But like but where where are those things at now?

What's the what's what's an example?

What's a status?

Some are, well, racetrack road, which we brought to the board last year that we're going to have to, you know, eventually loop a water supply to provide the the fire suppression requirements and buildings were already built, and then the developer came and said, Hey, I need water, and we didn't have water in that area to provide the proper fire flow.

Um however, I I don't disagree that we can change that verbiage uh to make it less alarming.

Any other questions, Director Neil Martin?

Lance, um it appears as though your targets for water leaks is unattainable.

Your goal for 2025 is to have the way I'm reading it, less than a hundred leaks.

Correct.

On the pending list.

And we're at seven, well, I don't know.

We're at 643.

When this was done, yes.

Okay.

And then your target for 26 is also less than 100.

Right.

Is that attainable?

We continue to whittle that down.

And we are hoping what do we have right now?

We as of right this point right now, we have 659.

We normally see an increase in August, July, August, and September, we see an increase because that's the drier months.

It it pulls, you know, when when the ground dries out, it pulls apart and it stresses the lines, and that's where we see a lot of leaks develop.

And then the other months we catch up.

We we actually see that decrease.

And we are expecting the equipment that the board approved to be coming in, the last pieces, which are the two dump trucks, should be here.

Um we were hoping the end of this week, um, possibly next week, and once that is done, that will allow us to fix more.

The other issue that we've been dealing with is we lost um basically two days due to large emergencies.

Sure.

So when those things happen, it does put us a little bit more.

But is is it attainable to say I mean it it doesn't look like it's attainable in 25 that we would get under 100?

Do you think and and you mentioned the the equipment?

You think it's attainable to have less than a hundred?

That it may not be obtainable, but that's our goal, and we are going to strike continue to strive to get to that goal.

Eventually, and and what I've heard from the board in the past is you want to see less than fifty.

Right.

But I I I to be honest, we haven't been in that ballpark, this 100 ballpark.

I would I would like to see I mean we had 739 and uh and and 24, 25 or 643.

So we're kind of we're in in that same ballpark.

What I would like to see is under 500 in 25.

Okay.

250 in 26.

I mean just because we're not getting to 100.

All right.

I don't see us getting to 100.

If you can get to 100, I'm all for it, but we're not getting close to 100.

And that's that's I think that's that's one of my biggest frustrations is the number of these water leaks.

I think what I was just talking to Matt Meeker about, I just sent an email because I think there's a leak at that same place that he gave he put a uh a grate over over a pothole.

And I think it's it I think it's a water leak there, but this is that's this is the thing that people get the most frustrated about are these water leaks all over the place.

On top of, you know, our water rate increases and things like that.

They look at this and say, are we doing our job on this end because the citizens are being asked to do this?

And I think this is really probably one of the more frustrating things that I see when I talk to people and when people communicate with me, whether it be emails, whether it be on Facebook, you know, whatever.

It's uh um I this is what people complain about.

So we we've got to figure out a way, and I'm I'm very interested to see what happens with this new equipment if we start to get that down, and does that note the or does that cause the board to allocate more dollars?

So we've got to see we got to see these numbers start to decrease.

And then maybe there's some additional things that can come out of that.

So that's just me.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh one, Lance, thank you to you and your team.

You guys jumped on that leak on Jenny Lynn and Glenn Flora, and it was tearing the road up, and Matt, y'all are doing a great job repairing on it and getting through the process.

Uh, you know, but to the point of that specific project, it ended up not being one leak, it was five leaks in one area, which no wonder the road was being blown upon.

And I think if we can prioritize the thoroughfare roads, you know, the big target roads.

But I I personally love the goal of less than a hundred, specifically because of the size of investment in gear that we've made for equipment.

And I think once you have that and then your team's report about taking the other equipment to repair so that even if something does come, there's days where y'all aren't missing work.

The question I do have though is uh we had also discussed within the same time frame, because you had five crews.

We talked about potentially once they're all rolling, and maybe this is not right away, but maybe I think at twenty-six, is there still the possibility of us buying pipe wholesale and having the fifth crew doing some line work?

Because I think about if you have five leaks, what's the chances that we just need to take that run of pipe, you know, further and put new pipe in?

I mean, is there a possibility of us doing that in-house?

Can we do the construction in-house?

Some of it yes, some of it no because of the complexity.

Are we going to get wholesale price on pipe?

No.

We have talked to all of the manufacturers directly that will talk to us, and their response was this is your supplier in Arkansas.

You can also buy from this supplier in Oklahoma because they already have contracts, kind of non-compete contracts throughout the U.S.

So we've actually talked to about the.

But if you want to go to Missouri, again, they have they have they have covered.

They have they have this whole no compete thing.

Basically.

Would it be a little bit better pricing?

I don't know.

But it, you know, a lot of what we purchase, of course, we end up paying tax on, and that goes back into the city because we're we're buying it local.

What was the number of leaks that we kind of came up with, Neil and Lance, maybe I'll remember.

We did math that night and said, okay, if we have five crews really running with the right equipment, which is why I think that was the best move forward.

What was the threshold that the five crews can do in a month?

Um if everything was great, I believe we were looking at 120 to 175, 150 being the target.

We're sitting right now this month with paperwork that has been closed.

There's some paperwork that hasn't been closed at 109, but please note that we did lose three days with having um basically every crew that we had working on the 24-inch line break and the 16-inch line break and the six-inch line break that all occurred at the very beginning of the month.

If we don't get the numbers higher, then I think Director Martin's comments are valid for sure, in the sense that you know the front door has to be, you know, smaller than the you know, then the back door, so to speak, here, or the back door has to be smaller than the front door.

I mean that the fact that we need to be fixing if you fix 175 leaks but uh 140 are reported, then you really move the list just a small amount versus doing it.

But I hear you saying the winter and the fall will will slow down on leaks reported.

Yes.

I mean, do we have an idea of like how many leaks were reported in like October?

Do we kind of have it offshore?

I I can get that information for the thinking like if you think through that, if they're gonna fix uh call it 150, 160 leaks, you're gonna need less than a hundred, you know, reported in so you can gain fifty repairs uh on the list.

So I don't know, you know, if you're at 600, you know, chewing that down.

I mean, maybe maybe by the end of 26, but I agree.

Thank you.

Reggie Good.

Thanks, Mary.

Just a couple of comments on the uh the water leak situation.

Um so first of all, I want to um thank you, just like we gave uh Mr.

Meeker kudos on his department, you know, any time, every time that I reported a water leak, either yourself or Justin uh Perkins uh respond immediately and get the uh leaks put on the priority list.

Um of course get get fixed faster than others.

Um but the thing I want to say about you know the the front door being smaller than the back door or however you said it.

Yep, and the and and the complaints, you know, this is one of those situations where you know we know that you know this is more than just providing a service.

We're dealing with uh very aging system.

Uh we're also dealing with um some extreme weather conditions, whether it's very cold or very hot or very wet, and all of that attributes to malfunctions of our system and deterioration of our system.

So not only do we have to keep up, we have to continuously invest in putting in some new new lines.

So I just wanted to thank you, like we think Matt and your team for doing a great job as well.

Thank you.

I just want to say I I agree with you.

Is your uh I'm nervous about an infrastructure that's aging and I fix a joint, and then I know that the rest of the line down the road is old.

Yeah.

I mean, uh I would say Director Settle won me over when he was talking about, hey, let's get one team just putting line in.

So if we fix this house on North Eighth Street, then let's just peel on down and and push the line and even more.

And that was part of the conversation where we're talking about getting the equipment to give our manpower the equipment to do the job that we're asking them to do.

Because not only are our crews will be fixing leaks right there on the spot, but to do a line, a whole line if we can.

Yeah.

So to give you an idea, on Garrison Avenue, we have two blocks that are sand cast, the main lines are sand cast iron.

They are over 140 years old.

We know exactly when they were put in.

Are they in blown yet?

George, please don't put that out in the atmosphere.

Um I'd say it's incredible pipes.

But but here's here's the the challenge.

We can't do anything to that pipe.

If we expose that pipe, if we dig it up, we know that the chance for a blowout and putting a large portion of Garrison Avenue out of service is high.

I wouldn't say 100 percent, but I'd say greater than 90 percent.

No.

That pipe bursting is used for sewer line.

This is water line.

No water.

So in that case, do you advocate that we run a new line and then just so that's what we would look at doing is yes, and that's exactly what uh we look at doing on some of these is what is the best solution?

Um abandoning the line in place, running a parallel line of PVC or ductile iron, depending upon what the specifications require alongside it, but then we also have to make new taps for all of the businesses that are tapped off of that.

Um and that's gonna that's gonna be a fairly large project because you're talking about doing work directly in a uh state highway.

So there's a lot that goes into the planning of that.

And we do have aging infrastructure.

Um a lot of it's galvanized, we have asbestos concrete pipe, which is very difficult to work with.

And you know, we had uh we had unfortunately um concrete cylinder pipe, which is something I really never want to hear again, that's a 24-inch main that we lost the beginning of this month.

And uh luckily we were able to find a company that could manufacture the parts on Sunday, drive them up Sunday night, and we could get those repairs made on Monday.

I think to the point that I what I think we're talking about though could be maybe and I hear what you're saying because I agree with you.

Perhaps though what we're talking about could be done more at residence, you know.

I mean, if you're talking about you fix a residence leak, but then I remember the report was a good percentage of those get called back in the same area again, because when I fix this leak, it causes this leak.

