Good evening, folks.

Welcome to this uh special meeting and study session taking place on November the 10th, 2025 here at the Blue Lion.

Uh, this meeting was unanimously called by the board of directors at the November 4th, 2025 regular meeting.

Uh, Madam Clerk, would you please call the room?

Directors Rego here.

Good.

Here.

Kemp.

Here, George Getsap.

Here.

Christina Get Sabus.

Here.

Settled.

Here, Martin.

Here.

All right.

We have a quorum and just two things very quickly that we wanted to uh acknowledge and speak about.

Uh, number one, I know I speak for all my colleagues here and everybody uh at the city uh in leadership and with uh on the team in expressing our profound gratitude for all the veterans who've served our community uh and we acknowledge uh the importance of Veterans Day tomorrow and appreciate folks uh changing our schedules to be with us here Monday night um so we could have that holiday uh to honor the folks tomorrow.

But just thank you, thank you, thank you to our veterans in the community and across the nation and across the world.

And we also want to extend our congratulations to our new fire chief, Daryl Clark.

Uh, he's a 27-year veteran of the department, and I believe his first day was today.

So congratulations, Chief Clark.

Does any member of the board have a presentation of an item of business not already on the agenda for the special meeting?

Okay, seeing none.

Item one uh is a resolution accepting the bid and authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with Motorola Solutions Incorporated for the purchase of radio infrastructure equipment and installation services for the River Valley Communications Center construction project.

Uh, this is a $5.3 million budgeted project out of uh emergency 911 funds and it was tabled to this special meeting called the November 4th, 2025 regular meeting.

Uh, whom do we have to present on this item uh Mr.

Dingon?

Uh Director of Public Safety Communications Wes Mylon will address this item and answer questions to the board.

Dr.

Milam, do you have any introductory comments for us?

Is it on?

Okay.

Good evening, board.

Um just bring it closer.

All right.

Good evening, board.

Uh as we discussed last week, this is the first of um the the first capital purchase involving the consolidation of the River Valley Communications Center.

As I mentioned in the the memo, uh after the um in 2024, the um Arkansas, excuse me, in 2019, the Arkansas Public Safety Act of 2019 was can.

And this created the uh the need for to consolidate.

As I said last week, this is going to bring the number of PSAPs in Arkansas down to 77.

And Sebastian County was one of the counties to bring from what two PSAPs to one.

The plan then was submitted to the state and in late 2024, the interlocal agreement between City of Fort Smith and Sebastian County was created, and this created the River Valley Consolid uh the River Valley Communications Center governing board.

And in January, the board began to meet on a monthly basis with this organization of the consolidated peace app.

The state was able to give us a 24-month extension to January of 2027 in which to become consolidated.

Starting in January, the governing board of the River Valley Communications Center, RVCC, began working on multiple items in which to consolidate.

One of those items, in which I'm bringing for you today is going to be the actual location of the facility.

The board selected 4501 Burrow Road, which is the old Hohawk building, in order to be the location for the River Valley Communications Center.

From that point, all efforts were beginning to uh put the facility there.

After the board had selected that facility, we then uh began designing the facility.

I took over in June of this year as the executive director of the RBCC, which was the second priority of the board, and took over what was being already taken under creation, basically, in order to get us to that spot.

And when I took that place, I began moving forward with that uh location.

We've gone through floor plans.

We went through designs for the actual facility itself.

And it needed one of the uh main issues that we wanted to make sure we did is it is a hardened facility.

911, that is a crucial aspect as you're aware of public safety.

911 that is a crucial aspect as you were aware of public safety, and we wanted to be able to have that hardened facility so that in the event of uh uh another a tornado essentially that we would still have our communication center up and running, and that was the purpose of the hardened facility aspect.

From that end, the second portion of that is this radio uh infrastructure that I bring to you tonight.

We're currently in Fort Smith in Sebastian County, we have 14 total consoles in use.

They have been in use since 2005.

And we are looking to replace those.

Hand soles, okay.

In the 911 center, you have a call taking or dispatch position or a console.

When you look in the dispatch center, you sit and you've got the six monitors, right?

It's just your workspace, and your console is one-third of that.

That is your radio console.

All right.

So when I say console, that's right.

We have 14 right now involved in public safety, 21 total in the city, and that includes other departments in the city that use this radio system.

But for public safety, we have 14 total.

We have seven at the police department, three at Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, and four at the EOC uh emergency operations center.

With a hardened facility, the need for the backup was reduced.

So we didn't move forward with those four.

We are only going to replace 10.

The 16 consoles were being uh created or are built for the future.

We're looking to grow.

We're looking to possible uh possibility to be a regional facility 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

When I was creating and working on these floor plans, one of the things that I wanted to do is to look to the future.

Right.

And so that's where that came from.

4501 Durham Road location where it is at, we would need to have dual wire line microwave connection in order to get on the uh A Win system.

And in that A-win system, that tower has got microwave on it that's going to go to uh South Sebastian County Tower site in Witcherville, and then north to the Crow Hill, and that gave us redundancy with our radio coverage throughout the county.

So briefly, that's what I've brought before you.

Uh we have um since that time, as as we we mentioned, this is not the only option.

This is the first option.

We have other things to look at that we can do.

We can look at other locations, either temporary or permanent.

Uh I believe um we talked about instead of borough road, there are other locations we can do uh temporarily, but the idea is is no matter where we go, we we're gonna have to have new radios, and that is what this purchase for is for.

We were able to talk to um Motorola in this week about those incentives.

When I brought this to you, I was trying to stay ahead of those incentives.

Um and since talking with that, we are able to get a a month extension.

They are going to give us to December the 19th uh on that extension.

So that gives the ability, should you decide for that to occur, I can then go and explore uh some of the options uh more fully to determine if if if anything is that needed.

So that said thank you for uh those comments.

Madam Clerk, does any citizens sign up to speak on this item?

Uh yes, for item one, we have Crystal Cadelli.

All right.

Two minutes, correct?

Good evening.

My question is more um towards the building.

Um other than the Motorola uh portion of the um project.

So my question would be did we send out formal beds to uh remodel that building, or was it just awarded?

We haven't done either yet.

We have hired a construction manager who will work through the design process with the architect, and they will develop specifications that will be put out for bid.

Okay.

So does the um does the architect not provide specs um for the bidding process?

I I just don't understand the need for a contract manager.

They it's a construction manager, and so the we have the architect going through the the design, the construction manager gets involved before the design gets finished so they can advise us to constructability and such.

We've we've used this process several times.

Uh the first major project was Fire Station 11.

Most recently was with the Creek Moore Park uh bathhouse in terms of using construction manager at risk uh delivery method.

That is a professional service, and so we've we've we've within the last year, I forget which month, but within the last six months or so, uh, we approved agreement with uh Bashir's construction to serve as our construction manager on this project.

They work with the design team, the the architect to develop the specifications for the building for all of the the different components for subcontracting, and they put that out for bid, and then and that's when our competitive bidding will take place.

So you so it has not been awarded to Boshiers for five million dollars.

They're just working with the architect.

They are the construction manager, and there's a typically a construction manager fee involved in that, and then they develop the sp specifications for all of the subcontractor work and all of those components are bid out.

And the reason for these questions is because this is the industry that I grew up in.

My dad was a commercial general contractor, and typically the architecture firm uh provided the the specs for the general contractors to do formal bidding process.

So I just want to make sure that we're being conscious of our money and that we're doing a formal bidding process to get the best cost that is out there.

Yes, and we will.

Thank you.

Any other citizens for item one?

No, that's all indicating.

Okay.

Uh, do we have a motion to adopt item one?

So moved.

And I'll second so we can have the discussion in order.

And I believe uh Director Christina Kittsavis wanted to make the first comments.

Well, I'm glad to hear you say that there are other options.

I feel like this was presented to us as the only option.

So I read the law, and I feel like we're going far beyond what is required.

Um, you know, I went through, I read the minutes from the last committee meeting that um that you guys had, and it appears to me the financial structure places all the long-term risk on the city and not the county.

Why is the county not party to the Motorola lease?

Because if we sign on, we're on the hook for it, all of it.

That's correct.

And the the 911 governing board has consisted of many uh has got nine board members from both the city and the county.

And when we presented this to the 911 board, uh they have to approve it before I bring it before you.

The reason it is uh within the city of Fort Smith is that we are the managers of this, the fund where it used to be the county that was managing the fund, now the city is setting up and running this.

