Good evening and welcome to the force of Mississippi Board of Directors regular meeting on this November 4th of 2025.

This year is rapidly coming to a close.

Keep in mind these meetings are being televised live for the benefit of our residents who cannot be with us in person.

So with that, I'll do the invocation and I'll ask Director George Gossavers to lead us in the pledge.

Would you bow with me, please?

Most gracious God, we come again, thanking you for all the wonderful things you've done for our city.

We pray that you will be with us as we discuss the business of our city.

There's growth and tremendous development is taking place.

Father, we ask that you would be those be with those that are suffering during this period of time.

These are all other blessings.

We ask in your sign Jesus' name, and we pray.

Amen.

One motion under God.

Thank you very much.

Madam Klerk, if you would please call the roll.

Directors Rego.

Here.

Good.

Kim?

Here.

George Kitsavis?

Here.

Christina Kitzavis?

Here.

Settled.

Here.

Martin.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

At this time I'll ask if there's any member of the board of directors that may have any item of business not already on the agenda for this meeting.

Okay.

Seeing none.

This time we'll ask for approval of the minutes of the October 21st, 2025 regular meeting.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

All right.

Thank you.

This time we'll go to the first item on the agenda.

Mr.

Dingman, you recognize.

Thank you, Mayor.

The first item tonight is an ordinance rezoning property at 5724 Wheeler Avenue.

Deputy City Administrator Maggie Rice will address this item.

Yes, on October 14th, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider the subject master land use plan amendment and rezoning applications.

There were no neighboring property owners in attendance.

At the planning commission meeting, Mr.

Brett Abbott was present to represent these applications.

There were none present to speak in favor or opposition.

The planning commission voted eight in favor with zero opposed to recommend the master land use plan map and zoning map be amended.

Okay, thank you very much.

None indicated.

We'll entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance with suspension of the rule.

So move suspension of the rule.

Thank you.

This time in a in a director comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Seeing none, please call the role.

I do need to read the ordinance.

Please read your honor.

Okay.

Directors Rigo.

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kit Savis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzabis.

Abstain.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Six in favor and zero opposed and one abstention.

Okay.

Thank you.

We need a motion to adopt the emergency clause.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

Please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kit Savis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavis.

Abstain.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Six in favor, zero opposed, and one abstention.

Item two.

Item two is an ordinance to rezone property at 8716 Rogers Avenue.

Ms.

Rice.

Yes.

On October 14th, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider rezoning property located at 8716 Rogers Avenue from residential single family duplex, low to medium density, and commercial heavy to commercial light or a C2 zoning district.

Approval of the rezoning to commercial light will facilitate construction of two eighty, eight hundred commercial eighty eight hundred square feet commercial retail buildings, including one with drive-through services.

A neighborhood meeting was held on October 2nd.

While no objections were voiced, neighbors expressed concerns regarding increases in traffic on South 87th Street, type of commercial uses allowed, anticipated anticipated signage, food truck hours of operations, stormwater management, possible sewer extension and cross-access easements for the property located to the east of the development.

At the planning commission meeting, Mr.

Jackson Goodwin was present to represent the application.

Ellen Parsons, Greg Ferris, and Julie Wakefield spoke with concerns regarding types of uses allowed within the development.

The planning commission voted six in favor and zero opposed to recommend that the zoning map be amended.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for the comments from citizens.

We just have Jackson Goodwin to uh answer any questions.

Thanks for being here, Jackson.

Just time we entertained a motion to adopt the ordinance with suspension of the rules.

So moved with the second rule.

Thank you.

Any uh director's comments.

Okay.

Seeing none.

I do need to read the ordinance.

Ordinance rezoning identified property and amending the zoning map and this is for property located at 8716 Rogers Avenue.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavas?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Thank you.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

We need a motion to adopt the emergency clause.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Please call the roll.

Directors George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Three.

Item three is a resolution table to tonight's meeting from the October 21st regular meeting.

The resolution would approve a project to construct a truck wash bay at the Solid Waste Services Department.

Director of Solid Waste Services Dwayne McDonald provided some additional information related to the bids received on the project.

That information was in your agenda packet for tonight.

Mr.

McDonald or myself will stand for any questions the board may have on this item.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any citizens' comments?

Yes, we have a Richard Medford.

Okay.

We'll have two minutes.

I'm personally not opposed to this.

I just uh would like to see it staged out because the deficit we're in money-wise, if you planned it and then staged it ahead instead of 1.6 million dollars, it's a deficit for us to go into.

Um I I just think there's a planning issue there.

It could be done and it should be done because it keeps our equipment in a good standing condition, uh, washing them and keeping them uh serviceable.

Uh but the 1.6 million dollars off the off the cuff is a little much.

You have to you literally have to stage it out to make it feasible for us to do.

Mr.

Rigo, there's a couple of comments you made.

Uh I don't know if they're directly to you, but politically correct playing.

That's in deplorable.

And I'm gonna ask uh our audience those to speak, let's keep our conversation to the item on the agenda, please.

Okay, you do uh at this time um time we entertain a motion to adopt a resolution need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Okay.

We need a second we need a second.

I'll second because I have some questions.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion and second.

Uh do we read on this now after uh director's comments?

There's no rating requirement on this one.

Okay.

All right.

Are the let's go to director's comments then?

Director Rego, you recognize.

Thank you.

So to the point about um the amount and and uh that's budgeted here, the 1.6 million.

I mean uh could the uh solid waste director or you, Mr.

Dingman, you know, speak to the uh amount on hand, what fund this is coming out of, etc.

Yes, the uh in 2017 we did a uh initial uh capital improvement uh plan for equipment replacement at the solid waste district, solid waste services department, sorry.

Uh and since that time we have been uh putting money back into the sinking fund for equipment replacement, including the replacement of the existing host station wash bay that's that's there at the at the department.

Um over time we have accumulated up to well, we have allocated three million dollars that has been saved to this point for this particular project.

Uh as is it indicated the the building cost of the 1.6 plus an additional half a million or so for the equipment to go into the building is uh uh realized a project total of about 2.2 million.

Those those dollars are existing in the sinking fund saved for this particular purpose.

Uh but recognizing um comments um regarding um you know general financial state and such, that's that's that's notwithstanding, but I just wanted to make the point that this these dollars already saved are already saved for this specific project.

Okay, thank you.

And then I guess one additional question I had is uh about the process or the structure, you know.

If this were uh to proceed, you know, what is the timeline look like for you know the rest of the equipment expenditure being brought forward, why are why are they separated, why are they not uh handled together?

Can you speak to that?

I think much of the equipment is available and is on a purchasing cooperative, and so that's why I was being the equipment to go into the building was was handled differently than a turnkey solution uh for building the building and then um and selling the equipment afterwards.

I think we determined that we could get a better price if we had the building built and then had the equipment installed afterwards.

Okay, so it's safe to say that the Solid Waste Department deliberately thoughtfully and intentionally saved and set aside money over a number of years for a project of this nature.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Director Good, you recognize thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Director Rigo.

You actually asked a couple of the questions uh that I was wanting to uh point out.

No, no, very good.

Uh Dwayne, if you could, uh because I I I'm not certain I haven't read anything new in the materials, but as it comes uh to the construction uh of the of the wash bay uh that we realized that was not part of the original amount, how is that how would that be funded and when that would be uh a separate purchase of uh and and currently we're looking at about 415,000 dollars.

It would come out of the same sinking fund, but as uh the acting city administrator pointed out earlier, that would come out of a it would be purchased separately through source well or a cooperative purchasing agreement to make sure that we could get the best price for it.

Thank you.

Um also just want to make a comment that I made uh previously when we um first introduced this.

Um, you know, this is not just a wash bay to keep our trucks looking pretty and to keep you know our streets from getting all cluttered and dirty.

You know, just imagine what our trucks, what the equipment goes through at the landfill.

Imagine all the muck grime parts, plastic metal that's up underneath these trucks.

You know, this speaks to the longevity of our equipment, and we're already you know discussing how we're gonna pay for equipment moving forward because the price of equipment goes up and up every year.

So I think it's the utmost importance that we take care of the equipment that we have now.

Thank you.

Uh Director Christina Cassav, is you recognize?

I had sent an email asking for a quantifiable ROI for this project, and you know, we received an email that said it would extend the life of the paint, overall condition of the vehicles and remove debris.

I'm not seeing anything that shows this can't be done by hand and save two million dollars.

So is there a quantifiable ROI?

Because you know, what I worry about is we're always looking to automate, and what we do is we automate people out of jobs.

So if we go through with this, are we letting someone go?

Are we eliminating a position?

No, it would be a matter of um the people who are currently doing that work, which are the drivers of the trucks, um, spending less time washing the trucks and being able to do that under uh uh you know greater weather conditions.

Uh we do it year-round, obviously there's a need to do it winter and summer, and uh currently it's being done outdoors.

If it's below freezing, the outdoor wash bay is not available for it.

So it uh it's not anticipated to eliminate any positions.

It would simply take the people who are currently performing that work, and it would be a quicker task for them and more readily available for them.