And so that resident spirit that we're talking about that it becomes a public perception thing, it doesn't even have to be facts-based at all.

But if we could be laying new line within those residents that have old lines, then not only are you all fixing the leaks, but you're not getting called back to that area, which then allows you to fix other issues that you need to fix.

So it may not be the commercial side as much as it is in the residential areas.

The the one thing that you also also have to look at is we need to make sure that people stay in water.

So how do we do that where if we are doing a new tap, uh and I can speak uh from experience, you're out of water while that tap is being made.

So that house is it's coordinating with the residents as well that's in that block saying, okay, for the next six hours you will not have water because we have to break this to put in the new valving to to secure and then make a new tap on that.

So there is a lot of coordination, but it is definitely something we are looking at.

Thank you.

Lance for those um those the 140 40-year-old pipe.

Um, do we have any plan of or or timeline in which we would want to replace that?

Um in the next five to ten years for sure.

So obviously that would require some some planning and execution.

Is anything is there a project design in the books or being worked on?

And uh I know that you know we have to be conscious of with every one of these things we talk about.

We have to be conscious of the uh debt service coverage ratio and uh what maintenance costs and all that kind of stuff.

However, I'm gonna say this with that 100 percent of line, not saying I'm advocating this, but with our consent decree, we are replacing capacity for replacing lines.

Do we have anything like that in terms of of of looking at all of our water infrastructure to see, you know, what needs to be replaced based on age, deterioration, all that kind of stuff.

So if you'll look that is actually um uh item three that we are working on uh for that is we we have that on the sewer side and we're working on that on the water side.

We don't have that on the water side.

We do to a certain extent.

We know the the key things, asbestos concrete pipe.

We actually have the galvanized pipe designed.

It's sitting on the shelf waiting to go.

And when that is is implemented, and we actually have some uh congressionally directed spending, about three million dollars for that that we'll have roughly a four million dollar project.

It was a 12 million dollar project, so we're only going to do about a third of what needs to be done, but that will also reduce water leaks because a lot of the galvanized pipe is what leaks multiple times.

But I guess uh, you know, in in it just ballpark this for me.

If we replaced our our infrastructure that is of asbestos, you know, all the all the different things that you have.

What would the dollar associated with that be?

100 million?

Uh well over.

Okay.

Never mind.

Uh one other question, Mayor Go ahead.

Uh Lance, we also talked about, I remember recalling that study session as well on the pressure in certain areas needs some regulation.

What about that?

I mean, are we uh is that anywhere in scope to to try to buy or acquire what we need to handle the pressure and lowering the pressure?

We actually have one of the properties um already purchased to put that on.

Um there's a couple others that need to be you know figured out.

I think uh if I remember right, it's a total of three for the downtown unregulated pressure zone.

Um that is actually on the CIP.

Uh when we had a 10-year CIP for water, uh, that is one of the items that has already been identified, and uh we have an engineering estimate on.

We do not have design on that yet.

And that funding, is that general fund funding?

No, that is all that we're talking about here is water and sewer funding.

And is there realistic dollars to address that?

Or do we feel like I mean, could you give me the confidence on where you feel like the funding is on that?

Um we do not have the funding at this time.

Okay.

I mean, I think that's something I mean we talk about pipes and leaks, the pressure was one thing that they brought up.

Uh one of the uh leaders in the department there was talking about we need to control pressure.

So I mean I think there's another factor there as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions for any other questions for Lance?

Okay, thanks, sir.

Uh the next group is parks and recreate parks and recreation.

Any questions for parks and Rick?

Okay.

Thank you.

Solid waste is next.

Any questions for solid waste?

Okay.

Thank you.

And transit and transit.

Any questions for transit?

Okay.

No questions?

I got a question on transit.

Just quickly.

Uh Ken, you could just even nod.

Okay, he's coming.

All right.

That project getting you access to the for the buses to store at night and and all that.

And we had the issues with the railroad company.

I mean, have those have we gotten resolution and are we moving on it?

Well, we actually met with FTA today.

Jerry Canfield and I met with um uh five different officials from uh FTA and we discussed um the eligibility criteria for moving forward.

Um it would include uh um acquiring uh and constructing a rail spur um to mitigate the safety concerns and FTA was um wanting to know more about you know why we would need that.

And uh I I feel confident that the meeting went very well, and uh they asked us to go ahead and uh expand our uh categorical exclusion for environmental purposes.

Um they asked us to go ahead and start entering information into the grant uh application.

So I think um we're supposed to know in the next couple of days whether they're going to go with eligibility on that.

Um it sounds very favorable.

Um, but they wanted some things from the railroad as well, um, which we feel like is very achievable.

So um that project looks like it's back on track and going forward.

Um how long until you have your access.

Well, um, I mean, as far as the construction process goes, yeah, turnkey like operating.

Okay.

When we spoke with the railroad, they indicated their portion they could do in approximately four weeks, so that's a a quick turnaround.

Um I'm I'm sure our portion's gonna take a little bit longer.

There's um uh there's some uh ditch improvements that we're gonna have to make, drainage improvements we're gonna have to make a box culvert, things of that nature.

So it it's it's going to go into next year, I'm sure, but um, but we're we're certainly um moving forward, and I think if we can get this agreement secured, uh we should we we should be able to get started on it pretty quick.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions director Neil Martin?

I I don't know if I've ever d necessarily seen it or or really focused in on it, but that cost per passenger.

Thirteen basically thirteen bucks per passenger.

Is that every time somebody steps on the bus, it's thirteen bucks?

It is what what how that's uh calculated is dividing the expenses um by the ridership.

So yes, that is how that's okay.

I mean, uh I know these these are federal dollars.

I want to be good stewards of our federal dollars as well.

And getting that cost down, uh, I think is is important for us.

So when you look at that, that's an average of our demand response and fixed routes, where fixed routes may be as low as like four dollars a passenger trip.

They're relatively low.

The uh demand response is relatively high.

It's a higher degree of service, personal service, but it's for people with maybe cancer treatments or what should we be looking for in terms of a cost per passenger?

I mean, that's pretty average.

Is it really okay?

All right, thank you.

Yeah, the question is for Ken.

Okay, thanks, sir.

Thank you.

That was the last one.

Okay.

With that, we will go to the second item on the agenda.

Why don't we take uh take a quick five or six minute break and we'll come back?

Well, we're all talking.

I thought that was it.

What's that?

We got some other stuff on the dub dive on that one.

I thought, well, here we go.

So that's my phone.

Carl.

Carl.

Okay, we're gonna go to uh item number two on the agenda.

Okay.

So you gonna need to discuss it on these projects.

If I if I might introduce the uh this is Ben Marts, our interim director of engineering.

Um and you know, since we had the uh election in May and reallocated some of our sales tax, uh big question has come up, you know, this this program, the CIP program is built on uh for the last forty years has been built on having one cent uh sales tax goes going towards streets and bridges and the associated drainage.

Uh but since that uh ha was reallocated earlier this year, we have five eighths of a penny uh now going towards that per those programs instead of the full penny.

And so there's been interest in reevaluating some of these projects and looking to how that reduction in revenue impacts what we're planning for for the next number of years.

And so uh Ben has tied into that specific question and which has led to this information that he's presented this evening and ready to talk about tonight.

Um okay.

Um first thing let me apologize.

I had to pass out new set of numbers here.

We um we had some updated uh revenue estimates from finance and also some operating costs forecast.

Um with that generally speaking, um, except for twenty twenty-six, the other years saw about a uh one point three million dollar drop overall.

If you look at this sheet right here, um in the stuff that I've handed out here that shows what has changed.

Um the item that I revised on this is the uh the future overlay reconstruction uh railroad projects ended up cutting uh four million dollars from twenty twenty-six and twenty twenty-seven.

So just that's a little bit different than what you saw on the original board packet, and I apologize for that.

Um as Jeff explained, you know, we've revised this based on the the five eighth cent sales tax and we've shuffled around the projects that are currently in design.

Um those that are in design we're obviously trying to still keep those on track for for what money we do have.

Um the big things I want to point out if uh you go to the I guess it's the second big page of the the one by seventeen.

Uh it's the section one point one.

Uh you'll see the 20 2503 B is the project number, uh B, C and D.

Those have green text on them uh that says contain uh consent to prework.

Those are time sensitive, and so we've not moved those construction points out.

But if you notice there are so several others that have design that have been done in 24 and 25 that we've moved um construction services out to 29 and 30, just to be able to balance the budget.

The goal on this was try to leave some of the available funds at the end of the year, that way we could be able to kick off some projects.

But as we move out to um 2030, 2031, based on the current setup, we're getting pretty tight on the budget.

So and the big thing is this is a starting point.

This is not um this is the first stab at it, and I wanted to get you all his opinions on it, see how y'all wanted to go from here.

Um I'll answer any questions you got here.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions?

Director Newmar.

Well, I I thought the information was good.

Um what I want to do is spend a little more time on this guy.

Yep.

Um maybe not necessarily tonight, but it allows me to compare it to what we approved in 25 for you know, all the way out through 29.

So I'm seeing you know the the drops in in total expenditures for 26, 27, 28, 29.

Um what I really want to do is look at some of these projects that we we had on the on the list in the 25 approval, and then go over here and kind of compare them to what you've got now.

So some things should have dropped off of there because maybe they've been pushed forward.

Yes.

And so I that's really having this data to kind of take a look at it and see what what we need.

The one thing I I'm not real wild about is the uh street overlays at three mil three point six million in twenty-six.