But the fund doesn't cover the lease requirements completely.

It does it over the next few years, the total cost of it in order to put it uh to reduce the amount, we put it over five years.

And what comes to the city is that any operating cost over the state turn back funds, we get uh bright 1.8 million dollars a year from the state.

The operating costs above and beyond that then get split up between the city and the county for uh 70 percent and 30 percent as it relates to population.

And the agreement that was signed, the interlocal agreement was that the city would pay for 70 percent of those fees or the the costs, and the county will pay 30 percent of those costs.

And so while you as a board are approving this purchase because ultimately the costs are going to come from the city of Fort Smith, we will pay that, but the cost is going to be shared between the city and county every year with uh a look at the operating cost over the revenue.

Well, I know the county's already said they can't afford it.

And you know, when I read the law, the consolidation law never envisioned a financing model where the city's taxpayers hold a hundred percent of the long-term debt while the county pays none of the capital liability but receives 30 percent of the service.

To me, this is a negotiation failure, not a statutory requirement.

You know, when I look at what does require, and I made a list, it requires a single consolidated dispatch center, ensuring call takers are adequately equipped, a governing board structure, which we've got compliance and operational standards.

Uh you know, I worry we're far exceeding what's required because we're building a new facility that's not required, we're not required to build to a FEMA hardened standard.

We're not required to purchase brand new radios for every agency or join a lease with Motorola or any vendor specifically.

We're not required to spend five million on a building, and then I'm hearing the tower could be three million dollars on top of that.

No, the no, the tower is within the Motorola agreement.

This the Motorola Agreement is turnkey.

It's a tower, concrete, grounding, um, server equipment, installation, and the radios for the dispatch center alone.

This is it, this isn't for all of the other, okay.

All the other things.

We could do that as long as it's on a temporary basis.

Right now, there are only six eight stations in Fort Smith at the police department.

Okay.

To consolidate, I've got uh a minimum of four that need to be on duty that I have at the police department.

Sebastian County has two, Fort Smith EMS has two.

We're bringing in that additional responsibility of police, fire, and EMS.

And because of that, we're also bringing in all of the uh employees from the county.

Rather than having employees at the city, have employees at the county and Fort Smith EMS, it's all going to be one spot.

I gotta have a place to put them.

Can we do it at the police department?

Sure.

It's going to be a tight fit.

Uh we can uh look at some construction costs at the police department to to refurbish in order to do that, but it's still going to be a tight fit.

Um that's one option.

It is to do it that way.

Um I do think that's an option we should pursue, you know, tearing out a few walls, you know, adding some cubicles, things like that, it's gonna be a lot cheaper than uh over five million dollars.

Despite that, okay, to refurbish at the police department, we will still need the new radios because the radios that we have there are 20 years old, they're no longer in service.

A question was asked, well, what if we take the old radios and move them to a new location?

We might, but they don't have service.

So we don't have to build equipment now?

We do, but it's it's 10 years too too long.

They've been wanting to replace, we've been talking about replacing them for 10 years.

And then as we get into the consolidation aspect, you know, this is going to replace it's going to bring the radios to one spot, which means Sebastian County's radios were no longer needed.

The emergency operations center is no longer needed.

I worry this wasn't adequately budgeted for.

I'm wondering, could we get another year?

Could we get two years and take the time and care to adequately budget for updated equipment?

But I'll yield my time.

I'd like to hear the thoughts from the rest of the board.

You know, I know I talked with Jeff a little bit about um, you know, where these things fall in the budget, and I understand, you know, now for us it's 1112, which was replacing 47080101.

Uh it's gone from budgeting in 25 for 2 million fifty-one thousand three hundred and twenty-six dollars to four million three hundred twenty-nine thousand.

It's it's more than doubled um for those line items.

We've got to be mindful here of our spending, but I'll I'll yield my time to the rest of the board.

Thank you.

Well, uh Mr.

Dingham first.

No, I might say just to that point that Director Savis just made is that in terms of in previous years, all of the state turn back money went to Sebastian County.

And so of the operating expenses of the E91 function fell to Sebastian County.

And so with our revised um interlocal agreement that was approved by both entities in December of 2024, uh, everyone agreed that the the responsibility of that would should shift to the city of Fort Smith, and the city would then start taking on the uh getting the turn back funds from the state and then dispensing them to reimbursement for the to as for 2026 we aren't consolidated yet.

And so turn back funds are 1.8.

Yes.

Per year.

And so I mean, even without the Motorola lease or without the building construction, we're 2.27 million dollars over.

Well we I mean, even if we we take out 1.8, that's not even including building construction, a million dollars for the Motorola lease and the additional personnel.

Right, and just and just in talking on the operation side, without the without the Motorola uh projects and without the building project, uh just on just in taking on the operations, that increases our overall uh overall spending because we then are responsible for then reimbursing the county as it as they used to reimburse us.

That's reversed.

And so there's there's a lot of there's a lot of changes here that are just on the operational side in addition to the considerations that are that we're looking at here for the capital cost of the the radios and then the building and you know both of those separately, I mean those are it's significant cost, but I think even as options exist as um Wes mentioned about the possibility of in the in the police department building, well at least temporarily, um until until the the consolidated function happens with all the personnel need to start co-locating and then we need to to be able to expand that.

Well, we have looked at uh another option also uh a little bit.

I'd say I say we've looked at it, we've talked about it more than looked at it.

Um the basement uh area of the Carnell building, the old the old library.

Um we currently have a call center in there that is moving to the city hall.

We currently have a couple of other employees officed in there which are also moving to the city hall.

That space in there would likely be sized sized enough to accommodate a long a longer solution.

Uh and it would be a hardened facility, that is a it is a pretty hard facility, especially in the the basement area.

Right.

Because we're budgeting 255,199 and 94 cents for interest expense.

Is that for the construction on the borough road building?

That would be yes, and that would be in terms of a long-term financing for uh for the financing of the five million dollars over I think a 20 years, 20-year term for Martin.

So uh I think the the original ask of this was that we would go to a study session, so we would have some conversations really outside of this this uh Motorola solution.

So um that's kind of why you're getting getting questions that aren't related to this.

But so this is a 5.3 million dollar contract.

Yes.

If I remember when we talked uh last week, uh well, I'll ask it, I'll ask it again.

How much money is in the turn back fund today?

Yeah, how much how much is in the turn back money of turn back fund today?

So we received in 2025 the initial uh transfer of the 911 fund from the county.

Okay, so the first time we've we've gotten anything is in 2025.

No, that's not well.

We got the county sent us the money they had already received in previous years.

They had accumulated uh uh a sizable uh nearly four million dollars.

We got one point nine million the county sent to us.

There is still uh another one point three-ish million that we're expecting to receive either late this year or early next year.

That is from that is from these turn back monies that have already been received by the county.

They're gonna send that to us since we will now be operating the fund.

Could you do those numbers again?

Um The original portion was about four point two million.

Wes, please speak into your microphone.

The original American amount was about four point two million in the nine one-one fund for the county.

That's going to transfer to the county.

Correct.

Okay.

And then I'm sorry, can you said four point two?

Yes.

Okay.

And then we get one point eight every year?

That's correct.

So we'll get one point eight yearly.

And this this fourth quarter of 2025, I think is when we expect to get our first because it gets paid quarterly.

So we'll uh we directed the state in July to start making those payments to the city, and we'll get the first quarter in 20 this last quarter of 25 years.

So we have 4.2 million, we'll get another um whatever you uh whatnot what number you just said or and we'll have it in 25.

So it'll be north of four and a half million dollars.

That's that's what's sitting there.

And so the ask here is 5.3 million.

So we're gonna we're gonna have a deficit there.

Correct.

Right.

So that's coming out of the general fund, is that correct?

It's technically coming out of the E911 fund.

However, uh our general fund and the county's general fund will have obligation to the E911 fund each year.

And so we will have and and I I don't I can't think of what that we've we have a projection for 26 what that number is.

So technically it gets paid from the E911 fund.

In 26, the general fund is not going to pay anything.

What about in 25?

Uh again, I mean right.

I mean, we've got all we've done in the case.

4.5.

We're getting ready to be asked to put 5.3, pay 5.3.

But there's a gap there, so that money's got to come from somewhere.

Yeah, for this Motorola bill.

Well, I'm I'm not there yet.

I'm getting there.

I'm getting there.

I'm getting there.

Um so where's the where's the difference?

4.5 to 5.3 coming from.