You know, I think this is something that is a nice to have if we weren't just presented with a rate increase.

And when Nicole was here, we had talked about a rate increase, and it looked like it was maybe between one and three dollars.

And I said, you know, I can get on board with that.

I understand the cost of service goes up, and I think that's something people could budget for.

But what we saw at the study session was quite a bit more than that.

And when you have people on fixed incomes, they can't budget for you know 15 or 25 or 30 dollar, 40 dollar increase.

So I think this is a no for me.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Uh I think Director Neil Martin was next in the queue.

Yeah, so just in terms of of looking at the the budget.

So we just got a uh updated third quarter um uh uh financial report uh that includes everything up through third quarter.

So right now we're we're we have spent more than we've taken in, so about a million dollars more.

However, we have a 10 million dollar uh uh surplus sitting in that in that fund if I'm reading this correctly.

I think that's 42.7 percent.

This is not in any of our material um that you've provided, but just in the uh information we got via email.

So we we do have the dollars.

Um you know I don't necessarily like spending into a deficit, but over time we've built up reserves, appropriate reserves in all of our funds, general fund, uh water, sewer, uh sanitation, all the all those things.

So um so we've got we've got it there.

The question is, I think it goes back to um are we what do we got to start looking at as as we're getting ready as we were presented with a potential rate increase.

Um I do agree with Director Kat Savis is that that this is um uh kind of a nice to have.

I know there's no regulatory requirement for it, uh, but I would like to hear you know some of my board members' uh thoughts on that as we as we you know kind of move forward.

And I wasn't here for the study session, so I apologize.

Um but or the the last time we voted on this when we tabled it.

But I would you know uh knowing what what is potentially going to be asked of us from sanitation, do we think this is um a viable uh uh way to spend our dollars and potentially save two million dollars um coming uh in the future with if if and when a rate increase comes.

If I might if I mind.

Uh to the to your first point that you meant mentioned the gener the the reserve fund in solid in the solid waste fund, these dollar the sinking fund dollars are not in that ten million dollars.

There is a separate fund when the I mean what gets there is an amount transferred out of the operating fund each year into a capital reserve fund, a sinking fund.

So all the that's where these dollars are dollars of here have already been transferred out to the already been transferred into the sinking fund uh incrementally over the last eight years.

Kind of like a savings account.

Right for this specific project and for other projects.

We've identified a number of trucks, so everything's on a schedule for replacement, and so uh their incremental amount is contributed to that sinking fund each year.

Now uh the other point you mentioned about uh uh rate increases.

We did have have the discussion of cost of service.

Uh what we've can contemplated on and will likely bring to you uh this month later at the next meeting is for consideration potentially a increase to the landfill gate rate, which is the the if you remember from that discussion, you've uh 75% of our uh of the tonnage that goes into the landfill comes through third-party haulers or comes through the gate and pays the gate rate.

Okay, and so uh our our gate rate is substantially lower than uh the uh retail market analysis would suggest.

And it's and it's also lower than our cost of service for operating the landfill.

Okay.

And so what we are going to uh propose, and and Mr.

Mr.

McDonald has put together some language, we're working on that ordinance to propose an increase to the gate rate for the landfill, but not to any of the other rates associated with including not the residential rate.

Not the residential rate that I pay on the monthly water.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I'll kind of listen.

Director Kim.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um for me, I'm a no on this.

Um mainly because when I looked at the fiscal year 26 budget, um, the concert contingency reserve percentage is going to be 13 percent.

And that's just that's where we're going to be at 13% in the in the budget book, you know, that we have, which, you know, anything below 20 percent, you need to be thinking about cuts.

And so I think we're going to need to look at the gate rate increase to get the revenue, which will bring a projected amount of money that will help not only the general fund, which needs help, but will help balance this budget, and then we'll put put it back, and then this three million I think needs to be watched alongside one of the things that will come up as I've done a deeper look at this and talking with administration is when we have to expand our landfill to the new cell, that's going to cost us around 12 million dollars.

And so is that going to be in is that gonna be in two to four years?

Is it gonna be in three to five years?

Is it gonna be a little longer?

But that's a big 12 million dollar bite.

Uh I think this three million is a good way to get started towards it.

And uh I know that you're sort of neutral in this as well, because this is you're the new one walking in, and I so am I.

This was from a 2024, and I just think a lot in the weather of the budget and how things have weathered out have changed.

And uh for me, uh I I can't get behind this particular move because I want to get behind you on other ways for a balanced budget.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I unfortunately wasn't here, I was with my daughter playing volleyball and watching her.

Uh Mr.

McDonald, I got a question.

And this came to me when I was driving by a city bus.

Did you ever consider talking to the transit department?

And see if y'all could partner together to see if this is a feasible option for the transit department and the solid waste department together.

Yes, but we haven't come to a conclusion on that yet.

Well, to me, I think I understand they do have one.

Yeah, to me that would have been it might have been easier to think about how to go over multiple departments versus one.

And uh, you know, uh if this was brought to us after the budget, yeah, I heard I heard I wasn't here for the the capital layout.

I think there's a lot of capital that you're requesting.

And I think the money should be well spent versus on the capital needs of the department versus something like this.

So um to me, I let's go through the capital, see what the cost of equipment is, because no equipment is equipment costs are rising right now.

And then if you can trans can talk through this, maybe there's an agreement down the road that we could look at this down the road.

Sir.

Director Rigo.

Uh Jeff or uh Mr.

McDonald, the balance in the sinking fund is about $21 million, correct?

The materials say current balance in the sinking account is $20,840,716.

That's correct.

And so if we if we're talking about the sinking fund or those sorts of monies somehow being utilized to help with the budget or some something like this of the solid waste department, I mean we we would have to take steps, correct?

Legislative steps to deprogram, I mean, stuff that's in the sinking fund, you have to take some step that's allocated towards construction and capital is some sort of steps would have to be taken, correct, to say, oh, we don't want that in the sinking fund anymore.

We wish to use it for X, Y, and Z.

That's correct, yes.

And so, you know, it's one of those things where we have, and it looks like reading on here that that money is being set aside for wash bay uh closure of a of phase A of a cell, new cell construction, and so you know this is what this money has been diligently set aside for over a number of years, and I think we should be cautious no matter what decision is made uh on a uh wash base uh wash facility tonight uh about hollowing out that sinking fund uh in an effort to avoid some sort of rate adjustment because the predominant portion of this sinking fund is being set aside for um cell closure and cell construction.

And so if you hollowed that out in the short term to ameliorate a rate adjustment concern, you're gonna get to that point where you do need the new to shut down the cell and open up a new cell, and then are you you would have to adjust rates dramatically to account for that.

So whatever we decide to do uh this evening about this particular project, the sinking fund and the uh diligent approach that's been taken by Solid Waste is is has a lot of merit.

Okay, thank you, Director Christian for Savage.

One of the things we talked about with that presentation was we talked about the gate rates, but we also talked about the need for new equipment.

Um part of that is what precipitated the discussion for the rate increase was the need for new equipment.

And I think we've got budget coming up.

We're looking at at least a $10 million deficit going into that.

We need to be thinking about every dollar we spend, every project we look at, what is the return on that investment?

We can't keep throwing money away because it's nice to have we need a return, a quantifiable return on every dollar we're spending.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just conversation with my with my fellow directors.

I am not pushing for this.

Um this is a project that came to the board, and is um director Rego just spoke to, you know, reminder this is a uh a lotment of money that's set aside over time for these particular projects.

And one of those projects is equipment, the other one is you know, new construction of sales.

So I want to ask you Dwayne.

I'm sorry.

Do you think that there is a better use at this time for that money in the sinking fund?

And if there is, you know, I I'm all for it, but this was presented to the board as request as a good use of those funds and the need of the apartment.

If this is not a current need, um I'm all for voting against it.

But if it's something uh that is needed, use and we will see a return on the investment by taking care of our property.

Um, you know, if you think there's a better way to a better option to use the money, I'd like to hear it.

I would say the ROI on this is subjective.

It's uh something that's very difficult to pin a dollar figure to we've talked about some of the advantages of the project.

Having uh you know looked at that and talked about it though, it's not something that is a regulatory requirement for us.

It's something that we have operated without if we if the board decides not to proceed with this at this time, we'll continue to serve our customers and continue to wash the trucks as we have been.

Um so it's like I said, it's kind of a subjective thing.

It's we do have uh landfill uh cell construction coming up within the next few years, and I believe it's scheduled starting three to four years from now.

So we're gonna need to look forward to make sure that we have money set aside for that as well.

Um thank you, sir.

I appreciate the honesty and appreciate the conversation from all the board.

Thank you.

Director Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh just wanted to clarify with my colleague uh Director Rego.

I definitely agree with you.

I don't want to see us pull the three million from the sinking fund.

Uh but the sinking fund, when you look at balancing the solid waste operating fund, one plan in balancing a budget is going to potentially maybe be uh accruing less money into the sinking fund, which makes me think that we need to protect what is in the sinking fund.

And I think the question we have to also answer, I think is are we accruing enough for the cell expansion?