You know, I like to keep that up a little higher and maybe take some of some of the projects off, but obviously there's a there's a cost, there's a the balancing out there.

Well, and uh one of the things we are also dealing with is staff.

I mean, there's only I'm the only engineer that's actually in the engineering department.

But that's the that there's no change to that.

That's generally how it's been, right?

Uh have you always been in the department?

Well, I'm I'm not even in the department.

Yeah, right.

So Stan was the only engineer prior to this.

So now you're the only engineer, so we don't really things are the same, pretty much.

To an extent, yes.

All right.

So keep going, sorry.

Yep.

And so staffing is uh is probably the biggest bottleneck on getting projects out right now.

I've only got so much time where I can manage projects at this point.

Right.

One of the biggest things that we're focusing on and uh talked about it with uh going to career fairs.

We're set up to go to U of A for the engineering career fair in I think it's the first week of not September, I forgot when it does, third week of September maybe.

Um so the intent is to build up staff.

Um we've got several that are you know within the next year are going to be retiring out more than likely, and so that is a big focus for our department is to make sure that we're not just getting projects out just to get projects out, but also building staff up so that there's some redundancy, but also longevity as well.

So you are the only engineer.

I am the only engineer how's when have we had more than two engineers in the department?

Well when have we had two engineers or more?

I think last year until we have to do that.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

I didn't I always thought it was Stan and and like we went years without having multiple engineers.

I mean m prior to last year, I don't remember when there was ever a time that it was just before that.

Okay.

I mean I th I think there's always been one or two.

I think there's I mean we have we have four project engineers budgeted and have for many years.

Is that is that stand and four positions, yes.

Sorry.

The director plus four.

Okay.

And then uh I think in the entire time that I've been here, 14 years, I don't know that we've ever had all five of those positions filled at the same time.

I think there uh have been uh times when we've had four of them filled.

Uh we've had folks leave to other departments, which has been a you know pot net positive really on a lot of things, but we weren't able to backfill those positions.

I think for a lot of for a long time we had um two.

I think we I think we went with two plus the director for a long time, and frankly, I mean I'll look at Matt just because Matt probably remembers the the details more.

If we know if we need more uh details on that, I'm sure we can come to it, but that's the extent of my member.

And I will say that Matt and Billy have both helped pick up the Slack on areas where they are, but I mean they've got their whole other world through having to take care of at the same time.

And so the the goal having having engineers in house means we can do all the design work in house.

We don't have to send it out.

No, it's it's not that.

It's managing projects so that we can actually get projects out the door for construction or in design.

Do you have to be an engineer for that?

You do?

I would recommend that strongly.

Um I mean you don't need to stamp and seal something, but if you don't have the technical expertise on it, I mean it's kind of hard to manage something you don't understand.

That makes sense.

Okay.

That's all I got right now.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Director Kemp.

Yes, I know when I'm at with Stan coming in uh to obviously didn't realize he was retired in the middle of the year, but we had talked about even the project uh that was up for slate for uh Brook and Hill, Jenny Lynn Brook and Hill going up.

Uh are we still slated to put that out for bid this year?

And because I know it's not on this list.

So I don't want to say my knowledge there's not a plan set on uh well let me cr let me step back here, make sure I understand which part you're talking about.

Uh I've heard uh several different concepts on the Brooklyn Hill.

Not Brook and Hill.

Just that Jenny Lynn from that slice going up.

The the the five leaks, for instance, that just got fixed were timely because uh there's a lot of potholes on that road going up, but also wire go resurfacing until you get the leaks fixed.

But now that the leaks are fixed, I think there are people that wonder, you know, that section now being done.

I think it goes from Heather Oaks to Brook and Hill and it's Ginny Lind.

Honestly, I I'll have to dig in and get the project.

I think that I think that overlay project was designed and and nearly ready to go, but I think then we have to start having some of this other discussion of how uh do we adjust that or not.

But I think the overlay portion is designed or at least close to the project.

So if it all I'm just doing is putting this on as a as a representing that, I would say if it if it isn't, I'd love for it to be on the on a list.

Uh I don't want it to see see it being forgotten.

Um year that was I think it might have been a twenty-four uh design project because it was it was ready to well it might have even been in a twenty-three because it's let's see.

Looking through real quick just to see because I've got all the exhibits for those overlays right here.

Because I think the only thing that paused on it was that I was just asking a couple key questions, and then before we could all get collaborative together, uh you know, it it took a it took a back seat if you will.

But I would like to see uh Okay.

So here it is.

It's 2403 F, which um for that one.

Yeah, it's we're showing that uh you've got the 2025 expenditure.

That's showing the design phase on it.

We've got zero money in it, which means it is complete on its design phase.

And so I don't have personal knowledge of the project just because I haven't worked on that portion yet.

Um but we do have the money slated for it's currently slated for uh 2026 and 2027 based on this very preliminary proposal here.

Um it's it's on the agenda at least at this point.

Perfect.

I'd love to be in communication with you guys about it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Do you have anything further?

That is it at this point.

Um the biggest thing as conversations go on, I just want to make sure that we do have that consent decree uh component on a couple of those, just make sure we understand if we do end up letting those slip that we that is work that I am not confident that our city crews, just due to the complexity, are able to do.

And so with that, I would encourage those to make sure that we stay on schedule with those.

I would agree.

So if they're consent agreement.

Just one other one here.

I see on the list.

Is the the Towson Avenue uh G Garrison Zero?

Is that where we're moving our utilities so that we can take our dot?

So we're saying 29 and in 2030?

That's the the best guess.

And some of that, so our the money that engineering department is doing on that is a portion that we're gonna end up paying R Dot.

It's not necessarily construction from the engineering department.

The the part that we're waiting on right now is for uh and Lance, please correct me if I'm misstate misstating this.

I believe we're waiting on funding for utility department right now.

And this is based on the current estimate they have is when we would expect our uh funding to go out to R Dot to do the work for both the roadway and the storm drainage that's along to some.

And is that funding identified at all?

No, I see a head turning.

No, okay.

Yeah.

I mean, is there is there money that R Dot is reimbursing us that we will see come back that can take on that project?

I uh uh at least for the engineering standpoint, we're giving them money as part of their work that they're doing on it.

And so yeah, that's did we get 12 million in congressionally directed funds for that?

No, we did not.

Yeah.

No.

I think it was frozen in the in the Well, and I don't think it was over for the Towson project.

It was it was part of the um transmission line, the 12 million which I don't think we actually got awarded.

We we did apply for a grant.

Um I thought we got it like at the end of 23.

It was like half of the amount we needed.

Here comes Chris.

Here comes Chris with the details.

And WellMak, I thought had four or five million for us, but we didn't ever attach a project to it.

Well we get on to the Walmart.

Oh, yeah, Walmack did he did take care of Towson.

That was uh I'm thinking the transmission line, I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

So uh for my understanding uh in FY24, we had put in uh twelve million dollars for the Towson Avenue project.

But apparently there was discussion between uh Former Minister Gefkin and the Congressman sh then transition that request.

Um I think that was then for the uh water transmission line for section three.

So there was communication that said, hey, take it from here and move it over here.

Uh yes, sir.

And I and I believe the reason for that was because we put in for the what was the name of that uh grant, the uh I want to say clip or DCP.

DC.

Oh yeah, yeah, okay, yes.

So the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, they had the defense community infrastructure program.

And at the time uh when we put in an application that we thought we were gonna get that and we were denied it.

So I believe that's why there was that change.

That was prior to me being here.

So um that's why we do not have it.

Now I can say um as of now we don't have anything for Towson at all.

If that's something that the board wants to uh put in for for uh FY26 or for FY FY27, we can definitely do that.

Um or if we want to go after the DC program again that we can.

Now I will say um we are getting the study done with the mission installation resilience grant uh that we're doing currently with the base, that's going to provide us some recommendations.

But once we have that study in hand, that's that's when I then think we can go after uh money from the DOD.

So my question in this is uh what if we choose not uh uh are we're saying they're saying move the utilities, but if those utilities are operational, is it opportunity to say we're just going to leave them and if they are damaged down the road, we'll fix it like we would any other road in Fort Smith?

I mean, is there a way to forego this?

I mean I know that I love new infrastructure, but I'm sitting here saying if we have other infrastructure older than this infrastructure, what if we just say build your road and we'll we'll handle it as it needs to be.

I thought that's why Towson was so bad as it is.

I mean, since they resurfaced it, but I think that the correct me if I'm wrong, the the leaks and the stuff uh underneath was bad that it deteriorated.

I thought it was their sewer infrastructure that they will upgrade and we're moving our water line.

Lance, do you want away on what are the utilities that need to be moved?

Is R Dot when I went to that meeting at the library, they were boasting about what they were going to do and deepening the you know, all the waterways and all this and that.

So it kind of like they like they were talking about spending their money.

I mean, is the moving of utilities just like just water lines?

So there are a few sewer lines, but the majority are water.

Uh we are working with R DOT to see if there is any chance for reimbursement on this project.

Uh we have found that several, we do have records going back that uh several of the water lines that exist predate Towson Avenue being a state highway, which is definitely in our favor.

But again, this is a give and take, and this is something that actually has just been developing over the last uh seven days with R DOT.

So we are looking at that.

I will tell you that the cost estimate to move the utilities, um, we did ask for an updated one is thirty million dollars.

And that was as of uh Monday, yesterday.

See, and that just makes it feel like it'll be twenty thirty never kind of thing.