We're proposing a finite uh five-year financing for the Motorola project.

So it is a $1 million payment per year which starts in the February of 2027.

So that kind of that that that we don't deplete it all at once, we we paid out of time.

That's correct.

Okay.

So at some point we'll we'll amortize that out.

We'll we'll pay out.

Uh we'll uh when we'll come to this thing where we're paying five five point three, and we've got four and a half, so we're gonna have to pay some somewhere.

So that'll that'll come out of the general fund, I would assume at that point, whenever whenever we need to realize it, it'll come out of the general fund.

Um how much are we and I think Director Kat Savage just said if we get 1.8 million yearly, how much are we paying for the center yearly?

What are we budgeting for?

Is that 4.3?

Well, I'm I'm I'm I'm on operations now.

Four point four point three?

Okay.

Well, and I'm glad you said I'm glad you said capital because the hardening of the building is I mean, did did we get I haven't yeah, I haven't looked through this yet.

But the hardening of the building, what are we estimating that to be?

We don't have that estimate yet.

The building is is within the design of the facility coming from the architect.

Right.

Right?

It was in the agenda.

It is gonna be about five million dollars.

We we estimate it's gonna be five point five million dollars.

It's gonna be about five million dollars.

That's that's the that's the number that we'll get to the guaranteed maximum price of construction manager will will provide to us early in the the year next year.

I believe it was in the agenda packet for the R V C C meeting was a little over 5.5.

So where does that come from?

That is the that is the question.

The in terms of the the five million for the for the building itself is what we're contemplating a 20-year financing, and we're able to use the 1.8 million turn back funds from the E911 fund as a dedicated revenue source to authorize the the uh 20-year term of financing of the building.

Okay, I get it.

I get it, I get it.

Yeah.

Um how much do we fund how much do we budget for our 911 today?

I know I haven't I haven't looked at our Okay.

In 2025, the budget was a right around 2 million, and it was coming out if there it is.

2 million fifty.

I'm sorry, you suppose your microphone.

I'm sorry, if it was a little over around is a little over two million dollars.

Because last year or this year, 2025, it was budgeted the police department.

And then it'll be 4.3 ongoing?

Yes.

And you've got to keep in mind that we are now assuming the expenses that the county used to pay right for 911 in in this county.

Not to not to I'm not making a joke here.

Please.

But they're getting everything.

County's getting 911.

But not paying for it.

They I mean they're they they have to put in, they have to put in.

But it seems like the risk is is all on us.

More risk on us than than it was prior.

I'm just FY.

So so if we if we are going from two million to four point three million, we've got two point three million there.

We're financing the building for 1.8, or or I I don't know what how much we would finance the building each year if we amortized it out for 20 years.

What would that amount be?

It's about 4400 and 100.

450.

45.

It's about 410,000.

410.

Yep.

So we're paying 255,000 in interest a year, is what we'd be budgeting for that.

450.

So we're still math.

So we've got the building expense, the operational expense, and then the expense of the Motorola lease.

Yes.

Yeah, I I think what what what I was really looking for as part of a study session is to see all these dollars, not me mathing it out here on my calculator at on with 30 people watching it.

Um TV audience, right.

But being able to see this stuff on a on a spreadsheet, this is what we're looking at, this is what we're looking at.

Because in reality, I we can't go without 911.

I mean, I'm not arguing against that, but what I'm saying is what's that gonna do to me or the board after I'm gone, what's that gonna do to them and what's that gonna do to the remainder of the general fund at that time?

And what's that gonna do to the remainder of the general fund at that time?

So I've got to be able, I need to see that.

I have to see that.

Not to say I'm gonna vote against it, but I gotta see it.

Well, and that's and that's what I was saying.

That extension gives us time to do that.

So the but the extension is a uh the extension is just on this for a month, right?

Yes, it is.

Yes.

But we could come back and say, all right, well, what can we do otherwise?

I said 10 radios, and then I've got the 16 uh matching what's called a console that's the back room side that I did for 20 years from now.

Yeah.

Well, if we back that off, what if I can back that down to 10 consulates?

Well, I think yeah, I think we got to look at that because in order to make the in order to make this decision.

I mean, we're making a we're making a short-term decision, but it's really got long-term consequences.

So, and and consequences not necessarily a bad thing, but we got to be able to see what that looks like as we're going sure we're going down the road.

See, and another option, I mean, we me and Andy were talking about it as well.

Another another option that we have is rather than the Motorola finance, we find our own financing.

Right, you know, the the cost of the equipment before the financing was 4.6 million.

Right.

And so we could come back and look at alternative ways for that amount to get us to that consolidation.

I but would we need to finance if we're not spending so much on the building, if we were going into Carnal, could we not use that 1.8 towards the Motorola lease?

We certainly could.

We wouldn't need financing.

Right.

I mean, because if you read through the law and I read through the law, and the spirit of the law is consolidation for the cost for cost savings, you know, what what they're looking for is what they're looking for is a single consolidated dispatch center, ensuring uh call takers are adequately equipped equipped, a governing board structure, compliance with operational standards.

I mean, pretty basic standard stuff.

Uh Director Kemp and then Director Settle.

Thank you, uh Vice Mayor.

Um I think we're putting the cart before the horse here.

And uh I I see that and I see us all spinning our numbers here.

I mean, I hear I hear us work shopping locations, um, and what we're all I think feeling is the law of unintended consequences.

You know, if we buy this Motorola agreement and then but it's well, we did it because it was with this building, but now we're not gonna be in that building, we'll be in this building.

Um I personally would prefer to see us consolidate not at the police department but at the Carnell building because it has the adequate space and not set up and bring more consternation by putting it in a temporary place.

I am wondering, I mean, like hypothetically we go to the Carnell building, we take existing equipment, which I hear is dated, and I'm for all upgrading the equipment, but if could we set it up where it would still function like it does today at the Carnell building?

That's one question I have.

I understand we want to get new equipment in the future, and I uh totally for that, but if I was to say right now, could we go to Carnell say taking existing equipment?

Is that doable?

I would have to I would have to find out for sure because we're the equipment that we have, we're gonna be bringing on extra workload.

And you don't want to keep moving from this building to this building to this building, but I mean if you were going to and what I mean is is is you know, can our equipment handle that in influx of workload?

Sure.

So find out could I find out for you, Director?

I would love to do that.

I'd love to know the answer to that.

I also would love to know.

I know they're basing this on population, but do we have an idea of how many calls county brings in versus how many calls city brings in?

Absolutely.

And is that truly a 70-30 split?

I have a feeling it's not.

It is not.

Okay, there you go.

So now so I'm sitting here thinking through, I'm like, this I'm just a good old boy here in so many ways tonight.

I'm looking at it and I'm thinking we're just not it's not mathing.

And we can sit here and run numbers, but um was the building bought the old whole hog building, was that bought with E911 funds?

No, no, it was not.

Okay.

Gee Baker could probably probably do that.

So potentially bought that for a police precinct at the time.

Okay, general.

And we could sell it.

I was gonna say that was exactly what I was gonna suggest is could we go ahead and potentially sell that?

That's a pretty good piece of property.

I have a feeling that would bring a good return, maybe just enough to buy radio equipment.

That's just a thought in my head as we're thinking through this.

Um I think the other thought, and I just want to voice it because I think where I'm feeling this is I have a budget hearing, and we need to balance a budget on the general fund.

And I'm hearing, you know, well, we didn't get there, you know, it in one year, we won't maybe get out of there one year.

I that's not an acceptable answer.

We can't spend money we don't have.

So when we talk about this, I'm thinking about police officers.

I'm thinking about firefighters.

I'm thinking about those things, and when we talk about this bringing a significant amount of money and increase to the general fund, um I these are the things that I think we need to see the entire picture count the cost is what I'm the Lord that I follow told me to count all my cost and consider whether I could where I could do that before I get started.

That principle I think sticks here.

Uh we need to know the total total picture before I can understand how I can vote.

Thank you.

Director Settle and then Director Good.

I think you're talking about consolidation, you think things are going to be consolidated a little bit lower cost.

So this microphone.

I actually hate this spot here.

All the other 911 centers, they've seen a rise and increase like we're seeing ours when we consolidate.

If I called Washington County, Benton County, Pulaski County, Washington County, when they consolidated, they built a new facility.

But I mean, but are they seeing the your their ongoing cost double like we're seeing with us?

I don't know that answer, sir.

I I I'd like to know that because I think the state law was intended to consolidate to keep the service good, but reduce the overall costs.