And if we're not, then obviously I want to make that a priority.

And then on a on a thought, just thinking about like the mayor's youth council and thinking about ways to connect with the next generation and workforce job creation.

But I think it's a great opportunity to uh some of these kids that are looking to figure out what they want to do if they don't want to go to college, uh a pressure washer at the landfill washing vehicles even in the cold of winter.

Sounds like a wonderful opportunity.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Uh this sort of reminds me of when we went to automated uh trash pickup.

Uh it was a long arduous debate about whether or not we could continue manual pickup where the employees picked up the trash by hand.

Uh and we did go to automate it.

And it saved us tons of money and injuries, etc.

Um, I'm concerned about what what about uh will it lengthen the life of our equipment if we could use an automated system to clean them thoroughly?

Would you you have any comments on that?

Yes, sir.

I would expect it would lengthen the life of the equipment and maybe lower maintenance costs somewhat because you're keeping it cleaner and keeping debris out of the the undercarriage of the trucks.

Again, I don't think we have data to be able to put a dollar figure to that.

It's just it, you know, it's it's a best practice, I guess I would call it.

That's it's kind of like at home you would wash your own vehicle to take good care of it, but you you don't really know what difference that's going to make in the long run.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other comments from the board?

Madam Clerk, call that you can call the roll.

Directors Christina Kitsavis.

No.

Settled.

No.

Martin?

No.

Rico?

No.

Good?

No.

Kim?

No.

George Kitsavis.

Motion is defeated with zero in favor and seven opposed.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Item four through thirty.

I'll deal with the uh consent decree.

Can we do those collectively in one bottom?

You can.

You all want to do that?

Do you want to hear them?

It shouldn't take long, but at least we put them all on record as individuals.

We'll still be on record, won't they?

I mean, this is the biggest uh uh zero projects we've ever done in one meeting.

I'm not in favor of it.

If the board is, I'll go along with the board.

All right, let's go.

I'm not in favor of stake.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Item number four.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh first of all, on Thursday of last week, October 30th, the city and its finance team uh closed on the 2025 sales and use tax bonds that were authorized first by the voters in last May's election and then by the bond ordinance adopted by the board uh earlier this fall in September.

The city received the 100 million seven thousand five hundred and sixty-four dollars to fund consent decree projects, and we know how we now have the cash on fund to authorize those projects.

The next several items on tonight's agenda relate to consent decree capital improvement projects, and we'll start the process to put this 100 million dollars to work.

There are nine construction projects presented for board approval, and all of them have an associated engineering contract for construction observation.

So there are two resolutions presented tonight for many of these projects.

There are also seven additional design contracts presented for approval.

All of these projects combined for a total of just over 77 million dollars, summarized on pages 87 and 88 in tonight's agenda packet.

This will get the bulk of the bonds of the bond funds allocated and get the project started.

There are additional design contracts for consent decree wastewater projects that will be brought to the board in the next few weeks to obligate the remaining 23 million dollars.

As we go through these items, the city's engineer Jimmy Johnson will be able to respond to questions on each specific project.

Uh we have also have with us uh Lance McAvoy, Andy Richards, then Mart, I think, and myself.

Other members of the staff may respond to questions regarding the bonds or the projects presented.

Items four and five are related to consent decree remedial measures project number 17-09-C 1.

A proximity map of the project is on page 94 of your packet.

Item 4 is a resolution approving a construction contract with inliner solutions LLC and the amount of five million three hundred and sixteen thousand seven hundred and thirty-three dollars for the repair and replacement of thirteen thousand eight hundred and sixteen linear feet of sanitary sewer mains and a hundred and one manholes over a the course of two hundred and seventy days.

Item five is a resolution approving a contract with half an associates for construction observation on this project and the amount of four hundred and fifty-two thousand eight hundred eight hundred and thirty dollars.

Staff will stand for questions on these items.

Okay, thank you very much.

To Director Katzavis's point, can we bundle those items that are together?

Yeah, instead of taking one to do so don't vote on four and then vote on five.

Just vote on four and five together.

Six and seven.

Yeah, how they're motion.

So 456.

You need a motion for that?

So uh so I make a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I have a I have a point of inquiry as we work through the agenda.

Are they are they all bundled in pairs?

Are they all pairs?

The first plea please please just point out if we're bundling something incorrectly.

I will okay.

So this is not first.

Okay.

So four or five we can bundle.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

What else can we bundle?

We'll get we'll we'll get to those groups.

We'll get those overdue for the code.

Well, I mean it's all due in consent.

Oh, it's consent basically the same.

Yeah.

But I think it's uh I think it's important that we take the time to uh vote on them properly.

So at this time, uh so are there any comments, Madam Clerk, on either item four or five?

Yes, for four and five is Lavon Morton.

Okay.

Director former director, Lavon Morton, you're recognized.

Okay.

Uh board, I'm Levon Morton.

Um I reside in Fort Smith.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um and I want to say um I went I went through these.

I didn't have a massive amount of time, but I did go through these, but I want to draw your attention to a couple things.

Uh and and you in looking at this, you have to look at these kind of together, which is what you're talking about bundling, but I I'm against bundling because I think item two and item five, and I'm comparing it to item one, which is number four, need to be tabled for this reason.

Uh item two, the um bid, the this is the TIMCO contract.

Okay.

And again, I'm saying look at one, look at number four.

Right.

And then look at six.

The TIMCO contract is based on the table on page 87 of the packet, is six million dollars over the engineering estimate.

Six million dollars.

Item five is four million dollars over the engineering estimate.

All the others line up pretty well.

And if you look at one and two in detail, you'll discover that two is about twice the size of one.

And so you'd say, okay, it would be reasonable that the bid would be double, or maybe a little more than double, but it's really three times as much.

So the the taxpayers have six million dollars on the line on number two and four million on number five.

These are out-of-town contractors, not local.

I think the board needs to table those.

And I think the people who did the engineering estimate, the firm needs to give a written explanation as to why the their engineering estimate was so far off.

Because on the others, it's pretty close.

The other thing I would say is that that it's it's surprising to me that the people who did the engineering estimate on on item two, the TIMCO, were also picked to do the the oversight of that project.

You missed something six million dollars, there need to be some questions asked.

And they need to be asked honestly before this gets to the board.

The other thing I'd say on all of the engineering, starting with if you'll let me speak about five right now.

I've got twelve seconds left.

The the per hour cost of all these engineering projects need to be looked at because I believe the out-of-town engineers' rates are much higher.

There's no reason that an in-town firm could couldn't be picked to do this work if they have adequate expertise, which they have proven to us many times before, and the ability to do it based on capacity.

And maybe they'll say they don't have the capacity, but when we pick engineering firms, I've never seen on a list before in the seven years that I've watched it.

I say, wait a minute.

Why are we picking this firm when we have other firms in town who in who live here, spend money here, build offices here, and and don't get selected.

I don't understand that.

So those are my comments.

Two and five, I would.

Director Morton, for maximum clarity, as it's presented here tonight, you're suggest you're stating that items six and item eight, uh those estimates strike as two high.

Is TIMCO, TEMCO and Morgan?

Timco is six.

Yeah, it's it's the one that's seventeen million dollars is the bid.

Six and twelve.

Yeah.

And the one that nine million is the bid.

Those are the biggest two contracts.

Six and twelve.

Six and twelve.

Okay.

Yeah.

So seventeen and and nine.

And the others look, they actually work pretty well.

Sometimes the bid was lower than the engineering estimate.

But again, these engineers need to explain why why they missed it so much.

And so oh go ahead.

Matt, it would also be reasonable then in your suggestion that if those two projects themselves are tabled, number six and number twelve, it would probably also be reasonable to table the associated engineering.

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely.

I would table those.

I mean, you have to look at those together.

I table them as a bundle.

And and again, get explanation from the engineer who did the estimate.

And again, if they miss the estimate that much, should they be picked to do the oversight.

That's that's a fair question.

Maybe and maybe there's a good explanation.

I'm not saying there's not.

I don't want to I don't want to improperly raise a question.

I'm not an engineer, but maybe they have a very good explanation as to why it is this way.

If they do, that's fine.

But why didn't they consider that when they were doing their engineering estimate?

So it looks like Director Morton is five and six.

He's excuse me, Mr.

Morton is requesting we table five and six and eleven and twelve.

Six and seven, twelve and thirteen.

Six and seven.

These two.

These two.

Yep, yep, yep, yep.

Okay.

That's right.

Six and seven.

It's Temco and Morgan of the two.

Six and seven.

I mean, I think if you look at I don't think Timco got, I don't think Tim Co.

got any others, but Morgan, their bids are really high.

I don't know anything about the company.

I don't want to criticize them unfairly, but their bids are really high.

So these these that the out-of-town firms bid on are really high bids.

And tabling these, you know, we the the bond issue is not set up to spend 77 million in one year.

It's kind of set up to spend 50 and 50.

And I I I commend the city on getting a lot done, and I apologize for all the time I'm taking.

I commend the city on getting a lot done, but you don't want to rush into this.