I mean, talking about coming up with thirty million dollars to move you know utilities just so that we could have the road finally fixed with the drainage, which arguably is the biggest problem in my opinion.

I don't see water leaks washing Towson Avenue.

I see heavy rains that the system was not built right to handle that, and that's something that's on their dollar.

I'm just sitting here saying, why not just build the road and let us deal with our infrastructure as we need to?

Some of that is because to do the drainage, our pipes are in the way, so they're going to have to do something with them.

Um the other aspect is, and this is again up to the board and and how our dot would look at it, is if we do get an overlay that's supposed to last 10 years before, and then all of a sudden we're having to cut into it a lot to fix leaks, then you've got a patchwork, and we've you know, we have a brand new overlay that has a bunch of weak spots now that we've we've had to do open cut and and things of that nature.

So trying to fix it, be proactive in that aspect with the and and some of this infrastructure goes back to the 40s and 50s, some of these pipes do.

But even then, like I'm just this is me pushing not on you, but on the process that if they're going to be digging, and let's say they go, but we know we have your couple of lines that are you guys got to fix.

And because we're when we get there, we're going to be exposing it.

Where's the 30 million?

Is the 30 million actual pipe cost?

It was uh pipe and uh construction cost is what the estimate is at this time.

Yeah.

Is the pipe really porous?

I mean, it's concrete, uh it's asbestos concrete, it's ductile, it's a it's a hodgepodge of materials that are just past their lifespan.

So that's contributing to the It can contribute to some of the issues, yes.

I mean Tasson was the worst city, worst in the city.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

With that, we will go to uh item number three.

Item number three is an update regarding the 48-inch transmission line project and the late Fort Smith water treatment plant upgrade.

Um the position here.

Um for some of you that have been on the board for a while, uh you're gonna see some information that you may have seen before.

I I felt that we had enough uh new directors on the board that it would be helpful to provide some additional information.

Um the Lee Creek treatment plant was constructed in 1992.

It has a maximum capacity for production of 23.5.

Normally we don't run it over 22.

You don't want to run uh plants to their maximum all the time.

Um it does have a hydrogenerator that does not work at this time.

So that is something that uh we are working with FERC, and we will be bringing things in the budget that are related to that.

Um, I think.

And there that's why we're bringing stuff as FERC is saying, we really want you to get that fixed to generate power.

Um it produces uh in 2024, Lee Creek produced 29 percent of the water produced and sold.

And um during this time of year, if there is not water going over the dam, we have a maximum drawdown or a maximum we could take out a lake of 10 million gallons a day.

Um so that's just some information on that.

Um it does have a 48-inch transmission line.

Uh there is a theoretical pipe capacity of 45 million gallons per day.

Um our total pumping capacity, and this is because of the pumps that we have is 23 and a half, which if you think about that matches what our uh actual capacity for producing water at that plant is.

Um there is room for further expansion of both the dam at Lee Creek to allow more water drawdown during the year, as well as if needed, um, secondary transmission lines.

Lake Fort Smith is our primary treatment plant.

It was constructed originally uh began in 1936, or the early 30s finished around 36.

We did have a major upgrade in 63.

And our final upgrade and renovation that we had finished in 2012.

The plans were actually drafted in 2006 uh for that upgrade, and that was based on a 20-year demands uh projection in 2006.

And that was right after the dam had finished being raised.

So we raised the dam and then we started in on the plant.

Right now the maximum sustainable capacity is 38 to 40 million gallons per day.

And the reason I say sustainable is if we take our filters offline to backwash, we lose the production through that filter during that time frame.

So we do lose some production during that time.

So we are stressing those lines to get 40 MGD through them.

The nice thing is how Lake Fort Smith was built and where it's at is normally we can get about 30 million gallons to gravity feed.

That means no electricity, no moving parts, very little maintenance.

So that's actually a benefit to the city, whereas Lee Creek, every drop has to be pumped.

So every drop has electricity associated with it, has maintenance of a pump associated with it.

Lake Fort Smith during the winter months, we're gravity feeding.

We're not having to do that.

So that keeps costs down.

And 71% of the water that we produced for sale in 2024 was at Lake Fort Smith.

One of the things we do need to discuss is the potential for upgrading Lake Fort Smith.

We're going to be talking about the 48-inch transmission line.

The plant is already hitting max capacity during the year.

One was a 15 million gallon a day increase, and one was the full build-out of 30.

Those estimated numbers that I'm giving you on this slide basically are fairly good numbers.

It just so happens right now, Beaver Water District is expanding their plant, as is Central Arkansas Water.

And depending on what you're looking at, you're looking at the high and low of what the estimate is for those million gallon increases.

It does have some hydraulic issues and definite maintenance issues.

That's well within the area of air, the the what's allowed for air on a meter.

But we would say that one to one one to two percent through a almost hundred-year line is where we're at.

And fixing those leaks are difficult.

We did replace six miles in phase one with the new 48-inch transmission line.

And the question is what are we going to do with as we bring the 48-inch, the rest of the 48-inch online?

Um of the things that we did not have the technology back when the phase one of the transmission line was done that we do now is you can actually slip line water pipe, much like CIPP on a wastewater line.

You can actually line that pipe.

And you're looking at about $2 million per mile for slip lining a water pipe.

That's going to be a lot cheaper than replacing that pipe in the long run.

So what the plan is is to leave the 27 there and as the 48s built, then go back later and slip line both the 27 and the 36 to have about a hundred years worth of life instead of constructing another 48-inch line that would follow the current path of the 36.

So we're looking at ways to save money but provide better infrastructure as time goes on.

Well did I miss out?

Where's the 36?

The 36 is next.

Oh, thank you.

So no, you did not.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Clicker is a little slow.

There we go.

So the 36 was constructed in the 50s and 60s.

It follows a route that's similar.

It does deviate a few places to avoid hydraulic issues.

And it currently carries about 65% of the water from Lake Fort Smith.

We are going to do a loss study on it this fall to see what our water loss is, but we expect it to be equal to or less than what the 27-inch is because the concrete pipe is better.

So Lee Creek and Lake Fort Smith converge in Van Buren at a location.

And then there is a 48-inch line that goes underneath the Arkansas River, and there is a 30-inch transmission line that is attached to the bottom of Midland Bridge.

The theoretical combined capacity of both crossings is 65 million gallons per day.

Now I use theoretical because when we did the math, that's what it came out to be.

But the fact is these pipes are fairly old.

So you end up losing conveyance due to friction.

Additionally, we've talked about the pressure issues tonight.

So you can put a lot of water through a pipe, but it can then blow the rest of your system apart because there's so much pressure.

So we actually operate what comes through those are sitting around 120 PSI.

Your standard water through, you know, what comes into your house is sitting around 60, 70 PSI.

So we're we're running about double that.

Those are the only two places where water can come into Fort Smith.

So here is a map of the transmission line project, all the phases that we currently have.

There are two other phases that we do not have shown here because what those are are interconnects.

One would uh connect to the 48-inch Lee Creek transmission line to allow so if something happened we could push water that direction as well as another internet interconnect into Van Buren.

Those are not as vital as getting the main 48-inch line constructed.

And you can see where we're at with uh that.

I will tell you that uh we actually had a meeting today.

Uh phase three is between 60 and 90 percent in the design phase.

Um phase four, we'll talk about briefly, um, but it is we have not begun design on that, and there is a reason for that.

Phase five, uh administration has asked that I bring a few things on that because we really need to finalize the route on that, and we'll discuss that tonight.

Um this is designed for a hundred years of useful life, and uh it will provide all of the water south of zero street, so from zero street south will come through that.

Um again, phase one is completed, that was six miles, phase two is currently under design.

And when it's 95 percent, the reason it's 95 percent is that other 5 percent is the environmental permitting that we have to have for crossing streams for anything that that requires a permit has to go through that.

And those permits are only good for a year.

So we've we've basically got it designed to the point where once we're ready, once we have the funding for it, we do the final 5% and then bid it out.

Phase three, as I mentioned, is under design.

That route is complete.

Phase four will consist of two 36-inch lines under the Arkansas River.

Um we had talked about either doing one 48-inch or two 36.

Uh doing the risk assessment, two 36s are better because you have redundancy.

If one goes down, you still have water coming through, you make those repairs and then bring it back up.

You can also take one line out to do maintenance while you do keep water flowing and vice versa.

Um five, there are several points of contention on the route.

Umce completed, the 48-inch transmission line will be able to provide 48 million gallons per day, and that is gravity fed.

All 48 million gallons would be gravity fed.

And that's the maximum that we could get through gravity.

And it would take approximately 67% of the water because we were looking at taking the 27-inch offline and having the rest of it supplied by the 36.

Yes.

Yes, it would.

And pump maintenance and things of that nature.

This next slide is a little hard to see, but basically, if unfortunately for those that have their back to it, I can't see the laser.

But the black line is the phase two, phase three, and phase four.

I will point out that there is a phase two A1.

We do have congressionally directed spending dollars for that.

And we'll we'll talk about that, but that's about three miles worth of the pipe that we will be able to install.

That will be 12 million from Congresswoman Womack, I believe it was, and three million that we have to have in match.

So $15 million to build three miles.

Are these funds we can access every year or at least apply for every year?

That I don't think it's a one and done.

I mean I know it's pending approval, but it Yes, ma'am.

So I'll say yes, we can, but it is up to the member to as to whether or not they want to carry our request forward.

So I think that's where we engage the delegation as much as we can.