And I think this is different.

You know, when I leave 70 30, I go back to what we get from the sales tax.

I think we get 64 64 percent instead of 70.

So why is it 7030?

If it's based on population, why isn't then the either we get more on the county wide sales tax or we get less hit here?

That's where I'm at.

Because the county wide sales tax is 64 percent if I remember what we get back from it.

Was the 7030 already agreed to in the interlocal agreement?

So that's already been agreed to?

Yes.

Yeah, that's I guess what I'm going back with everybody else is if we decide to go with Carnell, can we use the existing tower?

And can we put new equipment on that tower?

I don't know that I'll have to find out.

I think those questions should be answered.

And and the other thing is I'm glad that the Motorola would extend another month, but I think if you go back to them says we need some more time, they'll probably extend it for a couple months.

If they truly want the business, they'll probably extend it four or five months without a problem.

Okay.

So if there's a motion to be made here, I'd like to motion to table this.

I'll administration and Dr.

Mylam get this.

That's what I'm saying.

But whenever everybody gets their questions done.

I think uh Director Good wanted to weigh in.

Yeah, just to weigh in.

Um I do want to say that I agree with uh statement that Director Kemp said about seeing the whole picture.

Uh I think that you know, like a lot of other projects, you know, looking at this, you know, when we started talking about the 911 center, we were hopeful about our tax revenues.

Um and another funding source that we applied for $5 million that we didn't get.

So we were hopeful, but you know, neither one of those things panned out for us.

So I'm not opposed at all about um trying to outfit uh Carnell, Cornell building.

You know, I'd like to know I'd like to know what that what that cost looked like.

Also have a question about the equipment.

So I understand the equipment is outdated.

I I definitely get wanting new equipment.

So I think um Director Martin might have asked, does do the equipment from the EMS and county and the city will all that work together?

Not with EMS.

Sebastian County and Fort Smith are on the same wire line equipment.

I think Ethernet cable wire lines.

Ethernet cable for wireline.

Sebastian County and Fort Smith are on that type of system.

Fort Smith EMS is uh just essentially using a mobile radio that has have to be patched in in order to work.

So that's something that we would have to see what, like I said, what would be within using that equipment between Sebastian County and Fort Smith.

But also keep in mind if we're going to use that equipment, we have got to pare down that equipment in order to move them.

Because we are constantly using these radios 24-7.

So if we we want to take the radios we have now and put them in a new spot, then we have to go out then, okay.

Well, we reduce our work, our radios by 50 percent to then take them down, move them, set them up, test them, re-energize them, and then we're still at 50 percent until we move the the other 50 back over.

Okay, okay.

So with this consolidation, the equipment itself will all the operators, the dispatchers, be able to work on is the equipment the same.

Will were they able to work on all of it?

Yes.

Okay.

The reason I'm asking, you know, FedEx, we just did our reorganization and yeah, it's the math is in math, and a lot of it's not mesh.

So but the other thing I want I wanted to say is, you know, we're talking about all these expenses and revenues, and what I haven't seen is what a forecast look like, you know, for the revenues that could possibly come in and the expenses for you know 26, 27, you know, 28.

I do understand that we've got 1.8 million dollars coming in.

That's not until 2007, but 2027, right?

So getting a forecast on what that might look like, the 911 um uh revenues compared to the expenses.

The the fees that we get from the Arkansas State 911 board are fees that are on your wireless cell phone bills for 911 services.

They um from 2019 to 2020, they doubled those fees in anticipation of this consolidation process.

In 2019, we got a little over $560,000 in Sebastian County that was used.

It is now jumped to uh it was a little over two million in 2020, but the way it was explained to me is that two that in 2020 that overage was the backlog from the state switching those fees.

It's now come down to about 1.71.8.

That is calculated based on all of the wireless fees that the the state of Arkansas gets and then divides it by population.

So that's divided Sebastian County's percentage of the whole population of the state is where that cost come from.

So in forecasting out what does that revenue look like?

Well, the revenue we have now is based on the 2020 census.

At the 2030 census, if the population of Sebastian County has increased, then two would the revenue increase.

Okay.

So it's based on population.

Thank you.

I might say also that you know the the 5.3 million dollars that we're talking about and the incentives that Wes has mentioned, um, those are based on a configuration and a proposal of radios and a system equipment that would go into the borough road property.

If I mean there's no there's no magic to that other than taking advantage of those incentives now before the end of the year.

But however, if we if we backed up this project and we said we're gonna look at a different facility, the Carnell property um for as an example, we're gonna look at that facility, let's figure out the best radio system for that.

It will likely would come in in a different number of slightly different configuration, using you know, trying to achieve the same things that we're trying to uh with this particular project, if it were happening to Borough Road, but if we shifted that course and focused on a different facility, that 5.3 million dollar number would likely be quite a bit different, especially especially well I would think it would be different.

And so um, I mean that that just making a decision here, that's kind of why we put this special meeting together was because of the timing of the incentives on that cost.

But if that's not the configuration we need anyway, or at least we want to look at a different option for that, then it probably makes sense to let this go.

Motorola still wants to sell us the system.

They will work for with us to configure an appropriate appropriately sized system that would fit into whatever building we ultimately go in.

George Kids Abis What's concerning to me is that this motor motor contract, it came to us in a consent agenda.

If we had passed this last week, we would have effectively been locked into the borough road location.

You know, I don't understand why we weren't presented with an alternative location or several options initially.

I mean, we're budgeting in our budget book, we're budgeting 255,000 for interest expense.

And if you look software licensing fees, 323,000 computer equipment, 75,000 computer equipment, software maintenance, 380,000, other 496,000.

I would like to see us sell Borough Road put that money back in the general fund and utilize an existing building that we've got.

Thank you.

Director Good Thanks Vice Mayor so in in in reading uh the resolution would we really be locked in if we accepted the motorola bid will we be locked in on the borough road location because that that's I I didn't understand I don't believe that's the case maybe I'm misunderstanding this is just we're talking about the Motorola itself the the equipment.

I think it's the equipment needs specific to that location.

But we're gonna but we're gonna look at doing the equipment anyway and again I my my thought my thought process is if we're dealing with Motorola they're gonna work with us you know they will give us you know hopefully you know what we need and and not what you know not more than what we need but you know we're invested in the future as well so we know what we're gonna need and we're talking about Carnell being a temporary location so that's saying that we are going to have to adjust equipment wise for the employees in space needed director Christina could say I was then director Martin So if we look at this it as presented we've got five point three million with Motorola we've got five point five million borough road outfitting it bringing it up to speed we've got four point three million in operation so you know if you utilize the information we have we have a pretty clear financial picture of what the borough road location is going to look like so um my thought here is it looks like as going back and kind of looking through this a lot of the communication came via email um over the course of the last couple years and uh this this a study session where we talk about this and look at this and iron out those costs that Director Kat Savage just said I think that's the that's the prudent way of moving forward with these types of things.

So in the future I think that's what we do.

It's not necessarily on you Jeff that was a that was a prior administration that that that was communicating via email but I think we got to make sure that we understand the the the cost going in as Director uh Kemp said so let's so what what what's what's our what's our next steps from here what what are we what are we going to do?

We're gonna we're gonna put together costs what we know like what Director Christina Cat Savage just made mention of.

We'll also have some alternatives associated with that.

Yes.

So I mean I want to see the total cost associated you got some alternatives of how we how we can fund this thing so I would definitely want to see that what else do we have that we've got to I want to see other consolidation groups that they've seen a rise in cost or lower cost.

Okay.

Because this is a rise in cost appears to be a rising county everyone center went up I think then the state has got an issue that didn't really realize I want to know how many calls are really coming in from the city of Fort Smith versus outside the city of Fort Smith.