You don't want to rush into getting bid getting a contractor and spend five or six million dollars more than you need to spend.

You want to allocate the money.

Again, I do 50 and 50, and you know, if you took these two back and and you may you may want to split those two into smaller contracts, but I looked at the linear feet and the number of manholes.

That's how I determined that I didn't understand the ratios here at all.

But I would look at the hourly rates.

I also don't understand the numbers, the per linear foot number that's on the table as you were presented on page 87.

They don't compute in my in the my simple way of doing it.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

I'll make a motion to table items six and seven.

We we do have to we do have a current active motion that we're handling with four and five.

Okay.

Okay.

Just okay.

So we've we've introduced both four and five.

Uh are there any citizens' comments on either one of those items?

Uh just Mr.

Morton.

Okay, that it?

Okay.

This time we obtain a motion to adopt a resolution to go ahead.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Director Good.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

But we're just point of order.

So uh director's comments would be before the vote, correct?

Absolutely.

Okay, so we've got the motion.

Okay.

Um I want to say thank you to huh?

Do we do we have a motion?

No motion.

Okay, we would just we just bundled them.

Okay.

I'll I'll make a motion to approve items four and five.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Just time we will entertain uh board member comments.

Director Good.

I apologize.

Thank you.

No, no problem.

Um almost want to say Director Morton.

Um I really appreciate the comments by Mr.

Levon Morton.

Thank you so much for for pointing out uh all the numbers.

But I do have a question.

Do we have staff?

Is Jimmy Jimmy?

Do you have any kind of information to address some of uh Mr.

Morton's concerns?

If I might, if I might just because we're on it four and five, items five and six are or items six and seven are next.

Okay.

I mean, it makes some order of sequence to go in order with the agenda.

Understood.

Uh uh I'm good with that.

Okay.

So uh we have a motion and a second uh for items four and five.

Uh any more board comments, Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, so Jimmy and and maybe Lance.

So, you know, in looking at pages um eighty and I had it here.

Um ninety ninety-one.

Um that Director Morton mentioned, you know, it has the the breakdown of of costs.

And uh, but really page 91, if Josh would show that up there.

Um when you look at this, this kind of gives you an idea of where some of this work is has been done.

So if we were to approve all I I guess the the graphs in the upper left-hand corner in terms of the lines and the manholes.

Um so it shows you know a certain amount that's been completed, uh certain amount under design, um, uh remedial measures, uh waiting bid, pending design, other things.

Um if if these uh I mean there's a number of manholes or a number of of lines here.

How much does this because part of the consent decree is you've got to do X number of lines, X number of manholes?

Um where does this get us if we were to do all these projects?

Now we've said we're gonna table some of these, and um I'm sure that'll come to us at a at a later time.

But where does that get us in terms of this particular graph?

Because I've been big on showing the citizens the progress, and you can go on our website, Fort Smith Air.gov, I think slash consent decree, and you can see a graph that shows these manholes and these uh these lines.

Can you can you give me an idea of of of the the prod uh the progress we would make through this?

So all the projects are that up for the construction is 117,900 feet.

So that's that orange right there in that top top graph.

Right.

Uh right there.

Thank you, Josh.

Yeah.

So that's what's going under construction.

Now the the modify modification to the consent decree requires that we do 50,000 linear feet per year.

But I think there was some expectation for us to do some catch-up work in the first year, if I'm not mistaken.

Um as you know, we do not have a modification yet, and we are waiting on the government to reopen that's stopped because the government shut down.

Sure.

Um they are looking at is certain milestones, and we are trying to ensure that we meet the annual milestone, which is between 40 and 50,000 linear feet, and a certain number of manholes each year, but over a three-year period, 150,000 linear feet.

So we are trying to uh move forward because right now believe it or not, construction costs, we've seen a decrease in that.

So we want to get these contracts locked in before the construction costs go back up.

Um, but that's where you're looking, and so with um to give you an idea what's left to construct now, not what's orange under construction right now or been finished, but what's what we're looking at on design work, and this is later on.

Um that's gonna be about it's gonna be about uh 13 percent and and 11 percent of what's left to be designed and constructed, but we're gonna be around the 50 percent mark with what is going to be under contract.

What you guys are looking at contract wise should be around the 50 percent mark for what needs to be done total.

Okay, and that okay.

Um I mean I I think it's important for the citizens to understand progress.

I know we we we had the flood, we had COVID, and those things pushed us back quite a bit.

Um we're I want to make sure that we're we're clear in what the citizens should expect in terms of our milestones.

I mean, this is 77 million dollars.

I know we're taking some off the table, but um there's some up the table tonight, but I think it's important for the citizens to be able to see how this is gonna impact the consent decree progress.

This actually will um do two things.

Number one, it shows to the state, who has been a large supporter of Fort Smith and has really helped us over the last uh three or four years, um, as well as DOJ and EPA that we are serious, we've we've got the bond funds, and we are moving forward, and there it will be allowed, you know, we will be allowed to do some banking.

So if we get 60,000 in one year, we can only get 40,000 linear feet in another year, as long as we're meeting that three-year and then making a good effort on the others.

Um, the state is even you know talking about helping us with with some of that minimum footage per year, but they understand the 150,000 linear foot, because that would fit into what we're looking at for finishing the consent decree in the time frame that we're talking about.

Okay.

So if I were to share this out on social media, I could sh I could share this these two graphs here, and that would give folks an honest understanding of where these progress what progress this will mean for us, and then how much more we've got to go to finish it out.

Correct.

Is that true statement?

That is a true statement.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Director Settle.

Uh thank you.

I'm gonna go off what Neil talked about.

I was gonna bring this up at the end, but I'll bring it out to the board.

Uh as we did years ago, we need a progress report on a on a monthly basis.

Engineering team should be able to do it.

Take a take the map on page 94 if you want an example for this project.

It's got here's the area, here's the lines, here's what's under construction in red, here's what's to be done in yellow, here's what's finished in green, updated monthly on the website to the board, to the citizens.

Let them know how their money's been spent so they can keep progress.

If we do that, this will help us.

We did that years ago on on projects we did it on the on the website and it worked, so I'd expect the same thing from here.

Communication team, uh utilities team, administration should all work together, communicate to our public what Neil is talking about, get it out there, and let's do a monthly re I don't need to, hey, we can't get to this month.

We're paying all these engineers to keep progress, they can keep us up to date, they can fill this in, and then we can tell the citizens what's going on.

At the end of the day, that's what we need to be doing.

And if that's not if we can't do that, I need to know why we can't do it and what we're gonna do to remediate that.

Because I'm not gonna get a website is not up to date.

Okay, the citizens trust us for the next 20 plus 30 years to do this work, we need to do it.

So I'm looking at my fellow board members to check ourselves to make sure it's being done and make whole administration and the departments account for this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Director Christina Kissavis, you recognize.

So Lance, clear something up for me.

40,000 linear feet, that's what's requested, or that's what we are requesting as a minimum, but over a three-year period, it'd be 50,000.

So we're looking at we're gonna have to average 50,000 limited.

What's the what's the requirement right now?

Um there really isn't a requirement in linear feet, it's based on basins, having a uh a basin completed on a time frame in which it was evaluated.

So if the work was done in uh the 2024 SSA remedial measures, we'd all have to be done by four six, seven, twenty-nine twenty-nine.

So it was a uh a time frame of a certain number of years.

But if you get into you know, if we did um you know 12,000 linear feet uh that needed to be done in a certain amount of time.

So you had one year to do the evaluation, one year to do the remedial measures, and then design, and then really it ended up being about two years for construction.

Um there were times where it was very difficult to get you know to see how we could progress with the funds that we had at the time.

So this is a more logical way.

The reason this is more logical is we can actually pinpoint where we are having SSOs, repeat SSOs in particular.

So the items that were in the map that are in, I believe, um uh what was it pink or yeah, pink that are for design, those are actually basins, sub-basins that have multiple repeat sanitary sewer overflows.

Well, we get penalized for every sanitary sewer overflow.

The more of those we can eliminate, the less penalties we're facing.

So that's why we're we're doing it this way is we're actually prioritizing the worst basins as opposed to an arbitrary timeline.

So it's based on SSO history, yes, and maintenance and and the uh remedial measure um results.

It's it's a multiple, it's a multi-phase look at what we're doing.

So when I I look at the schedule, it says a total of 150,000 linear feet by December 31st, 28, 300,000 linear feet by December 31st, 31, 450,000 by December 31st, 34.

Is that attainable?

Um I I'm sorry, without seeing it, um I'm a visual person, so I um Mr.

Dingman knows what we're doing.

These are the proposed modifications to the consent decree.

Then we have looked at that and what we have submitted.

I believe it's been pushed back one year.

I think we were looking at a 10-year uh extension, and that it would start in 26 with the 150,000, because we were very close to getting somewhere where we could bring something to the board.

I'll let Mr.

Dingman talk more about that on the negotiations.

But we actually looked at that and it was doable.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Director good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Director Settle.

Um, I have to go along with you on requesting the monthly reports, but don't want to overlook the work that's being done.