Um, you know, take them on a tour of the treatment plant, get their eyes and ears on it.

And I think that's how uh we can go to them year after year after year and say, hey, we need this funding.

Um that's that's how we get it.

Now I will say it's not um there are limits to not only what they can submit, but the monetary amount that we can submit for.

Um as Lance said, in FY25, um there there was an issue with the budget, uh, and they had to basically do a continuing resolution, and part of that was all the FY25 year marks that got um approved were they were taken out.

So we were actually uh we paid them for 20 million dollars.

We were only awarded 8.5 of that 20 million that we submitted.

So, and then for FY24, um What's that 8.5 going towards?

Do I?

What was the 8.5 going towards?

Uh it was for the transmission line.

We put in uh a 20 million dollar request and uh so we got 12 plus 8.5?

No.

We got 3 million for the galvanized lines.

Yes.

So we never got the 12?

Yes.

I'm sorry, yes, because they took away that FY25, so we had to resubmit, but we went a different route because they it is just how it worked out.

So um we got three.

Yes.

But now, but then we do have the 12.5 million, where the 12 million from FY24.

So we had that.

So this is in addition to that.

So I was thinking we had the 12 or 12.5 since the end of 23, or I know that's when we started talking about it.

We have we have the 12 million.

Um, and then we have the additional three million that we were awarded this year for FY26.

Okay.

So in total 15, 50 million.

But but that three million is not for the transmission line.

That is for the galvanized pipe.

Which helps us with both compliance with the the revised lead and copper rule and um some fire flow issues that we have in one area of town, as well as leaks.

So we're gonna try for twenty-six.

Well, we're gonna keep trying, is what I think.

Well, I think that's up to the the board and what um the priority is right.

I mean, there are a lot of uh that's up to the board and why um you all want to prioritize prioritize with the request that we submit.

Uh just because we submit is not a guarantee that we are going to get an example of that is this year um for the consolidated uh 911 center, uh we stimulated for five million, and uh Senator Bism doesn't want to carry that through.

So I think too, that's that goes back to the relationship with uh the delegation too.

So okay.

Thank you.

Lance, just before so I'm tracking with you.

On the Lake Fort Smith upgrade, that's not the transmission line now we're talking about here.

This is additional.

This is additional.

So the the transmission line I've heard about that hundred and is it 170 million?

We'll we'll get into some pricing here in a bit on it.

Okay, but that's not counting the hundred and eighty million back at Lake Fort Smith.

Correct.

So you know, if you got a pipe and you don't have the water to put in the pipe, you've got an empty pipe.

Yeah, that's a lot.

So it's kind of and the reason and this has been mentioned a couple of times uh to the board, but it's it's chicken or egg.

If you build the the plant and then you have to mothball it because you can't use it, you've got a lot of resources that are aging out and the infrastructure is never being used.

So you want to have those kind of completed around the same time.

I'll go ahead and continue if that's all right.

Thanks, Chris.

This is phase five.

Um the bottom line where it sh it has the arrow that says uh little Vashy uh Vash the creek at the bottom.

That's easy for everybody else to say except for me.

That's actually the direction that the transmission line will be going, will go south.

We will have a line that goes up uh Frontier Road.

Um will also go to Painter Lane and up, but this this is one dark one that has phase five point uh kind of pointed out, that has gone away.

Um so here's kind of where we're at with each phase.

First thing.

I can ask you a question on that, because I was in a Little Rock meeting on this.

Uh Jeff, did are they going to allow us to not go along that road there?

Is that what I'm or is that why that's removed then?

Because I remember we talked to them about the idea.

I don't think I don't think that's it.

I mean, you're talking more along up there on Frontier Lane where it goes around.

Yeah, we're just talking about instead of this unnecessary jagged run-up if they would let the range.

I think they are willing to do that.

We haven't accomplished that with them yet, though.

Okay, thank you.

That it goes around their um facility out there uh near Barling.

It goes around the back side of it instead of going along the front along Frontier Rail.

Yeah, I just asked, I just wanted to see like if that's indeed are they favorable because it's drawn to go behind it instead of in front of it.

Thank you.

I believe at this point in time if and um this actually shows it going in front.

Is that front?

Yeah.

This is the front portion here.

This actually is us coming up to where it would go in the front.

Correct?

So Ben works uh also for the engineering firm that uh was helping us with this.

Which one is the last one?

The right one.

So he's talking about this portion right here, and our dot is located at this point right here.

And so we're actually actively going to be getting survey on this area sometime in the next week or two to as Ardod has come back and said initially for the last seven years have said no, no, no, but in the last year they've changed and have come back and said yes, we'll allow you to go that way.

Hurry up and do it.

Thank you.

So state on the frontier lane.

Yes, right right here.

Okay.

And up.

Is it cost savings?

To go to go this up frontier road, yes.

Okay.

That's what we asked.

That will be a huge cost savings, and it will be a lot easier to construct.

Because right up here, if I'm not mistaken, is a cemetery.

So we would be right up against a cemetery that and other issues.

And also the the as it drops down and heads back to Frontier Road, that there's actually a development there now.

Yeah.

So long.

There we go.

So this is kind of where we're at with each phase.

We've already talked a little bit about it.

Um Part 2A, that will actually, we are hoping that that goes out to bid the end of this year, first of next year.

We're working with EPA who actually holds the grant on that.

Um we are the environmental work is pretty much done.

Uh we're submitting the work plan in the next couple of weeks, which is a requirement.

And then once everything is is good and they're happy with it, then we will send it out for bid.

You said EPA grant?

EPA holds the money for this project.

So the congressionally directed spending was then given to EPA for this grant.

So I know we'll be in DC in a month.

Do we need to talk about that with our when we meet with EVA?

I really I mean we're on track where we need to be on this.

So yeah, this this is just this is how long it takes to do that because you we're also dealing making sure that when we put out the bid documents, we have all the required federal language such as uh BABA, uh Davis Bacon, prevailing wage, uh NEPA, all of that is rolled in so that we we do we're making sure we are crossing our I's and dotting our T's with that, and it just takes some extra time.

2B, uh which is the remaining uh 9.3 miles, needs funding.

Um phase three, which is 8.9 miles, it again is under um design.

We're in between 60 and 90.

We have all but two easements, I believe, uh done, if I remember right.

Um so we're getting that.

In fact, part of uh phase three is actually under construction right now.

Uh we are putting in a casing.

This is part of the requirement that R Dot had for I-49.

It's a 100 percent reimbursable cost, so that R Dot's actually paying for our casing for that.

Uh four is the 2.1 miles that will be uh underneath the river, and that one gets a little tricky because we're gonna actually have to bring on the contractor while we're doing the design.

This is we're gonna be dealing with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Defense, the National Guard, and levy associations, because we have to board underneath the levee, underneath the river, back up to the other side.

And they really have said we want your contractor here to be part of this design and part of the discussion.

So uh if you go for those of you that were here when we did uh the 2019 um repair for the flood, and we did CMAR on a couple of the projects, this will be much like that, having the construction manager there with us.

And then phase five is four po is approximately 4.2 mile, not uh 4.2 miles, and we need to kind of finish up the route, get it established, and then fund it.

Now one of the issues that we have on the route, and this is really I think our last major issue, if I'm not mistaken, is an alignment with ARCS.

Um you'll see that there are several given.

Uh the light, this light blue one, there are actually developments there underway right now.

Uh the yellow, there isn't.

The pink gives us a a very large challenge because that goes through some wetlands.

So you're looking at environmental issues.

This darker blue is really the best way to handle it.

It is going to be the easiest to construct.

Uh in a moment I'll show you the cost estimates.

It will be the least costly.

And in future, it will be easier to maintain.

Um what our dot had, or not sorry, not our dot, ArcBest had proposed was placing it under the road and coming up and going this route.

Um there's a lot of problems with that.

Number one, if you've got a transmission line underneath the road, it's really hard to do maintenance on it without tearing the road up.

When you look at the overall conclusion.

Well, that's good.

Um, this is important to do this.

Well uh Okay.

Let's try one hit.

Okay.

So when you look at it, the yellow and dark blue is about 4.9 million, whereas the green is 7.1 million.

And I'm trying to deliver this as economically as possible.

And I know uh Mr.

Dingman said that he may have a few words to discuss on this, so I'll turn this section over to Mr.

Dingman.

No, I'll just say if you go back to that other slide, Lance.

Um it shows the map.

Yeah, well we have we have talked with ArcBest, and they are aware of this.

Of course, they prefer, you know, if we choose another I mean, because they um ArcBest owns the property that's on the lighter colored on the was it the west, and then they also own the proper all that property that's on the east there of that dark blue line.

And you know, they have they have designs on developing that piece of property and perhaps op for offering it for sale, whether they uh use it for their for ARC best purposes or not.

I think currently they're most mo most likely going to develop it for some commercial use or something like that.

Of course, and then they would they would much rather not have that line encumbered, you know, right through the middle or right along the property line there.

However, um, you know putting that line right along the the property line does does prevent uh any structures or anything on it, but it but it doesn't prevent things like uh parking lots and sidewalks and things like that that are um that are typically uh uh involved on the edge of a development like that.

And so um that but I'm just just so you were aware, ArcBest has has indicated at least the folks we've talked with, well, not not uh not an official company statement, that sort of thing, but at least our initial discussions, they would certainly like for us to consider another alternative.

And but the the problem with that is as Lance has shown is that the other alternatives then become more and more expensive.

And harder to maintain as we and install in the first place.

Yes.

Just about.