And I think if we look at uh the situation moving forward no matter where we settle and how we upgrade equipment either all at once piecemeal as it fails because the situation as it exists currently if I understand it is that equipment is functioning but when and if equipment of that age ceases to function there's not a um replaceability of that same equipment you'd have to upgrade at that point for support software etcetera and so I'm I understand it correctly that based on the projections around the turn back funds we're talking about somewhere on an annual basis of between one and a half million dollars and two million dollars that we would expect to come to us correct correct you know that I think that's a number worth uh keeping in mind not just for the short term but the medium term and moving forward that hey this is the amount that we can reasonably expect uh maybe a little higher if you have population growth or things like that this is kind of the target we need to aim for uh when it comes to operating uh the 911 service not um habitually structurally a number that's higher than what we would reasonably expect to to come in as sort of the operating funds for this uh George Sell did you want to make a motion or director good I'm sorry yeah just uh you know Director Martin made a comment about um the emails that we've received and not having the study session you know I just want to remind folks you know we've been waiting and in to to get some information um not that it was getting late we were waiting as a city to get information I remember um police chief baker talking about you know the other entities we had to work with the state the county EMS and you know some of the meetings you know things weren't being a lot of moving parts a lot of things going on a lot of negotiation that had to take place so during this whole time I believe uh Chief Baker was diligently working on how to get us here where we are now so I I I I guess just rather than having a an out of

I remember um police chief baker talking about you know the other entities we had to work with the state the county EMS and you know some of the meetings you know things weren't being a lot of moving parts a lot of things going on a lot of negotiation that had to take place.

So during this whole time I believe uh Chief Baker was diligently working on how to get us here where we are now so I I I I guess just rather than having a an item come to us to vote on this is a big part of the the dollars at that point once we got it let's sit down and let's let's go through it and let's let's talk it through so us the citizens everybody's aware of what the what the cost is settle I was gonna make a motion to table this item and uh how long do y'all would you need for the questions and re-look at the different properties things that we've talked through resistance meeting a couple months how long do you think you need I think I think that that's the I the idea for additional discussion I think this particular resolution needs to die.

Okay.

Because we don't need to keep this one going and then try to re evaluate because this a this particular resolution authorizes specific agreement.

Okay and if we're gonna change that up then we need to do something different.

But I think anything all these questions to be answered let's bring it back to the board in the study session.

So if one of y'all withdraw your second then it could die without a motion.

I would draw my second your uh director camp your second was to a motion a table I believe I've made the second uh on item one to enable us to have discussion uh I withdraw my second uh and we move on to item two uh item two is a resolution accepting the bid of and thank you Dr.

Milan thank you accepting the bid of and authorizing the mayor to execute a contract with TIMCO blasting and codings incorporated for the 2016 SSA remedial measures subbassion basin P double eight project number 17-13-C1 this is a 17 point seven million dollar budgeted uh project from the sales and use tax bonds and was tabled uh pending further review uh back at our last meeting on the 11th of November uh Mr.

Dingman uh thank you um as as mentioned this these there are two particular items the project uh the project bid award and the construction observation contract for this project uh these items were on the agenda for the November 4th meeting due to the size cost of the project and the fact that the lowest of the three bids for construction is nearly was more than six million dollars higher than the engineer's estimate uh the board wanted further discussion with the about the project specifically to discuss the difference in the estimated cost versus the bids and the potential for uh possibly breaking it up into multiple projects and rebidding I I uh place that discussion on this special meeting agenda so that the board could take action on the items after discussion if desired uh engineering staff and representatives from the design engineer Hawkins and we are present this evening to participate in this discussion and address these questions staff uh jimmy deer um deputy director of uh engineering for utilities is is present here to miss these questions jimmy john jimmy john did i say dear yeah uh and that's my apologies jimmy and just as a parliamentary note uh item three is an engineering agreement related to item number two so those things can be considered together yes uh mr john any comments from yourself as we get started I'd like to give a just a short uh timeline of the two projects uh we knew we're gonna have a lot of projects coming in at roughly same time so back in June we had a meeting and we invited contractors both local and and statewide uh out of state contractors come in introduce them to the upcoming projects so they'd they could get prepared to uh to bid these uh multiple projects and then uh first advertisement went out September the 14th for these all all nine projects these two included and the the bid opening for the project we're talking about 17-13 was on October the 21st that's given the contractor 37 days to prepare a bid for this particular project uh course the the project bid was uh 17 million seven hundred and forty one thousand seven hundred and seventy six dollars and fifty cents which was substantially higher than the engineer's estimate and if if someone from Hawkinson were to come up and uh comment on that and and just when I get through here and so with with that said the the contractor had plenty of time to prepare his bid the local contractors had time to prepare their bid so I I think they all looked at it if the local contractors had uh capacity to build these projects I think they would have had sufficient time to prepare their bids okay uh did the gentleman from Hawkins weir have any introductory comments Larry please introduce yourself and thanks

The local contractors had time to prepare their bid, so I think they all looked at it if the local contractors had uh uh capacity to build these projects, I think they would have had sufficient time to prepare their bids.

Okay.

Did the gentleman from Hawkins Weir have any introductory comments?

Larry, please introduce yourself and thanks.

Larry Yancey, Hawkins were engineers.

Um glad to stamp the questions.

Okay.

I thank you for being here.

Madam Clerk, do any citizens sign up to speak on item number two?

Yes, first we have Joey McCutcheon, and each will have two minutes.

All right, thank you.

Uh if you want to just make room for the citizens' comments, thank you.

Mr.

McKutchin, thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Glad to be here.

Uh you know, trust is a valuable commodity.

And um the city has repeatedly violated the citizens' trust uh on this consent decree.

Uh and now we can't even agree whether this thing needs to be on a study session or being voted on tonight.

And that's quite disturbing.

Um it seems that one hand doesn't know what the other hand's doing.

This bid has gone from an initial estimate of 11 million dollars, now it's up over 17 million dollars.

That's a six million dollar difference.

Citizens have asked repeatedly why the city refuses to hire an expert, an outside independent expert to manage this construction, this this consent decree project.

It's a it's a valid question.

Uh this isn't just a drop in the bucket.

This isn't a brother-in-law deal, and we don't trust what's going on here.

That's a six million dollar difference coupled with item number four, that's a $12 million difference, and we're gonna ramrod this through like we were gonna put item number one on a consent decree.

I mean a consent agenda.

So the the question becomes why will this board not hire an independent outside expert to manage this money?

I mean what what would could it possibly hurt?

It's a drop in the bucket.

It's a drop in the bucket to have an independent source who the people trust.

I'm sure that that folks who are handling this are doing the best that they can, but I've heard repeatedly from this board that they do not have the expertise, and we're seeing another classic example.

Now we hear the excuse that local it's local bidders, local bidders aren't approving uh it didn't bid on the project, and that's the reason that this is jacked up six million dollars.

And now we're gonna vote on it tonight.

It makes no sense.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, anyone else on item two?

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening.

I actually would have liked to have gone after uh Hawkins and Weir because I probably would have more questions, but um, you know, my concern is with a big project as this one is that you limit your contractor options because not all contractors can get bonded for over 17 million dollars.

So it you know could be better to break those up in smaller jobs.

Um the other thing I would say, and and you did say that you had that um you know that bidding um conference with the uh contractors back in June, but if it's if it's a big job, the contractors may need more than 37 days depending on how many jobs that they have going on at the time.

So I would just ask that we be very conscious of um you know how we're uh putting together these projects and bids and you know make sure that we allow for enough time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, we have Lavon Morton evening.

I previously spoke on these two items, and so you know what I think that we should uh break these up into smaller contracts, and we cannot go with uh uh amounts over the engineering estimate by this much.

You know, a few hundred thousand, maybe in an extreme case one million, but the the biggest problem here is the out-of-state contractors it seems are are just bidding um uh really high.

And if we spend 10 million or 11 million dollars more on these kinds of projects early in the process, we will not have enough money to get the consent decree done under the plan that we developed in 2024 and that the voters uh adopted based on the sales tax vote in May.

I mean it's a two-step plan, do this do the bonds uh with the sales tax, and then in 2030, refinance the 2018 bonds, and we will come up with about six hundred million dollars.

We we that won't do it if we if we're paying too much for the early contracts.

But if you think about fifty million a year for 11 years in a row or so, and you know you get a little more toward the end, you you are you're at 600 million, so you don't need to do 77 million dollars in one year.

You can you can back these contracts up a little bit and and not be forced into a situation where you're paying way too much because you've you've worn out all the all the capacity in the local contractors.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk?

Uh that is all with the exception of we just have uh Brent Peters and Lettery Yancy to answer questions.

Okay, Mr.

Dingman?

Yeah, if I might ask Mr.

Yancey to go through um the process, if you will, of uh creating an engineers estimate and how how that how you put those together and then how these these projects compared to that process.

Certainly, certainly.

Hawkinsware, we've tracked uh sewer projects.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh at Hawkinsware we tracked um similar projects.

We have current projects that are in construction, we track historic bid tabs as well as any other information that's available.

I think we've tracked um projects, you know, since the consent decree was uh uh conceived and first projects executed.