So I know Josh Buffink on social media, we regularly post the progress being made on consent decree work and really appreciate the work that's being done.

But again, I I am supportive of the monthly reports.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Madam Clerk, uh, we're voting on four and five being bashed together.

Um please call the roll.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Get Savage?

Yes.

Christina Get Savis.

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

On item six and seven.

Correct.

I mean, I'm items six and seven, and I and I recognize Mr.

Morton's comments and such.

I I would like to see if our staff has any comments in relation to the I don't I don't know if any of that follow-up has been done or those questions have been asked or the types of things that Mr.

Morton alluded to that we should do.

So if you wouldn't mind, Jimmy, if you could address that.

I can uh on the the per inch foot basis of the bid.

I've uh I've I've used that method for nearly my entire tenure with the city is just to see and to predict what a to predict what a project's going to cost.

And you know, if if you look at the bid, and I don't have it on here, but the low bid for 1713, which is the uh TEMCO project, their per inch foot bid is sixty dollars and eighty-four cent.

The high bid for that particular project was seventy-nine dollars and fifty-one cent per inch foot.

Yeah, and if you look at the other inch foot, there's some other ones in there that that have a higher comparison.

It's just a method of of comparing those two together to see where you are on on a truer basis, and it's just instead of just looking at the the number of feet or number of you get to the length of the pipe and the size of the pipe in in the comparison.

Uh also we we do have a representative from Hawkins and Weir that can uh address some of the comments about the uh uh low engineering estimates.

If you want to do that now or I can hear that, Larry Yancey Hawkins, we're engineers.

Uh glad to stand for questions, but I'll kind of start off and and work kind of some of the comments that have already been issued.

Um the project here uh that that's being considered 1713.

Um I'll just make a few few comments.

So we've tracked projects for the consent decree since the inception of the consent decree, and we do our due diligence there uh to try to track pricing, historical processing as well as current pricing.

Uh we also had several projects that bid during this process.

Um the project here was one of the last projects to bid in this cycle.

It was the one of the late last bids.

Uh one thing we also noticed as as Mr.

Morton had pointed out, uh the contractors that that did bid this project were all out-of-state contractors.

So one thing we do, we normalize our pricing per cubic yard of concrete.

We've had several projects that were right in line and some even under using that same processing.

So I think we have done a lot of due diligence historically to track those numbers.

Uh but again, as we saw local and state contractors as well as local contractors fill up, those prices did seem to increase pretty exorbitantly.

So you know, those are the main things I saw uh out of state contractors that bid on these projects late in the process after the capacity was reached for maybe some of the in-state and local contractors.

So again, the the pricing our estimate while it was low uh was used in many other projects or right in line.

So with that, I'll try to answer any other questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Lavon Morton had reached up to me and and mentioned his concerns he mentioned here in public, and I took I took it upon myself to call a few businesses that are here locally, and one of the some of the feedback I got to give uh was that you know the there's some local firms, like three or four local three of the four local firms that have availability for jobs, you know, and I know that that uh that's a professional services thing, so it doesn't have to go out for bid, but perhaps that was a that was a concern that was brought forward, and then maybe a bigger bidding window because bidding is sort of a gamble.

So if they throw in on some of these other projects and then think they're gonna try to get those awarded by the time they got to the back part of these jobs, they didn't have the time to really look at it, but one company did an in-house mock-up on it just to kind of see where they would land, and uh would have saved around three million dollars over two different jobs on these on these two different jobs, and then I was sort of asked, I don't know if this is a question that you can answer Mr.

Jimmy, but uh there was a question about how bid tabs weren't open for this, so they couldn't really kind of look at review, and maybe there's a strategic reason why the bid tabs weren't opened, or somebody can maybe answer that.

I can I can take a first tab at that.

Kind of what can happen should a project not get awarded if those bid tabs are released, it kind of puts the low bidder, the apparent low bidder at a disadvantage in the in any potential situation moving forward.

You know, in my history, I've been corrected on that in the past where project was re didn't uh wasn't successful, but low bidder filed a letter, I think maybe even with the city administrator, uh pointing out that.

And so until the award is made, typically the bid the certified bid tabs aren't released.

So okay.

Um what about can we expand the window just uh even a little bit?

I know we wanted to get as much as we could in a tight window, and then it looked like we were gonna try to do them on one day, then we went to three weeks.

But what I'm being told is we could put that over three months, it allows a company perhaps to scramble and if they didn't win the low bid on say job number two of eight, but they can come back at job six and seven and eight if they had a bigger window.

Do you think that's an idea that we should consider going forward?

I I would defer to city staff on that.

We don't really set the bidding windows, and so I I would defer to city staff.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Yeah, I would just tell the board I think one of the things that I would like to see us encourage us to do is also look at our other local firms, especially when three of the look four local firms outside of Hawkins here uh have availability for work, and uh I think they need to be looked at as well and considered.

Thank you.

Director Settle.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you very much for being here.

My question is this is the largest project.

I uh uh Director Morton Levon did what I did.

I went through and used Excel spreadsheet, went through everything, kind of normalizing everything together.

We look at each item.

This is 30,000 linear feet over five and a half miles.

Was there any consideration that breaking this up into smaller chunks?

You know, the everything else is fifty, you know, we've got 1795, and then everything else is under 15,000.

Why didn't we take this and lower the amount?

Because there's nothing really special from the in the area, it's just it's a general area.

Why not split in two different functions?

So to what Director Kemp brought up is maybe those guys are not trying to scramble to do 30,000 linear feet, they're gonna do in 15,000.

This would you know, this reminds me of what happened when we did those projects of those uh 22 million dollar projects.

We split one big project split into five different ones to save money.

So was there any discussions about kind of saying we need to split this because it's just too big?

The original SSA was done as one sub-basin, and I think that the project always stayed as one sub-basin.

Um I didn't personally have any discussions with city staff about breaking it into smaller projects, but maybe that should be a discussion because you know if you if you came back and you know it doesn't fit the math that I'm seeing because the project next to it from uh cramp rentals does eight and twelve inch, seventeen thousand nine hundred and fifty feet, and their price per foot, not an price per foot, just quick math is a lot lower than this.

And so that's where I'm kind of looking at it.

I think if you'll look at how those projects bid as well, I think there was a three-week window if you'll notice those projects early on the window.

Yeah, but should we do three weeks?

I mean, this goes back to C staff.

Should three weeks be enough for a five and a half mile project when you've got other ones competing at the same time.

I think that's tough on contractors in today's world to do that.

That's that's where I'm at.

Um, but I appreciate that your time.

Yes.

Uh in the future, I I'd like to know when we do these projects.

I'd like to know how much is 12 inch, how much is eight inch?

The other ones, how much was six, eight, ten, eighteen, and twenty-one.

So breaking that down so we can see it gives us some more information.

Are we are we doing a lot of twenty-one inch on the last one or do a lot of six inch?

I'd like to know those things.

Thank you.

Director of Christina Kassavage.

So again, I'd like to make a motion to table items six and seven, and we can have more discussion on this.

May I may I uh suggest an amendment to the motion, which is to include the written report or the written explanation that was uh mentioned about explaining what went into this amount because in the packet all we see is three companies, three amounts.

I'll second her motion.

Table to win.

Table if you table it comes back next meeting to table given when you want to be back to the study session.

Yeah, let's bring it back to study session.

That's your motion, right?

Yeah.

Well, I think as um uh former director morton pointed out, we don't have to be uh in a big hurry.

We've got um tens of millions of dollars in projects already, so I think the next available study session that we have.

Okay.

We have a motion.

If I might ask the staff uh or Mr.

Yancey, um what is the timeline for these bids?

I mean how how how long are these bids good for?

That's my question.

Typically bids are good for 60 days from the bid opening.

So after 60 days, uh the bids would would not be valid.

Um that's kind of the window.

Yep, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, but before we vote, uh I saw uh Mr.

Morton's hand up.

I I really like the conversation we have because it helps me better understand where we're going and what we need to look for look look at.

Mr.

Morton, did you have any additional comments or anything to add?

Well, I just want to add that I agree with Director Settle that uh taking this contract and breaking it into two contracts that would be about the same size as some of the others would be one way to deal with this really high bid, and you might get more bidders.

And uh the same thing applies on both this one and on the nine million dollar contract.

That's a very very good suggestion for by Director Settle, and that also eliminates a disadvantage of the original bidder, because they can they can then allocate their bid between the two contracts without um without anybody knowing what they're gonna bid on a smaller piece.

You can bid the two pieces with a lot more ability to uh uh bid without people knowing what you're going to bid then you can re-bidding the same thing.

I agree that with with uh comment by uh others that having a rebid on a contract where there's a bid outstanding is very disadvantageous to the original bidder, but by splitting it uh you avoid you avoid that.

And again, six million dollars.

Uh that's just too much.

You know, and I and I agree with Director Christina Kitsavis's comment that that when you put all these out there at one time, you do absorb all the capacity of the local bidders, and as uh gentlemen from Hawkins Weir uh pointed out, uh these are out-of-state contractors who probably don't think they're gonna get it anyway.