So this is where the these three lines pick up.

Cool.

Um where these three lines pick up uh are where whichever route we go, ARC best does.

And looking at this, um we actually ask for opinions and and and routes.

This kind of orange brown one is the one that we're gonna go.

We already own the property.

Now this isn't a final alignment.

We need to go uh actually north of the pump station, but it will be the easiest to build because we already own the property.

It's not we don't have to get easements, and we're going to have the best operations where we tie in to the lines in Mazard near that pump station.

So here's the estimated uh construction cost for each phase and what the total would be.

And again, this is a range, it is not um uh a solid dollar amount because construction fees change and when we're looking at where we're at.

Um phase four, I know it seems to be the shortest amount, but there's a lot of of permitting that will go into it, and the boar is not going to be cheap.

Um phase three, you're looking about the same distance as what you're looking in 2B, but the difference is you don't have mountainous terrain, you're looking at basically open fields.

It's going through the bottoms.

So it's a lot easier to construct that.

Phase five, you're going to be in a more developed area, so there's a lot of of mitigation that you take into effect there.

So in conclusion, um the capacity upgrade, and I put for the full 30 million.

Uh talking with an engineer today, um, he said right now the prices for doing construction um on plants based on what they're seeing with beaver water as well as CAW are just nuts.

They would have never thought it cost uh this much to upgrade, but it is, and they said they don't see that dropping.

So I I put that estimated cost, the transmission estimated cost, and if we're looking at the total water supply cost, which includes the plant and the transmission line, we're looking at between $328 to $585 million.

We are looking for funding uh as uh Chris had discussed, we're looking at grants um that are tied to the military as well as congressionally directed spending.

Um they're gonna I mean that's that's the uh $585 million question.

But that um you're not gonna get all that through congressionally directed funds.

Well, we would not.

Um let's say, let's say you had $585 million right now.

Um what would the time frame be to get all this done?

Um I'm looking at six to eight years.

Six to eight years.

And I'm fully funded if it were fully funded.

Fully funded, um and that's being conservative six to eight years.

Could it be done quicker?

The transmission line probably could be done in five to six years.

That would be pushing it with phase four, to be truthful with you.

Five to six years for the transmission line and another.

That's the pushing it.

Um, we saw where we built where we designed and had the construction of Lake Fort Smith uh began in 2006, it ended in 2012.

That was designed to end to construction.

So if we had all the money, we could again being conservative six to eight years is a reasonable time frame.

Okay.

And I think the original impetus for me asking about this was related to the prison.

And um them wanting water and um looking at okay, what would that cost be in order to be able to do this?

Because I mean that this is this is just to service the Fort Smith and the growth of Fort Smith with not an anticipation of a 3,000-bed prison.

Would this would this serve a 3,000-bed prison?

It could.

Without adding any additional capacity?

Well, that that's again the tra the uh capacity to the treatment plant, that would would be the additional capacity there.

So that would be the 30 million gallon per day.

Because you are only looking at, I believe their estimates were 500 to a million gallons a day maximum.

Okay.

So if you're looking at adding 30 million gallons and being able to, you know, if you think about that, that would bring our entire dry weather um capacity up to um anywhere from 60 to 80 million gallons a day that we could produce in transport.

Okay.

So six to eight years right now if you were fully funded.

If we were fully funded.

And are you fully funded?

No.

Okay.

Yeah.

And I'll I'll just jump back real quick.

Um right to here.

Um we have 12 million and we have three million sitting there for the match.

Right.

We have 15 million, and that's just for the transmission line.

We need funding for everything else.

So design is funding.

Right.

So if you if you had it or it in terms of funding, what would funding let's say rates funded this?

Or would would rates fund this or would you have a bond it out?

It would bond it out because rates alone just to do pay as you go cash.

Would be as insane as what we saw on the CD.

Um I would have to get with our CFO.

I've I've got some preliminary numbers, but I would rather have them fleshed out by Andy, who is very knowledgeable in these types of things.

I mean, I guess thought processes would be you'd bond it out, but you would still have to have some kind of rate backing of some sort.

Yes, you would do that.

So you'd have a you would have a rate increase of some sort.

Yeah, because you're not going to be able to do that.

Or a sales tax increase.

We would do a larger large bond issue, but then we would have to finance the debt service of that every year with a with a rate probably.

And you brought up another way that it could could also be funded, and I know nobody likes to talk about tax, but uh you know, the original dam and the upgrade to the plant were funded by sales and use tax.

And I believe it was a one percent.

And we paid that off very early.

I don't remember how early, but I think that uh the that financing, of course, I would I think that financing was all done in 2012.

I think that was all completed then.

And so then it was reissued and refunded for for additional projects?

Yeah.

So we're basically saying right now at this point.

Uh you've got it in here somewhere is the total I think I think I saw it.

It's uh for how much is how much is unfunded?

How much is unfunded?

570 million?

No, it's but it's where my head's at the end.

It's not far from there.

Well, if if it's if it's max cost, it's 570.

Well, no, no.

But we have got some funding.

Well, that that's why I said if it's max cost, you take out the 15 million.

So drop 585 or 585 minus 15 gives us 570.

570, okay.

So 57, okay, yeah, you're right.

That would be maximum cost.

That's uh that's a lot.

I mean, that's consent decree-esque.

Director Savage.

Christina?

The two thirty-six-inch lines going boring through under the river, is the Corps going to approve that, the Corps of Engineers?

They should.

I mean, they were confident?

Yeah.

I mean, we have already been in talks with them.

That's why we know we have to have the uh construction manager on site and be ready to uh to go during the design.

I mean, they're gonna we're gonna have to bring in the construction manager when we start the design to sit down because the court has to approve everything and they need to have the faith that the construction manager is capable of doing this without undermining the levy and without uh having any impacts to the bottom of the river.

And one of the things that we are looking at, and please collect correct me if I'm wrong, but there is bedrock under the river, and we're wanting to kind of bore so that that pipe is laying very close to that bedrock because of the additional stability.

So that that puts it well below the uh 12 or even 16-foot channel that has been discussed in the past.

So my uh understanding when I had spoken with Carl about this last year was that we had already paid for the design to come across the bridge and then backed out on that.

Is that correct?

What was the reasoning for that?

Well part of the reasoning was the engineering estimates from both R.T.

The person who won the design on the bridge, and then the line was ancillary, came in at well over that.

So it we just did not have the 12 million dollars needed to attach it to the bridge at that time.

So it it had to go at that time.

And uh one other thing to kind of speak to that, that would just get us car across the the river portion of the that 2.1 miles, and so we were still looking at I can't remember what the amount was, like 1.8 miles worth of pipe.

And so the the cost on it just did not play out what we were seeing compared to what the the boring costs would be for an equivalent.

Um and also there's some operation and safety of the line.

If you're able to bore all the way from Levee to the other side of the river, you're limiting on um because we'd have to have a high point in the middle of the the river area, which would cause uh kind of a weak spot and a maintenance issue due to and so there's some of that that is decision made on safety and how the line is going to be operated as well in addition to the money portion.

So if it doesn't go attached to the bridge, the only other option is to bore into the river, or could it it could it go on its own?

Not attached to the bridge.

No.

Yeah, that was a one-time shot with RDOT, and so once that opportunity passed, then we don't have an option to come back because they had to there's no like uh building a bridge just for the water line.

I mean, I guess you could do that, but that would be more expensive, definitely.

Yes, yeah.

Because you'd have to come back with and do piles and build a support structure and everything else on top of it, in addition to just the pipe, and so your the amount of material and and uh labor on that would just be exponentially more than what just the the pipe going underneath would be.

Okay, thank you.

Director.

Directed camp and then directing Neil More.

Uh thank you for answering those questions.

I've had a couple companies speak caution to me that that perhaps the Corps of Engineers is not going to support this idea of taking the two 36-inch lines into the river.

Is there a way to get a consensus from them?

Because before the opportunity passes us, I mean, if if I hear what I'm saying is the bridge thing moves on, and if indevitable that we're trying to be asked to supply water, say even just to Charleston, forget you know the idea of the future growth.

Uh at some point or another, uh, and you have to go back to the bridge, I think we are going to want to know we need to have that conversation sooner than later.

And I think finding out a determination is the Corps of Engineers really cooperative as we hope they are.

Yeah.

So our group out of Houston do and let's get one thing clear.

Uh the Corps of Engineers group that is in Little Rock, they don't do this.

They they kick this out to the Galveston group because they just don't have experience to even manage this type of review for this type of project.

And so the Galveston group is the one out of the core engineer core of engineers that will end up doing the reviews on these.

We have a group that literally this is what they do day in and day out.

And one of the other reasons why we didn't choose a single 48, uh one of the things you want to do in engineering is never be the first.

Um you can you can send a 48-inch line that far, but it might be a worldwide record or at least a North American record, and you don't want to be that.

At least in when you're being conservative with engineering.

And so they have shot 36-inch lines this distance, and that's not the concern.

It's once you start getting bigger that and you start limiting what companies can actually do the work as well.

And so even with a 36-inch, you're limiting, you know, how many companies, I mean, you can't you're probably not going to find somebody in Arkansas that's doing this.

You'll find somebody in Texas.

Uh but uh you go down to the Galveston group, and the reason why they're so familiar with this work is because of all the oil and gas pipelines.

They can't have their oil and gas lines punching through all their levees and everything else down there, and so they're constantly doing this type of work down there to be able to be able to import and export oil through petroleum lines, and so they're familiar with this work.