So we track those numbers as well as any current numbers uh that are that are available to come up with our engineers estimate.

In this bidding cycle, we had five projects that were bid.

Three of those projects were with either at or below our engineers estimate.

And so what changed was were the numbers that we were tracking or was there something else going on?

As we stated previously, you know, these two projects were two of the last of the nine in the in that group of projects at bid.

Uh no local or in-state contractors responded to those.

Um there could be uh multiple reasons.

Um I think capacity was mentioned earlier, that could be one of those reasons, but so these two projects have been late in that cycle and didn't get any local area and state um responses.

Uh and again, that those could be contributing factors to the numbers that we saw.

So again, we've tracked projects um similar to this unit price contracts throughout the city, and again try to do our due diligence and tracking those, you know, historically as well as moving forward.

Of course, these new numbers and this this bid cycle would change pretty much all of those numbers moving forward, and we'll continue to track those uh for any future projects.

And that as you uh used a quantity and then a cost per quantity for for those uh engineers estimates.

The proposal wasn't necessarily any differences in quantities, it was a difference in unit price.

Certainly, certainly all the contractors bid or uh unit or quantity takeoff and have the same numbers, the same units uh or same quantities, uh the unit prices will vary uh and ultimately how those contractors prepare their bid in a unit price contract.

So yeah, those are that's where the variations are and and and then the just the the discussion is why or you know what what's changing uh and again um it does appear that some of the local and in-state capacity is is being used up and ultimately uh may have reflected in in our bid pricing.

So could you speak uh specifically to the idea of breaking up this particular contract or the and the other one that we're also talking about this evening?

Certainly, I think Director Settle had mentioned uh this project that we're talking about here specifically is 30,000 linear feet, and it's two times larger than any other project that was bid in the bidding cycle.

Um question was can the project be split?

This project does have a pretty natural split into the east and west halves, the east half with tie into basin 10 and 14 capacity improvements project, another project that was bid in this cycle, uh splits the project almost equally, and therefore we had anticipate probably an equal split in each of those project sizes.

So could that result in better bid pricing?

It could.

Okay.

Does anyone want to make any motions as it relates to item number two, or do we just have a few questions for Mr.

Yancey?

I've got some questions and comments without a motion, but I'll leave it up to the board.

Did you I have questions and comments but no motion?

Okay.

Uh director, all right.

Well, uh just to be in order, uh, we do need to make sure that we uh make a motion as it relates to the uh agenda or the item before we get into director questions.

So I'll make a motion, please.

For approval of item two?

Tim, yes.

Okay, I'll second that, and then we'll go to Director Kemp and then Director Settle and Director Martin.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I simply put, I think this was the last two of the nine jobs.

I think if the window for bidding was a little bit wider and they knew which ones were being awarded on the on the grab, I think you would have had some guys come back for bids.

Um I've talked to a couple of them and asked them this much, and I think that's where they were.

Also, the size of the project is just it's a lot, it's a lot to bond, uh, especially if they're gonna take on some of the other jobs.

So a bigger bid, bigger bid window and all those things.

I'd like to see both of these handled that way and seeing go back to the drawing table and hopefully we land closer to the engineering estimates.

So that's what my question was is if that's where we're gonna go, because we have a lot more to talk about tonight.

Wanted to know how do we handle this so that we can make sure that things are progressing forward.

Yes, and uh well said.

Director Settle.

Uh thank you.

You know, it's naturally to split these this first one apart.

Um, but when you bid nine projects at one time, you actually hurt the bidding process.

What should have happened is that we should have bid a couple, awarded them, bid a couple and awarded them.

So this one here, for example, there's three projects.

If you split the first one in half, you got three separate projects.

I would bid the first one, award it, then bid the second one and award it, and bid the third one and award it.

And that way the local contractors, anybody else can see if they have the capacity, or did they get awarded or not get awarded so they can bid on the next one?

Because right now you're competing against yourself when you did the way you did it.

And that's just the math you did.

You can be you actually competed against yourself because you put everybody together and you asked to bid on everything, and they're all not gonna take it.

And some said, Well, I might get this one and they didn't get it.

Well, they might have bid it on this other one, but they didn't touch it because they were focused on one or two of these.

So to me, I think you should split the first one in half, rebid all three, and bid them in consecutive order, bid it, award it, bid award, bid award.

And if you look at for reference, one of the things that we well was the one for craft rentals was seven uh seventeen thousand nine hundred and fifty linear feet with 160 manhole covers.

It came in pretty good.

But the one this one has 190 double the amount way over, and the other one from work and contracting was 1200 12,640 feet with only 130 manhole covers, and they were four million dollars over.

So something was different on those two.

And so I think retaking these back, start with refresh, and maybe you can look at this one that we had with 130, this other one, and see if it can be naturally split or not.

Is up does there's some terrain issues or something says we could split this bit better.

But I think trying to bid a nine at one time affected the pull and we bid it against ourselves.

Certainly we can work with city staff to develop a new schedule.

Okay, Director Martin.

Yeah, I'd echo this and I won't speak very long, but um, you know, I think when we originally talked this through, we were talking about 50 million a year, like Director Morton or like Mr.

Morton had said.

Um so that gives us 26 to bid out another 50 million, which we we haven't bid out any, we've we hadn't bid about 25 million out.

This would be another 26, 27 million.

So we could move that into 26 and have a nice even uh uh path as we move forward over the next 12 years.

So um do that.

Uh uh, you know, I'm I'm concerned about some of the contractors, but I do know in speaking with some of uh some of our local folks that they would have bid lower, but they didn't have the capacity to be able to do it.

So that's uh that's what that's how we need to proceed going forward.

Director Good.

Yeah, I want to thank um Mr.

Morton for your comments and your diligence staying on this.

Um I just have a question.

I mean, I I'm I'm fine with getting um with breaking this down into multiple pieces.

Uh my question is now that the initial bid process is already started, moving forward, will the subsequent bid process be affected and will it be effective?

I mean, now that those numbers are already out there.

First, uh the bid certified bid tabulations haven't been released and and typically aren't until the awards are made.

So the numbers aren't out there.

The total amount may be out there.

Um what we may get in a rebid situation, uh don't know.

Um hope that we'll get more response and and have lower bids, but there's no guarantee that that may be the case.

I mean, that's always uh kind of part of the process.

A couple of other things that I was thinking of.

Um, you know, in in this process, you know, taking a taking a larger uh job opposed to breaking it down.

So say you had a a company that that made multiple bids and they were awarded, now they will be forced to uh do extra permits, correct?

Uh staging, you know, all that stuff that that we don't see that goes into setting up.

Certainly there is a chance that uh the mobilizations, uh any per DMs and those type things might be duplicated, so there is that that possibility that that could happen.

Yeah.

We'll very we'll probably have one.

I think uh I can't make the motion myself because I'm cheering the meeting, but I do think it would be wise for us to consider with these projects um you know specific study session where we uh talk about and are presented with the breaking up uh of these projects and where we also can contemplate um the project management uh of the overall effort moving forward.

Director Kitzavis.

I'm the one that called this special meeting for the specific purpose of discussing the 911 call center.

Um I never had any intention of adding these items, so I'd like to make a motion to table items two through five until the first study session in January.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor regarding items two through five.

Any additional comments on that motion?

Seeing uh seeing none uh from a director, uh Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion at hand.

Directors Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Motion passes six in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Demons, just a clarifying question.

Yes, please.

Um I was just going to clarify on the the uh the dates of the of the dates for the bids to remain valid.

Uh I you mentioned uh it was mentioned at the last meeting 60 days potentially past the umkay.

So the contractor can withdraw their bid.

They don't have to, but they they can withdraw their bid after 60 days.

It that's relevant information and we are aware of it.

Thank you.

Um motion to adjourn the second.

Motion to adjourn the meeting.

Do we have a second?

All in favor?

I think thank you.

And uh without objection, uh may we have a brief uh three uh five-minute recess prior to the start of the study session.

Thank you.

Folks, we want to begin convening back, we'll get the study session uh underway.

I'd like to uh call the study session to order for November the 10th, uh 2025 here at the Blue Lion.

Item number one is a discussion regarding our regularly scheduled meetings of the board of directors for 2026, and I believe our uh city clerk, Miss Sherry Guard has some comments she'd like to make uh by way of introduction of this item.

Ms.

Gard.

Yes, um by state law, the board of directors are required to call their special meetings for the meetings of 2026 by ordinance.