They just throw a number in there on the off chance that they do when nobody else bids, and they happen to be low, lower than the people who bid 23 million dollars, which was double the engineering estimate on number two, then you know they surprisingly get get the bid.

But they these out of state people did bid higher on all of these than than the people that have bid contracts for us before.

And I get I have nothing against them, but we want a bid that serves the taxpayers and the city well.

So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Well, well, thank you very much for the comments, and and I appreciate your comments.

Yeah, you can have a seat and and director soul's comments.

Uh again, the the conversation for me is great.

I would have assumed that the larger the product, the larger the project, you know, the the person doing the bid could get a better rate at materials and time.

So I appreciate the com uh the conversation and and the enlightenment on it.

Okay.

So we do have a motion on the floor to uh table items six and seven uh and send them to a study session.

Okay, okay.

What do we need, madam crow?

Do we need uh we're ready to call the roll?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, please call the roll.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kim?

Yes.

George Gittsavis.

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis.

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

It's just time we vote item eight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Items eight and nine are related to consent decree remedial measures project number nineteen-15-C1.

Proximity map is on page 173.

Item eight is a resolution approving a construction contract with Kraft Reynolds Construction Company in the amount of nine million ninety-six thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and fifty cents for the repair and replacement of uh 17,950 linear feet of sewer line and 160 manholes over 395 days.

Item nine is a resolution approving a contract with half associates for construction observation on this project and the amount of 590,340 dollars.

Staff will stand for questions on this project.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, any citizens' comments?

Only several individuals to answer questions only.

Okay, very good.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved second.

Eight and nine.

Thank you.

Uh any comments from the board.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Directors Rego.

Okay.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Get Savis?

Yes.

Christina Kittsavis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

Does item 10 and 11 match that?

Motion to table.

Item 10 and 11.

Okay.

Go to item 10.

Items 10 and 11 are related to consent decree remedial measures project number 19-18-C1.

Proximity map is on page 213.

Item 10 is a resolution approving a construction contract with force grin and the amount of $4,896,390 for the repair or replacement of 11,098 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and 119 manholes over 360 days.

Item 11 is a resolution approving a contract with Hawkins Weir Engineers for construction observation on this project and the amount of 332,750.

Staff will stand for specific questions on this project.

Okay, thank you.

Any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk, on either 10 or 11.

Uh only those to answer questions.

Thank you.

Uh just saying we're entertained a motion to adopt the resolutions.

So moved.

Okay, thank you.

Any other directors' comments?

Okay, please please call the role.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kimp?

Yes.

George Get Savis?

Yes.

Christina Get Savis.

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Riga.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero approved.

Okay.

Now we'll go to item 12.

Items 12 and 13 are related to consent decree remedial measures project number 19-19.

Proximity map on page 251.

Item 12 is a resolution approving a construction contract with Morgan contracting inc in the amount of 9,111,352 for the repair or replacement of 12,640 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and 130 manholes over 300 days.

Item 13 is a resolution approving a contract with Hawkins Weir Engineers for construction observation on this project and the amount of 344,250.

Staff will stand for specific questions on this project.

Are there any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

I need a motion to adopt the uh resolutions for 12 and 13.

Like to make a motion to table items 12 and 13 to future study session.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Oh, I got a question, Mayor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um Jimmy?

Um on this item, we don't know what size of pipe we're going to be doing in this area.

Can we get a list of the size pipe in this area?

It's it's generally 8 to 18 inches.

I I see that we're crossing Midland Boulevard.

Looks like one of the green lines.

I'd like to just understand if that's a bigger than 18.

I just want to see the size.

If y'all get it, if you can get to us later in email, that's fine.

Okay, so more crossing Midland Boulevard, that's in a separate contract.

Okay.

I'm just trying to look at the green lines.

In a capacity project.

Okay.

And that's a 42 inch.

If you if you wouldn't mind if I if we can just get that uh to the board if we see that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk, please follow the role.

If I could get some clarification on the motion, was that pending study session discussion as well?

And and the same thing and the and also a written explanation of the bid.

Okay.

What numbers we vote on?

12 and 13.

Voting to table.

Okay.

Good?

Yes.

Directors Kemp?

Yes.

George Getzavis?

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

We'll go to fourteen.

Point of inquiry.

Uh Mayor, could could the rest of these items, if they're not any objections, could those be?

Yes.

Grouped together?

Yes.

Or do we really want to break them down?

I'm fine.

I'm just asking.

Let's do them individually.

It's not taking that long.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item 14.

Items 14 and 15 are related to consent decree.

Remedial measures project number 21-17.

Proximity map is on page 292.

Item 14 is a resolution approving the construction contract with Goodwin and Goodwin.

And the amount of $7,600,541 for the repair or re or replacement of $13,648 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and 103 manholes over 600 days.

Item 15 is a resolution approving a contract with Crafton Toll and Associates for construction observation on this project and the amount of 107,200.

Staff will stand for specific questions on this project.

Any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Okay.

Motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Direct to settle.

Jimmy or Lance, this had one nine people picked up packets, but only one returned.

Is there any reason why only one returned?

I'm going to vote for it, but was there any feedback from anybody else why they the other nine or eight did not return them?

So the this project is more spread out than the other projects.

It covers more uh basins which are spread out all over the city.

Okay.

So the contractors lose.

I mean that they and on top of that, the each sub basin has a lot less work within it.

That's why they're kind of grouped together.

And uh that's that's kind of I think that's probably plays into why some of the contractors has opted out when they had other plenty of other work that's all concentrated in a general area where they don't have to mobilize and demobilize the different areas.

All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh please call the roll.

Directors George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Getsavis?

Yes.

Settle?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp.

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

Sixteen.

Items 16 and 17 are related to consent decree remedial measures project number 24-14.

A proximity map on page 325.

Item 16 is a resolution approving a construction contract with Forge Grin in the amount of 3,225,370 for the repair or replacement of 5,814 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and 28 manholes over 330 days.

Item 17 is a resolution approving a contract with Hawkins Weir for construction observation on this project and the amount of 276,250.

Staff will stand for questions on this project.

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Only to answer questions.

Thank you.

Neither motion to adopt the resolutions.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors Christina Gitzavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Next item.

Items 18 and 19 are related to consent decree remedial measures project number 23-15.

A proximity map on page 363.

Item 18 is a resolution approving a construction contract with belt construction inc and the amount of $4,607,686 for the repair or replacement of $3,850 linear feet and 42-inch sewer pipe and construction of a maintenance road over 270 days.

Item 19 is a resolution approving a contract with Michael Griffin for construction observation on this project and the amount of $395,307.

Staff will stand for specific questions.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Okay.

Need a motion to adopt the resolutions.

Second.

Thank you.

Any other board comments?

Director Settle.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jimmy, do you know where belt constructions out of?

There was no information on here.

Is it out of town in town?

They're they're out of town.

Um I can't remember exactly.

I think they were from Texas if I'm mistaking.

Okay.

Well it's interesting, you had five bids and they were the lowest, but you know, rates from 4.6 to 10.6 is kind of a big big span there.

So my concern is did Belt miss something, or did everybody else miss something and belt was really good at their bid?

Uh that would be a question for Belt construction.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Please call the roll.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Get Savis?

Yes.

Christina Kizavis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Go to item 20.

Items 20 and 21 are related to consent decree capacity improvement project number 24-11.

Proximity map on page 4402.

Item 20 is a resolution approving construction contract with Kjax contractors in the amount of nine million four hundred eighty-four thousand five hundred dollars for the repair or replacement of five thousand three hundred linear feet of sanitary sewer interceptor pipe and forty-two manholes over four hundred and eighty days.

Item 21 is a resolution approving a contract with Hawkins Weir Engineers for construction observation on this project in the amount of 792,300.

Staff will stand for specific questions.

Thank you.

Any comments from citizens?

No comments.

Uh oh the question.

I'm sorry.

Questions only.

Oh okay.

Need a motion out both resolutions.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

Item 22.

Mayor, before we begin, just want to tell the board tonight.

We just approved 71,476 on your feet of construction at 13.5 miles of construction for consent decree work tonight.

We get in there.

We're going to get it done.

Mr.

Dane will you recognize?

Thank you, Mayor.

Item 22 is related to consent decree remedial measures project number 25-808-81.

A proximity map is on page 440.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with Freeze and Nichols Inc.

and the amount of 376,240 for designing the repair or replacement of 19 line segments and sanitary of sanitary sewer and 22 manholes over 300 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding at a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments?

Mr.

Levon Morton.

Thank you.

Um the opportunity to speak.

On this one, um, you know, I just want to clarify.

I I think all these engineering firms are definitely qualified.

Um it's just a matter of uh the the large out of state firms, uh their average per hour rate is generally going to be higher, and uh and that needs to be considered at the same time.

I would acknowledge that the um utilities department may have a very good reason why that firm was selected, and as long as that's clear to everyone, then uh then I think it's fine.