Thank you for speaking to that.

Lance, the question I had too was based right out of the water meter discussion we were talking about.

How old are the water meters?

My understanding is that the when we supply the outside of town but before us communities with water, uh, those are metered, right?

They we know exactly what they get how how old are those meters?

I will have to go and look to see what each one is.

Um Buren's is fairly new.

Uh and when I say fairly new within the last, I think three to four years.

Um, and they have had theirs tested.

It is a turbine meter.

Uh, they are putting one in that is going to be ultrasonic.

Um, but when we so what we did is we have the meter, a magmeter, which is very accurate, that leaves Lake Fort Smith.

We diverted all the water uh to the 27-inch, and then we set up a meter at the end of the 27-inch to see what the water flow was.

Um we actually sent crews up to manually meet the read the meters, and they started at the plant with that reading and looked at the time frame at which it took to get to all the other meters that are tied into the 27 and get that back to Fort Smith to read the the end meter.

Then we did it on another day, and that's how we saw that.

So with the fact that it's 1.7 percent.

Oh, I'm not even thinking about the pipe, but I'm more thinking about the billing size of the city.

Well, but that's where I'm going to be able to do that.

If we're seeing a 1.7 percent water loss, and we know that an accurate meter is plus or minus 1 to 1.5 percent, depending upon the age.

You know, that we're talking 0.2 off.

Um it doesn't mean that we don't need to look at that and change those meters out and make sure that they are accurate.

The direct retail customers that we have that come off of that, those have been changed out in the last um five to ten years.

So those are good.

It's I agree that our commercial our wholesale customers, we need to look at those meters and the age of them.

Well, that was just you know, on a way to gain a little revenue, it won't solve the world's problems.

And I think the concern too I have about these numbers, and my only final comment would be depreciation or I'm not sorry, not depreciation, inflation factored into these prices.

I mean, if it's six to eight years and then we get to it, is it not 585 and it's it's more than that?

Um, we this is this is kind of that's why there's kind of a range right now.

We we tried to do a little bit of that, but the aspect that we had in 2019, I think we were looking at, and this was April of 2019, the engineer estimate to complete the project was sitting at about 80, 75 to 80 million, and you know, now we're looking at 148 to 225 million.

So, you know, COVID, inflation, all of that does have the ability to have an impact.

Now, we have seen some cost of materials decrease, but for how long that will track is the question.

And one other thing on this range, uh the range also takes into account that if we're using Federal funding for it or state supplied funding, it is a more expensive project because we do have the BABA, the prevailing wage, Davis Bacon, all these federal requirements that we have to adhere to as opposed to um if it is bond funded, we don't have to follow as many stringent Federal guidelines that drive the price up.

Yeah.

I just I hope that we can find and continue this discussion, because uh I hate to see 585 become 700 million.

Thank you.

Um I guess the co the last question I have is you let's say the board.

You need funding.

You would I'm assuming you would come to the board for that.

What what would that look like?

When would it look?

When would we hear something like that?

I need funding.

I mean, I mean, I mean I'm about to talk about I'm being serious.

Uh I am too.

I mean, we're we're to the point where we are maxing out several days during the summer months.

We are maxing out our plant and the conveyance.

And one thing I I know Director Settle would probably have asked is what are we supplying on an average day to our contract water users?

Right.

Um average day, and I I this is 24 numbers.

This isn't, you know, these are actual numbers of what we supplied was 10 point oh five million gallons a day is the average day.

To outside customers.

To outside customers, to to our wholesale customers.

That's a quarter.

So that is a quarter of what Lake Fort Smith can produce as a maximum.

Um it's one-fifth of what 20 percent of that.

The issue is that is a daily average.

If you look at peak times, we hit 50 MGD.

We're put and and you know, earlier this month, for two weeks, we were putting out forty-eight to fifty MGD.

In fact, at one point we actually were draining our clear wells at the plants because we're putting out fifty-one due to the demand of of everybody.

And we were and and that was while we were trying to fill our tanks as well to get back to the.

I mean, the the the thing to think about is the folks just had a water rate increase.

They had a sewer rate increase.

And this is another consent decree, which is I mean, in terms of costs.

I mean, we're talking $30 million on a one cent sales tax plus rates.

I mean uh the I mean looking at this as this is pretty massive that you can't just come to me next week next board meeting and say, hey, let's have a one cent sales tax and a uh uh three three and a half percent rate increase.

It just it just won't work.

And that's why I'm I'm grateful that you asked to have this discussion.

Right.

I mean, this is this is this is massive.

And when you all go to Washington, why don't you corner our senators and talk about it?

And tell them to give me six hundred million dollars?

I mean we do every time we advocate for money for these projects.

Every I mean every time I've been there, we have I'm thankful for twelve million dollars.

I'm thankful for five million dollars.

That's awesome, but a lot of times we have to put a 20 percent match and we don't always have the money to do that.

Or invite them down here, saying let's spend a nine and tell them around our problem.

I I'm great.

I d if if if we can get the money.

So so Womac gave away a hundred million dollars for his entire district last year.

Bentonville, Springdale, Rogers, Fort Smith, Greenwood.

That's that's a far cry from what we what we need here.

I think it's time that the State actually has a real conversation with the at least administration, but I mean if if we're talking about a million gallons of water being added to our demand, and you see this conversation here, it's it's a it's money talks.

You know, where's the dollars here?

Um, you know, and I think also the if we talk about bonding us, and I mean I I know we've talked about outside rates and users.

Um, you know, that they can there's a limit of what we can do there.

But I'm I'm just thinking if we start talking about a bond conversation, I mean it's not just beneficial to us.

I mean, they need us.

I mean, otherwise if we did it on revenue, their revenue would we would their rates would go up as well.

Okay.

Um the same percentage as what in in town would be, because it would be they are getting a benefit from it.

So yeah, that would be our revenue should be increasing, right?

Why why don't we that kind of usage the we'll see what we get on revenue at the end of the year.

My concern is, you know, again, we have to have a debt service coverage that would cover this type of and you're not going to get it from what we what we just raised.

Even with new customers.

Even with new customers.

Yeah.

What we may do is take a study session and study in depth what we need and when we need it.

And then do an honest assessment on the things we can do to get there.

Because the problem is not going away.

No.

It's going to only get worse.

Uh Director Christian Cassaves, you recognize.

So Lance, how much would it have cost to take the line across the bridge while it was being constructed?

They were looking at 11 to 12 million down.

Now I will state that they had two bids for the bridge.

But we had Bozeman's 12 million, didn't we?

But it was it it's specifically earmarked for that portion of the transmission line.

You can't say, well, we're going to take it and put it over here for this.

It was specifically earmarked and it has to be used for that.

But we we put the request into Bozeman, right?

So why didn't we put that request in for this if we knew that was coming up?

When we put that request in, we did not know that that was coming up, and we also didn't know the price.

Okay.

There were actually two bids for that water line.

One was five million, was right on what R Dot and Burns and Mac both said, but their bridge was higher.

What R Dot looked at was the price of the bridge, and they really didn't care what the price of the transmission line was.

And the transmission line for the second one, the bridge was less, but the transmission line was over double what the other bid was.

So I just think under the premise of it's never too late for a good idea, though.

Excuse me, I still have the floor.

We could have come up with five million dollars, right?

Five million would have been a stretch, but yes, but the 12 million that it was going to take is where the we just did not have that.

Well, I think I think it proved out that we weren't I mean the idea of putting it on the bridge is can we save some money by putting this water line on the bridge?

And I think that proved out that it will that was not going to happen.

And even even as we looked at the alternatives of the 148-inch or the 236 inches under under the bridge, if you if we bore both of those lines under the bridge, we don't have ongoing maintenance issues as much as we would have on the bridge, because that would that is a that is a constant concern also.

If we have a water you know a 30-inch water line suspended in the air on a bridge, there's constant maintenance required for that.

Plus the fact that they're building the bridge right now, they're starting it right now.

We wouldn't have water to it for probably five years from now, because that's how long it will take to get the rest of the pipe down to it if we started right now.

And so that that was a problem also.

And so by going by the by letting them go ahead with their bridge project and then still planning on doing the two thirty-six-inch bores, we can do that on our own schedule when we have the dollars for it, instead of building a you know, a section of of water line that hangs on a bridge for five years before we can put a drop of water into it.

But there wasn't a lot of people.

One other thing.

Um, and this is not something that has been brought up a lot, but um the pipe on the bridge, even though it was going to be a 36-inch pipe, uh hydraulically the amount of water it could convey was going to be significantly less than what we can convey under the river.

And kind of trying to speak engineering terms here, um what was happening is we were going to have to bring it up and do a 90-degree turn on it.

And so whenever we do that design on that, um one of the things we're always concerned about is surge pressures with if a pump kicks on or if a pump um kicks off.

And and the best way to kind of think about this is if you're in an old house and you turn off the faucet real quick and you hear those pipes start doing this number.

Well, that's the the concern that we would have with the same pipe on the the bridge itself.

And so with that, we were one of the components that we were working on was actually limiting the flow on it so that we would not have those surge pressures.

I mean, we had concerns, some of the design on it was if we had a bad surge pressure hit and just a break in a certain place, we could potentially blow part of the pipe through the deck of the bridge.

I mean, it was that type of concern that we were we were having.

And so with that, we had to to lower the amount, and I think we were roughly sitting, if I remember correctly, about half the amount of flow that we could actually get through the pipe on the bridge.