Um what is presented to you before you is the 2026 board meeting calendar.

Uh just for say just for uh time purposes, I will just kind of briefly summarize the calendar there for you.

All meetings are set for the uh first and third Tuesday of each month, with the exception of if you will look at October.

Uh because it has been requested at the board will not meet on that first Tuesday in October for that is the national night out event.

So what we have done this year is we have moved that to uh Monday, proposing it for Monday, October the 5th.

Uh the second one that is a little off from the normal first and third Tuesday for the regular meeting is November.

Uh the reason we are recommending that be on Monday is because uh November, Tuesday, November the third is the evening for the is the day for the general election.

So a lot of incumbents and it um like to campaign throughout the remainder of the day.

Um if you will look and see at all of the uh every month that has a fifth Tuesday.

We typically we'll go ahead and put that on there.

We schedule it tentatively.

But we typically, I mean it's there if the board wishes to meet on that fifth Tuesday.

Uh all holidays are indicated on the calendar.

I don't Josh, can you I don't know if you can put that up there, but um but everything is presented for you.

There's no like I said, there's no holidays that conflict with any of the regular meeting dates or a study session date.

So it is presented for your consideration.

Oh, one thing I do want to mention too is that um although it's not required, study sessions um do require a concurrence of the board, it's not required by ordinance, but it does require a concurrence of the board.

And also to if you will look at in uh November when your budget hearing, we are uh tentatively proposing for Friday, November the 13th, which you do you can decide that now or you can decide that later, just at the board's discretion.

And we do request that uh this item be placed on the December 2nd regular meeting for consideration.

Okay.

Do we have any inputs uh to share with Ms.

Guard uh this evening about the calendar okay hearing none?

Uh can we have two directors offer their concurrence uh to place this on the December 2nd regular meeting moved?

Second.

All right.

Thank you all very much.

Uh items two A, B, C, D, and E are uh proposed CIP plans.

Uh 2A is the CIP for water systems maintenance and improvements 2026 to 2035.

Mr.

Dinkman.

Thank you.

Uh I'll have uh Jimmy Johnson come and speak to this item, water systems maintenance and improvement capital improvement plan.

Jimmy.

And Jimmy and and our presenters for this evening, uh if you would just please make the introductory comments you would like to make, and then we'll uh open it for questions from directors.

Okay.

Um so I've got a uh few housekeeping items on the uh CIP.

First of all, the 2025, the starting balance of 27 million dollars and change is a combination of around 14 million dollars of uh money that hasn't been obligated yet, and the other 13 million dollars is outstanding commitments that they're under contract, but they're gonna be spent in 26 and 27.

So that's how we started with the uh starting balance.

And we're showing no uh expected revenue for CIP projects.

All the the money from uh our rates are are going for maintenance and operations of the water department.

All revenue.

Yes, sir.

Going towards maintenance operations and maintenance.

Yes, sir.

Uh we are showing uh $15 million in congressionally directed funding coming in in 2026 as consists of 12 million dollars, which is earmarked for uh the transmission line project 1933.

I've I've got it uh tagged as 1616.

Is that coming from Bozeman?

Yes.

So Bozeman is giving us 12 million.

Yes, assuming we actually get it.

Okay.

It is promised, but okay.

So making a visit to Bozeman may be important for us.

Could be.

Okay.

Thank you.

The other three million dollars is uh for a neighborhood project uh 21 14 2A, which is uh replacement of uh two-inch water lines, and it also takes care of uh uh some fire flow issues that we've had uh reported in our water master plan.

For uh from Senator Bozeman's office is through that program was 2024 funding.

So that funding is available.

Okay also in 2026 we're showing 13 million dollars in reimbursements from the state highway that's where they're doing highway improvements and we uh have under contract these projects and as we get them completed they uh reimburse us the money uh some of the projects are 100 percent were reimbursable and some of them are are just partially reimbursable um our layout of of the water CIP is uh is a little different we've tried to uh group everything of of like projects together if you would uh and if if you'll turn to uh section six of the uh CIP which is operations and program support that's that's the last page of the water so this just to give you uh a layout the uh 6.2 is uh regulatory compliance uh lead and copper rule inventory compliance I've got that laid out with no expenses because the lead and copper rule requires us to replace services from the meter to the home but it doesn't provide any funding for it and we're not we we we don't think we are obligated to do that is that a congressional thing or is that an EPA mandate?

It's an EPA mandate.

So it's it's not a pass by Congress it's been a rule passed by the EPA.

That's my understanding.

Yes and it's they're they're telling the cities have to replace personal property copper alliance is over which is lead yes lead and copper alliance on people's personal properties just lead okay just led okay and and then 6.3 is the the the the R Dot utility relocation projects so we have some that are under construction and and we'll get that back the big one that's uh coming up is uh Rogers Avenue that that one is going to be a fairly big we've I've got it marked out as 10 million dollars and I I hope that's enough but unfortunately this project is going to be a very low reimbursement for percentage at at this point we're thinking 15 to 20 percent reimbursement on this this particular project.

Is is that related to the widening of Rogers of Rogers Avenue okay yes is there a particular reason why they're not reimbursing a higher percentage the the reason is is because the our facilities are within their right-of-way and they were placed within their right of way so when when we get reimbursements our facilities were there before the right of way but in this case the right-of-way was there before most of our facilities so the highway department doesn't participate in reimbursement in those situations the other big ticket item is uh town avenue and there's basically two projects the last two projects in 6.3 are forson avenue and in in addition to the expenditure here there's also an expenditure on the sewer that goes along with this so from our perspective from you's perspective we don't have much gain in this but the highway department has suggested or we've suggested to the highway department that these projects should be a hundred percent reimbursable we we feel like we have evidence that all these lines were predate the right away to the state have we heard back about that has that been confirmed we have not heard back about that.

Do we just I mean six point one million, is that or twelve point two million?

Is that on us?

If well, if that were proved out to be the case, then yes, that would be, but we'd have to, I mean, it's op I mean it's optional, it's not required that we do this, but it's not required that we participate in that.

But I think that I think that that determination would have to be made.

Are we gonna have to highway commissioners?

Have we gone that far yet?

Yes, and we I mean we sent a letter within the last two weeks.

If we just called them and said, hey, we need to talk to you and have a have a face-to-face with them.

Sometimes a quick call and a face-to-face do more than just a look.

Sure.

So we we have had a face-to-face meeting with the engineering section, and that's when they originally there was no reimbursement.

We were just gonna do this so we could have the right to so we could transfer the the street from to state to the to the city.

These were the costs that would come with this and with having to do that.

That was not the original agreement.

The original agreement was 100% reimbursed, everything fixed before it's transferred city because they're trying to re through the uh state highway, the wheeler.

So we're not that's not what was originally agreed to.

So we we need to go back.

If we need to get our dot involved, if we all have the engineering team, let's call the headquarters, get Keith involved, whoever we need to, let's get people involved and do this the right way.

I think the overall picture uh that's important to to be aware of, you know, in this presentation, and this represents, you know, the current projected look assessment of uh water pro non-consent decree, correct uh water project needs, you know, over this nine, ten year period is that starting in the year 2028, and this is you know projection, and obviously these numbers move a little bit one way or another, but there just needs to be an awareness that there has been identified, you know, over 200 million dollars in needs for the system.

And so this is something that we're gonna have to be uh cognizant of and aware of moving forward.

Is that that that is accurate?

That is accurate, and along with those identified needs, and many of those needs we've heard of, the transmission line project, the uh you know, and and things like that related to uh other improvements, but there are as you'll see on the very first page at the very top of it, where it's talking about the anticipator or expected revenue, that that line, expected revenue, is zero all the way across there because we don't have any identified specific sources of revenue for these projects uh starting in 2027.

So we've had revenue in up to this point to do some of these projects.

That's yes.

Where where's that come from?

A lot of that came from the 2018 uh water and sewer revenue bonds.

Okay.

And that those funds are what do you say those reimbursable?

So those funds have been recycled.

First they were recycled because of the the flood.

We we spent the money and got that money back, and and then we've done the R dot projects that we're getting reimbursements from.

But in terms of dollars that are left to spend from the 2018, you mentioned that when you first started.

Uh 13 million.

Right.

So are we uh so is any money from water going to pay any bond any longer?

Or uh paying any bond uh uh payment?

Well, the the of course the water and sewer fund is combined and they have a combined debt service and the 2018 bonds are being paid from that that combined but they're but the okay.