But you need to understand one of these is in the northeast, and the other one is primarily in Texas, so uh, and there are a lot of engineers, engineering firms, including some of the ones selected by utilities department in the city that uh have in the past done very good work.

So now I don't have a preference for one over the other.

There are a lot of good ones here.

Uh it's just that general consideration.

So and again, it may be a capacity issue.

May it may be that by doing all these contracts all at the same time, we're straining the local capacity, and that's something to consider.

So thank you.

Always thank you.

We need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Directors Rego.

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item 23.

Item 23 is related to consent decree remedial measures project number 25-09-81.

Proximity map is on page 478.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with Garber LLC and the amount of 179,602 for designing the repair or replacement of 10,615 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and three manholes over 270 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding at a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Okay, thank you much.

Any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Thank you.

Need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rico.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

24.

Item 24 is related to consent decree remedial measures project number 25-10-81.

A proximity map on page 512.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with McClellan Consulting Engineers and the amount of 265,111 for designing the repair or replacement of 9,915 linear feet of sewer line over 180 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding at a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Thank you.

Need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero of vote.

Thank you.

Item 25.

Item 25 is related to consent decree remedial measures project number 25-11-81.

Proximity map on page 545.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with Hawkins Weir Engineers and the amount of 395,440 dollars for designing the repair or replacement of 67 segments of sanitary sewer line and 27 manholes over 210 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding at a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Are there any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Okay, we need a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Are there board comments?

Please call the role.

Directors George Gittsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

26.

Item 26 is related to consent decree remedial measures.

Project number 25-12-81.

Proximity map on page 580.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with INS Group Inc.

in the amount of 282,380 for designing the repair or replacement of 6,451 linear feet of sanitary sewer line and 131 manholes over 245 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding in a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Thank you.

Are there any comments?

Madam Clerk.

Only to answer questions.

Okay.

Motion to adopt a resolution.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

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

Directors Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item 27.

Item 27 is related to consent decree remedial measures project number 25-13-ED1.

Proximity map on page 618.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with half associates in the amount of 418,600 for designing the repair or replacement of 6,852 linear feet of pipe and six manholes over 200 days.

Upon completion of design, project will construction will be let for bidding at a future date and staff will stand for questions.

Okay.

Are there any comments from citizens?

Only to answer questions.

Thank you.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

Second.

Thank you.

Are there any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gatsavis.

Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

28.

Item 28 is related to consent decree capacity improvement project number 19-19-ED3.

A proximity map is on page 657.

The proposed resolution authorizes an engineering design services contract with Hawkins Weir Engineers in the amount of 1970 for designing a sanitary sewer capacity improvement project involving $2,700 linear feet of sewer line and replacement of 10 manholes over 150 days.

Upon completion of design, the project construction will be let for bidding at a future date.

Staff will stand for questions.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

Thank you.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the role.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

29.

Item 29 is a resolution authorizing the acquisition of temporary construction easements related to consent decrease sanitary sewer assessments remedial measures project number 21-17-C1.

I believe Mr.

Johnson would speak or answer any questions related to this item.

Okay, thank you.

Uh are there any citizens' comments?

Only to answer questions.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Getsavis.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item 30.

Item 30 is a resolution authorizing the acquisition of sewer utility easement for consent decree remedial measures project number 17-09-C1.

Staff will answer any questions for this project.

Thank you.

All the indecisions' comments.

Oh, it answer questions.

Thank you.

Motion to approve item number 30.

Okay.

Second.

Second.

Okay, thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gittsavis?

Christina Kit Savis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rico?

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

This time we'll go to item 31, the consent agenda.

Mr.

Dingley, you recognize.

Thank you, Mayor.

Tonight's consent agenda consists of five items as follows.

A resolution authorizing change orders to construction contract of the Garrison Park project.

A resolution accepting the project as complete and authorizing final payment on the Garrison Park project.

The resolution accepting project is complete and authorizing final payment on Lee Creek Lagoon Cleaning Project.

A resolution waiving competitive bidding and authorizing the purchase of priority dispatch protocol dispatch software for the River Valley Communications Center consolidated dispatch.

Thank you very much.

Yes, item 31B, Joe Elskin.

Sorry, guys.

I'm I'm Joe Elskin and I love this city and I live here.

But I um I want to bring out the fact that I am a strong advocate of return on investment, but you can't calculate investment for green space for the health for the economic activity because it's a long term.

It's it's not obvious right away.

So I feel like even though every project should be looked at at return on investment, that green space and um it's important to invest in.

And so I I just wanted to make that clear for the future.

Um it kind of brings me to um an aside which I have no business saying, and I'm sure I'll sorry, I'm sure I'll be sorry to say it, but I have disagreed with with everybody on the board, except everybody up there except for Sherry.

Okay, Sherry, you're good.

But I've never ever made those disagreements, disappointments public.

I when I disagree with your opinion, I do it in email and privately, and I wish everybody did because it seems to undermine the function of the board for you all to listen to personal, to listen to personal.

It's I mean that's private.

That's between you and the voter.

That is not public.

So I just I'm sorry, I know I have no business saying it, and Mayo, you should be gaveling me out, turning my microphone off.

Thank you for your service.

Thank you, Joe.

Okay.

Any other item for the I have a question on 31E.

E.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have one on C and E.

Okay, let's go to C and then we'll go to E.

Is it B?

What'd you say?

C I said C and E.

C and E.

Okay, go ahead.

Item C.

Item C.

Uh, yes.

Lance or Jimmy, thank you, Jimmy.

Mr.

Jimmy.

Um I'm all for the work being done.

I am being mindful just because I've had some budget conversations with administration uh in preparation for the budget hearing.

And I'm thinking about the good old uh debt coverage service ratio as we come to the close of fiscal 25.

Is this work going to be completed in this year?

Or if we approve it?

It's already done.

It's already done.

This is final payment.

Okay, that was not made clear to me.

It's final payment, so never mind.

My comments will stay for other things, then I am nervous about that.

Thank you.

Item E.

Yeah.

So I don't have any on D.

I want to I had one on D.

Or I mean E.

E.

E.

Um.

So on page 894, there's a list of questions, the statement of essential use source of funds, those are unanswered.

Also, I want to confirm.

It says R V C C 911 funds, so all funds are coming from there, none of them coming from the general fund.

Uh in 2026, there will be no general fund uh need for the 911 fund as we are going to use the funds from the state uh to what about 27?

27 there will be.

Um till we get the operating costs, anything over the state funds that we get would be split 70 percent, the city of Fort Smith, 30 percent.

So 700,000.

It's about a million dollars a year.

I'm sorry, I I must have misunderstood your question.

How much money will be coming out of the general fund after 26?

After 26.

So if it's 70 percent, it's a little over a million a year, right?

I think it was about 700,000 a year.

Yeah, I'm pulling up that cost right now.

Also, do we have the cost of construction for Borough Road to turn this into a 911 call?

Because I know we were we were asking Bozeman to carry forward a request for some funds, and I couldn't figure out why we would do that if it's all covered by the state, but if it's not covered by the state past 26.

So the state has mandated this, but they're not they're not funding it.

Right.

There are two different things there.

We did ask uh for uh congressionally directed spending award for this project.

We were not successful in getting it.

Was that for the construction at Borough Road?

That was specifically for the equipment, and and I think we could recover this contract.

The the Motorola was part of that.

Right.

And the the we do not have yet a guaranteed maximum price from the construction manager on the construction of the building that is anticipated in the spring.

That is that's anticipated by the first uh the first of the years when I'm in the middle of the state.

Do you have an estimate?

I do not.

Ballpark, anything?

Uh five million.

Five million for the construction.

That's correct.

For a remodel.

This is it is significantly more than a remodel.

The the existing building uh will will serve as office area.

There will be the there will be an addition added to that building to serve as the hardened area that will house the actual dispatch center.

How much did we pay for that building?

Uh we paid $575,000.

Yes.

And then we're going to spend five million outfitting it.

We had talked at one point about selling that building.

For $5 million, could we not just build something ideal?

That is that is the construction cost of building something ideal at that property.

I I think we should table this.

I'd like to hear what my other directors think, but I think we should table this till we get some more information.

Because in the in this 899-page agenda packet, what the information we had did not make clear um what the obligations are going to be going forward.

And I know there's a clause in the contract that says if you know if we don't have if we don't appropriate funding, uh, you know, there's a clause for that, but um I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

I'll actually second that out of question on this mayor.

Uh the my understanding from from looking at this is that, and Andy, maybe you can answer this, but is it not a 2.2 million dollar starting in 27 that we're looking at from the general fund for a 911 center?

Yeah, I mean, that that's that's the projection that I did coming up.

You mean we were obviously just focusing on the 26 budget, but we were also trying to figure out the timing of this these capital events.

Um we did a couple different scenarios, and what we came up with, you know, using all the we've got some 911 revenues that got transferred over from Sebastian County, and also are now getting the state 911 revenues in this fund.

And so that we're able to operate through 26 without having any contributions from the city or the county in 26.

Um, but also doing this lease purchase for the equipment and also the capital project.