And so some of this from an engineering standpoint was a little bit of trying to hammer square peg into a round hole because we thought we were going to get some cost savings out of it, which unfortunately turned out to be not correct from that standpoint.

Right.

And the other part of that is even if we put the 36-inch line on the bridge, we still would need to bore a 36-inch line under the under the bridge so that we could carry all the water that's coming down from the 48, split it to the two different to the two different avenues, and then marry it back up on the other side, which we'll do with the two thirty-six inches to 36s as they are, but that was going to be a problem as well.

And so uh for all of those issues, there are there are a lot of there are a lot of good reasons to put both of our lines under under the bridge, under the river instead of having one of them go on the bridge.

Correct.

Yeah, and and just for keeping the back of your mind, we did ask to put a 48 on the bridge, and our dot came back very quickly and said, absolutely not too much weight.

Because they were that was one of the considerations they were looking at is how much weight was getting added to the bridge by the water.

Because water weighs a lot, and especially when you add the steel pipe and uh they're gonna have to put a catwalk on there, and it was just a lot of additional work for them as well that was it wasn't just a water line, it was a catwalk.

It was the additional weight, uh the additional girders, how thick they were gonna have to make them for the bridge itself, and so when we looked at the total overall cost of building the the the pipe on the bridge and the and doing the 36-inch bore, it was significantly more cost than just doing the two thirty-six inch, and it was by you know the by a 25 percent more or more than that to then to uh it would be way much more efficient to just put the two lines under the bri under the river.

And since we were all many companies are there that can bore under a river.

I imagine this is highly technical, and there's not there's not a lot of people that can do something like this.

And I know it's a limited field.

I don't know because I mean as you get to the bigger pipelines, this is not something I do.

I'm relying on uh another technical guy down in Houston that does this work, but I do know that the field is limited.

Um and one of the things we were looking at is since we were already going to have to do another 36 under the river, you're gonna get some quantity of scale by running they're already going to be set up, they're already going to have the equipment here, so you don't have to pay the mobilization and all that other payment that you would have to have just to get the contractor set up to go ahead and install the the second 36-inch line.

And so there's the hope is that you know that's going to be a cheaper approach just due to since we're already having to do it.

Let's just do two of them at that point.

I mean, how how bad are our problems that we need a six hundred million dollar fix?

You know, I mean I feel like Lance.

Well, I'll I'll speak to that something too.

I mean, one of the one of Lance's slides showed that section of mid of near Midland, uh near Van Buren, where we have the uh you know all of the water that comes into Fort Smith comes in two pipes right now.

One of them is on the Midland Bridge, one of them is under the Arkansas River, but that is all the water that comes into Fort Smith and then gets distributed throughout the town and to all of our wholesale customers to the South.

That and that's you know, that those pipes are well how does it say how old they are?

Well, 1950s was the 48-inch and the uh the 30 inch on the bottom of Midland Bridge was 1967.

I mean, so that that is an issue in and of itself, and you and you're limited as to what we can push across there.

I mean, not necessarily because of these, but also because of the pressure uh in implications when the when the water gets into town.

And so the part of the $600 million fix is to add an entry point of water on the southeast part portion of town that start filling back into the town from that direction, and to add that redundancy.

I mean it is a long-term planning benefit to have more than one point of entry for the water.

So, you know, we've got aging infrastructure, we've got water meters that need replace, we've got the consent decree, we've got the day-to-day operations.

Now we're looking at this.

I mean, this is a lot for one person to handle.

I mean, right?

I mean, that's a lot on you, Lance.

Well, and I appreciate that.

I don't do it alone.

I do have deputies that that work on this.

So I actually had uh two of my deputies in the the briefing this morning that we had on this.

Um, but yeah, there's a lot that that goes into this planning and it I mean I've kind of been doing it for six years now and kind of gotten used to uh the stress of it.

But uh there is a lot on, you know, like you said, there are the meters, but I have a another deputy that deals with that, uh Kenny Hall, who has people that that you know report up to him the consent decree that has been more of my focus.

I've let Jimmy Johnson uh really focus more on the transmission line over the last couple of years because acting city administrator Dingman will tell you, uh, you know, getting a a favorable negotiated settlement and and agreement on the consent decree, I believe has been one of the main focuses that the board has had.

So working with uh with my contacts in Little Rock as well as um in the Federal Government, uh making sure that we're providing them the information they need to help us and work collaboratively has been really more my focus, and I'm I'm more in a directive and coordinative role on those other items.

I mean, really our progress with the consent decree is what informs our ability to do any other project.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

And Mayor, I don't have a question, but I do want to speak real quick to the funding component, because that's been a question obviously that has been asked.

So from a federal perspective right now, um the administration has a different take on grant funding.

And any municipality throughout America could tell you right now that it is bone-dry when it comes to finding funding.

Now, will that change?

Yes.

I believe that will change because with every administration you have new priorities, you have new um goals and objectives, and I think you're gonna start to see some funding programs come down the pipeline uh through the various agencies.

I think one two great things that we have in our back pocket, three really four uh is one, we have Ebbing Air National Guard base, two, we have uh Fort Chaffee, three, we serve rural municipalities, and number four, one of those municipalities crosses a state jurisdictional line.

All those things combined opens us up to some funding.

It's just a matter of uh uh finding that.

Um speaking of the ebbing, uh, for example, right now we are doing the mission installation resilience study.

We have contractors who are coming in studying everything as to how we can make the base more resilient.

Um we will then be able to take that report to the DOD uh and other agencies and say, hey, uh this contractor did this that this work, this is mission critical for uh the security and defense of the United States and you know what can be available.

Now the the sources of the fund though the of that the the sources of those funding, um I will have to let our contractors speak to because they are experts in this, they've done this before, and they've done this with the municipalities throughout the United States.

So that there are things coming down the pipeline.

Um I think from a innovation perspective, we do have a real opportunity um to not only for our congressional delegation to lead, but to take to the Trump Evan's administration.

Uh the administration is looking for innovation.

And I, you know, when it c rule rural uh grants, for example.

So considering that we serve rural municipalities, one problem that we ran into is there's a lot of money out there or there's a limited amount of money out there right now for uh municipalities that are rural uh that have a small population, there is money galore for that infrastructure for the plants, and Lance can attest to that.

I think one thing that we need to approach and bridge and be innovative in is how can we um if we have these 13, 14 other municipalities that are rule, how can we uh go to the administration and say, hey, we are not the only municipality that's like this in America.

Every municipality throughout the United States is facing um the same problems we are when it comes to funding their water and waste water infrastructure.

So I really think that we can be I don't want to say a test pilot, but uh if we can come up with some solutions and say, hey, you know, there is this federal funding uh that we know is typically um only a word or two rural municipalities, but we believe we should be eligible for that money because if we serve them, then we should.

I think um also when it comes to the jurisdictional lines, you know, uh the government is always looking for partnerships.

And I think if we could uh come up with a um if there's a project that we can find that would uh you could tie to economic development uh that would maybe cross into Oklahoma uh, you know, you know, uh uh lead to an opportunity zone, something like that.

I think those are other ways that we can help fund this transmission line and help fund this this treatment plan.

So um it's not that there isn't stuff out there, there is.

Uh it's limited.

Um we are in the process of uh doing studies in order to take that to funding agencies and see what can come from that.

So you mentioned the DOD.

Who here has a relationship with the DOD to be able to do that?

Because largely with the FMS project, we're pretty hands-off.

And I know we talked about it at our strategic planning session, having uh a military liaison for the city, and I think that's a good idea because like you just said, we can use that for additional funding opportunities, but largely the board has no uh you know involvement in this project.

So who could go to the DOD?

Would that be Jeff?

Would that be do you have a relationship?

I mean, have we is that a relationship we've tried to build?

Uh we have uh Sharon Judd with the Roosevelt Drupal, the Roosevelt group.

He uh contracts with us and he contracts with the chamber as well for really anything FMS related, they focus on on those types of relationships.

So have we talked to him about he or she couldn't have to be judd?

Yes, and and that we have we have an established relationship.

They're they're essentially a lobbyist firm uh that are working on our behalf.

Who do who have we met with when we've been up there?

Who is that individual?

That was a different group.

That was a different group.

Uh the Roosevelt group we've just worked at with within the last year.

They have they have more uh direct contact with Department of Defense specifically.

Okay.

Um they can advocate for us.

So we'll we be meeting with them when we're there.

Yes, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um I would also say too, we we are in contact with the Office of Local Defense Committee cooperation.

That's one of the agencies I mentioned earlier that could maybe possibly go to fund some of the some of the projects uh as it's related to base.

That's what the this uh mission installation resilience study is being funded through, um the noise mitigation grant that we got for the schools.

So uh we they can hopefully lead us to maybe some other contacts.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

And I would say too, uh this goes back also to the congressional delegation um and leveraging the um contacts that they have.

You know, Senator uh Cotton is the uh chairman of the Intel committee.

He's also a former um army man, so he he's very has very good contacts within the DOD.

Um, you know, Senator Bozeman is on the MILCOM MILCON subdu subcommittee of the preparations committee, and you know, Congressman Woolmack um, you know, he is on the preparations committee right now.

Uh he's the thud chair.

Uh I know that there may be some possibility of him transitioning to uh another chairman and chairmanship getting a different gavel.

So I think all those things combined, we just have to leverage uh their um their representation in DC.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sure you looked at the preliminary agenda with that.

I will say one just one last thing, city offices will be closed on Monday, Labor Day.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you for tonight.

All night long.