You know, we we estimated doing a borrowing by dedicating the 911 revenues to doing this five million dollar project and basically amortizing over 20 years, and that got our contribution to the 911 fund down to about 2.3 million dollars in 27.

And it would be at that about that level going forward for the next four years while we pay the Motorola lease purchase off.

I think what we need to do is we need to table this.

I think we need to sit down with our representatives from the state and make an appeal to them.

What we've got here is an unfunded mandate.

We can't afford it.

And I think we need to speak with them and you know let them know where we're at and see what we can get done.

Thank you.

And I agree that a lot of this timing is is coming up pretty pretty quickly.

And the reason for this is that this proposal that we have is down significantly from the first proposal.

We are cutting back as much as that we can for this cons uh for these costs for that reason.

Um you hear me?

Okay, sorry.

Uh for that reason we wanted to to make sure that we were reducing the cost to this one.

This proposal that I have before you tonight has got a time limit of November the 20th.

After November the 20th, uh we lose $713,000, $713,000 worth of incentives on this equipment.

And that's that's the reason I'm bringing it for you tonight rather than later, is for that reason.

So this law took effect in 2019, correct?

This mandate 2019.

So we've waited six years, now we're up against a deadline, now we're operating in crisis mode.

Uh let's table it to next week study session.

Can I where's the incentives coming from?

I'm sorry.

Well, send us a state incentives or that motorola.

The Motorola has given us the case.

I mean, to me, if they want our business, they probably would say they extend the centers.

I mean, I think I think if they really want the business, they would extend the incentives while we try to figure out what Director Cassav is suggesting here.

Sure.

So I I like what Christina is saying.

Do you want to call a special meeting and a study session tomorrow next week so we can talk about it if we decide to vote on it?

We can.

Is that kind of what you're suggesting?

Sure.

Sure, certainly.

So motion to table till next week with a special meeting call to talk about this one item.

I uh I'd like to hear what everyone else is.

I'm not trying to push your mouth, so please find with me.

Let's do it.

I didn't put it in the middle.

No, no, that's what that's fine.

I'm I'm good with that.

The $2.2 million is pretty concerning.

I mean, knowing what we've got to do this year in terms of general fund cutting cuts in the general fund, then add another $2.2 million on it in a couple of years.

I think that's that's pretty significant that we need to be aware of.

I I have some frustration.

I don't feel like this was spelled out in our agenda pathway.

And I I just want more information.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

I I guess to the administration is what is our current 911 center cost us today?

And what is the 911 center cost the county today?

And is those two items equal what's being proposed to us long term, or are we actually going to see an increase in cost with the proposed consolidation?

And that could be for next week.

I don't have it to make it.

I could provide that.

I've got that for the 911 board meeting today.

I had that ready.

Do you feel like you can get an answer on the on them extending their incentives?

Can we can we ask them before this next meeting?

I'm going to ask them tonight as soon as we get done.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mary.

Dr.

Mollin, can you speak briefly to the efforts that the police department has been working on and for how long?

Uh I I vaguely remember some comments that Chief Baker has made throughout the past couple of years on the efforts uh in this call center and I believe Fort Smith having to take the lead on this.

Can you speak to that at all?

Uh absolutely.

The the legislation came down in 2019 with the idea of reducing the number of PSAFs in Arkansas to 77 PSAPs.

The legislation that was uh referenced mandated the Arkansas State 911 board to uh conduct a study and to provide a report no later than 2020 on the number uh of PSAPs and how to do that.

Uh, in that final report, along with a report from Sebastian County that Sebastian County and Fort Smith's PSAP would be consolidated.

That's where when they uh decided to uh do the uh the engineering report, federal engineering report, that they decided to take Sebastian County and Fort Smith and consolidate.

That was in 2021.

We then set uh performance benchmarks from the state that said by January of 2023 a consolidation plan had to be submitted to the state of Arkansas.

That plan was put together by the city and the county and was submitted prior to that December or prior to that date.

The final date was that we had to be consolidated fully by January of this year.

2025.

2025.

And that uh did not uh occur and with uh the last few weeks of 2024.

We were able to approve the interlocal agreement between Fort Smith and Sebastian County for this consolidated, basically creating the River Valley Consolidated uh dispatch center.

Once we did that, in January of this year, we began looking at the locations for this.

Um just one second to add to that.

After we've got the interlocal agreement approved in December, we did petition the 911 board to give us an extension of two years for the actual consolidation into a uh consolidated facility.

And so we are working against a deadline of January 1st of 2027.

How much money is the county putting into this?

30 percent after their revenue.

I mean, our our number is 70 percent.

The county's number is 30 30 percent.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Thank you, Dr.

Wong.

Was there anything else?

Thank you.

Point of inquiry, Mayor, if we're if we are tabling item E.

Do we table item D?

Is that connected to this?

If I could, yeah, item D is uh part of the consolidation is we are going to be taking emergency medical dispatch.

At this point, somebody calls 911 with an emergency medical issue.

We have to transfer that to a different PSAP.

Uh part of the consolidation effort and the need for this legislation was the uh creating a more efficient workflow for the uh 911, as I've been saying, is one call, one building, one response.

To do that, we have got to be state law mandates that we have got to be certain trained.

We have to have a protocol dispatching software.

The software that I presented to you here is going in uh lockstep in with the ProPhoenix software that we have already been working on and went live on in September.

That's good.

Thank you for your clear okay.

Thank you.

So we're gonna table item E.

To uh a special meeting on or is are we doing study session and special meetings?

I'll call I'd make a special meeting with then we can have a study session special meeting combined on next next Tuesday of the 11th.

Okay, that's we'll have a day.

Well, the 10th.

Tuesday's veterans day.

So I go for Monday night, the tenth.

Are we meeting Monday?

Yes.

Okay.

So I'd like to call special meeting for Monday, November the 10th.

To talk about item E.

To discuss item E.

I'll second it.

Okay.

I would just like to say, you know, I don't want anyone um to be unsafe.

I don't want to do anything that would make us unsafe, but I I need to better understand the financial commitment.

Thank you.

Understood.

Madam Clerk, call the role.

And to clarify this is to call a special meeting on November the 10th uh to consider item 3E.

31, yeah.

Yes.

31.

Yes, 31E, sorry.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Gizavis.

Yes.

Christina Gizavis?

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Motion passed the seven in favor and zero opposed.

Motion to approve the uh consent agenda items A 31A through D.

Second.

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Madam Cro call the roll.

Directors George Gossavis.

Christina Gonzavas.

Um yes to all but C is a no.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

Good?

Yes.

Kemp.

Yes.

Motion passed the seven in favor and zero opposed with the exception of item 31C, which is six in favor and one opposed.

Okay.

Just time we'll go to the Fisher Forum.

Um I don't have anything.

We'll go to Director.

Uh one.

Okay.

Director Rico.

Nothing type, Mayor.

Thank you.

Good.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Uh Director Kemp.

Nothing, Mayor.

Thank you.

Director Kissavis.

Just one question.

Jeff, what are the plans for the slides for this winner?

That's that's still to be determined, George.

We are um was there being an action to do anything or I have been in contact with the contractor to set up a meeting to discuss a local contractor to discuss uh options that we might have for getting the slides put up.

Um that's that's all I can report at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Christian Cassandra.

Um nothing for me, thank you.

May I be quick.

Board citizens fortunate.

I'd like to thank you over the past couple of months.

I've been absent missing meetings or I leave early.

My daughter plays for South Side volleyball, very important to me.

And so I just wanted to thank you.

Let me go spend time watching her.

Sassa did present represent the city of Fort Smith very well at the state tournament.

We we unfortunately lost to eventual champion Conway in the quarterfinals.

South I did present represent the city sportsmouth very well at the state tournament we we unfortunately lost to eventual champion Conway in the quarterfinals but you'd be proud of those girls to represent our city so I want to thank the citizens let me go do that thank you very much for director Newmar um I did want to give the board and citizens an update on Baker Tilly and the work that they're doing for the um uh the risk assessment for um the risk assessment for utilities so a survey was sent out to um a number of people they've gotten responses uh they're working on compiling and analyzing the the response data um they have reached out to uh some of the folks on the audit committee to discuss some of those and I think there's uh there will be a meeting coming up but I just wanted everybody to be aware of that uh they've sent that out they've got responses and so they're analyzing all that at this point so I think that's good uh to as we get closer to a risk assessment for utilities okay very good thank you sir uh Mr Dingley you recognize yes um just one thing I'd like to note that we the city has hired a director of engineering Mr.

Todd Mitke will start employment with the city on January 5th 2026 so we'll look forward to that uh as mentioned earlier uh in addition to this special meeting uh determined this evening november 10th will also be their study session next week as there is no meeting or study session on Tuesday november 11th due to the city offices closed for veterans day um finally november the 17th we have our um budget review session scheduled with the board of directors here at the blue line blue lion I believe 8 30 a.m 8 30 a.m 6 a.m 8 30 a.m thank you that's all I have thank you mayor thank you very much uh if there's nothing else motion to adjourn so moved thank you all in favor aye okay thank you