So we just issued new bonds.

And and the water, the water which is the water side of the water fund had had nothing to do with those.

So those are all sales tax bonds, right?

Since we're discussing some financial things, I uh asked uh our CFO to come up and join us uh at the table for these uh CIP conversations.

Right.

To your uh comment about the debt service, I mean we are we are allocating, you know, we do we do compute the water and sewer allocation between the difference the debt service is being allocated based upon an estimate of the total usage of the bonds proceeds and whether they went towards water or sewer projects historically and also into the future.

us uh at the table for these uh c ip conversations right to your uh comment about the debt service i mean we are we are allocating you know we do we do compute the water and sewer allocation between right the difference the debt service is being allocated based upon an estimate of the total usage of the bonds proceeds and whether they went towards water or sewer projects historically and also into the future so um so yes so the water so as far as from what we're reporting to you guys the board of directors um the water revenues are are paying their portion of the debt debt service as it relates to which projects the debt went to support or fundament I mean it's it's about uh it's very close to it's like 55 45 split it's very the allocation is very close to 5050 when I remember so we're paying we're paying these these bonds and we're paying them every year that's our debt service debt service coverage ratio and we're pay we're paying 1920 million dollars a year and we don't have any funds available for any water project it's all spent all spent right there is well I think they've got it the there is money in the there's still proceeds left which Jimmy's accounted for part of those I think they're already committed on certain projects already um and there might there's a little bit of cash left over from excess sales tax or um that we transferred in you know probably two or three years ago when we paid off the sales tax bonds so I don't know you know they've the the in the um water and sewer department keeps up with that what they've what they've allocated those funds for but I know that there is there's cash sitting there and I think he's got it accounted for in the beginning balance.

He's got it accounted for but then in 27 it's gone yeah you got nothing left.

Well we'll be it'll be used up apparently but so what's the I mean is there I I guess I'll uh talk to the board on this one what what what is our as of right now we can't fund anything on this sheet so how do we how do we fund that what are the what are the options available to us well in 28 we'll be able to call some of the water revenue bonds in 28 will be callable so we could refinance some of those bonds and go out and issue more um revenue bonds at that time did we not get favorable terms on those 2018 bonds because when I look at the uh the debt service we're spending 11 million two hundred thousand just to service those bonds more than uh the other two combined you can't call bonds until it's 10 years old right so that's what he said 28 28 so I mean you'll just terms for these I don't know how I don't know if they're more favorable than they will be in 28 we just we can test we can look at you know evaluate that you know in the in the near future but so when when can we get some estimates on bond proceeds or proceeds or revenue expected revenues available to us.

I think that's important.

I mean I see this across the board I was like well okay no water project and I don't think that's necessarily uh something we can do so when can we see some options on on you know how we how we could fund some of these things if if we if the board chose to fund some of these things like I think we need to understand what that looks like.

I think if I might I think that looks like rates.

I mean when we took when we talked about uh rates in the summer of 2024 and passed a rate increase that year uh we talked about the potential for needing additional rate increases subsequently to to go towards financing long-term debt for some of some addition some of these projects well I and and and I guess I I can I can understand that it would we we the what we had the one rate increase to fund at you know you get our debt service coverage ratio and to fund some things but then the alternative of not doing a second rate wasn't no project at all am I am I off base on this I mean to me um to me it doesn't make any sense that it's pass a rate increase the second time or you do nothing no project whatsoever like I mean we've got we've got nothing here.

Well, and my I might r also remind that the schedule of debt service when we were talking about the sales tax bonds for period of the the six-year issuance, but then also the the 2018 bonds being called in 28.

The the schedule for issuing new water and sewer revenue bonds wasn't until 2030, because I think there were some terms related to the 2018s that made it more favorable to call them in 2030 than in 2028.

But that also fit into the schedule of financing projects that we fit into the uh financing plan that we submitted to the EPA and DOJ.

So that would that would take some some work also to reconcile the difference between calling them in 28 and calling them in 2030 and how and how they're split out to water and sewer projects.

But is it is it fair to say, Andy, that as it relates to item 2A here, which is the water systems maintenance projects non-consent decree related, you know, totaling around 240 million dollars.

I mean, no when you're looking each year starting in 28 at you know huge needs.

I mean, yes, th those were they're never able to be funded strictly by uh rates, correct?

There's always numbers of this magnitude always will require some sort of bonding.

Correct.

That's right.

I mean, historically all water and sewer infrastructure has been funded through long-term bonds at the city in most cities.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I do think that Drew Martin raises a uh valid point uh about item 2A here.

I mean, I don't I don't know what the benefit.

I mean, I know there's a request uh to have these um CIPs put on for future regular uh consideration.

I mean, I w what is the purpose or the benefit of approving uh 2A as it even exists right now?

I mean, there's no we don't have funding identified uh or even a path uh way yet.

I mean, uh what is the purpose of approving something that has no funding attached to it?

I I think I think it is it it is important to recognize that there is there are a number of projects that have been prioritized and worked at least that far to put onto a list here to prioritize them for the future.

I mean, there is it is a different parallel process to identify the funding for them, but I think it is all it is a good practice to maintain this list of projects and schedule them out as to based on priority and when we think they need to happen.

I I mean recognizing yes, we need to identify funding for them, but we also have to have the projects identified and developed in such a way that we can recognize when they need to happen.

And I think also for you know our 2026 budget budget plan, the 2026 column on this summary sheet uh is important because it does call out specific items, specific projects that are either underway or need to happen soon.

Well, and 2026 has dollars.

Well one question I did have is about water, the water transmission line.

Um, you know, we we we had a study session a while back that would put that number at like 500 some odd million to be able to construct that water line, and I think that probably had capacity associated with it.

I can't remember.

Treatment plan.

I'm sorry, they had the treatment plan expansion as well.

So it is 530 some odd million or 585 is what we were told.

I did I couldn't come to that in looking at these numbers.

Am I am I looking at them incorrectly?

It so one of the things that I've done is uh I've pushed out the second phase of the treatment to the end of this uh 10-year capital plan.

So all you're seeing is one year of design uh under this.

So so I think I don't know if I was at was that 317 million in in water in treatment at this point.

Do you I don't know if somebody's done a math there?

Well, I just told 585, but here I see I see three seven I saw three seventeen, so three so we're kinda in the neighborhood.

So that gets us to how much tr how much treatment?

How many additional millions of gallons?

Um 55.

It's okay.

So that's gonna take us to that's gonna take us to 62 MGD.

62 MGD.

And we're at 40.

At Mountainburg.

Right.

We're at 40 right now.

We're at 40 now.

And the the second phase will take us to 70 MGD and replace the 1960s plant.

Okay.

So the second phase will get us eight additional million gallons.

Right.

Okay.

And do we know kind of how long that what the what the life of that would be?

Like when would we need to do additional capacity at that point?

Or are we like 40 years down the road at that point?

50 years.

Um it's it's probably gonna be 20 years, and we start need to start looking at uh a new watershed.

Okay, so so we're not we're not necessarily looking at 585 billion, we're around 35 million for uh water line transmission line capacity, all that.

Right.

That looks like I think even when we had that this that discussion at the study session, that was that was given a range, and that 585 was the top end of that range.

I think the lower end was in the 300 range.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

George Kemp.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I see us waiting for revenue bonds.

I mean, I I as far as the significant work that needs to be done.

My question is though, on regards to the we have had mentioned about pumps that weren't working and have been out for some time.

Is this in the in the plan?

And can you talk to that?

Because I mean it sounds like we may be in trouble if we don't fix those pumps.

Right.

So the the pumps are in equipment uh replacements.

Do you have the money for those pumps?

A lot of that money would be in the operation uh budgets instead of the the CIP for replacement pumps.

And I think timing that out where we can understand how that will impact a debt service coverage ratio, and do we have an idea of that as far as how that would impact that?

Is that because that does get factored in on that, does it not?

I don't I think I think the generator, we're talking about replacing the generator at the pumps, right?

And it's not been working.

That's gonna be uh that'll that would be capitalized and wouldn't go against wouldn't be part of the net revenue available.

So then does it come to the CIP?

I would I would recommend looking if you can we if we cannot fund it out of CIP.

So the the generator at Mountainburg is uh in the CIP.

I got four million dollars to replace the generators at Mountainburg in uh 2027.

But you're out of money in 27, aren't we?

Yes.

So my point is do we need to move that up?

And do we need to move it up in this CIP?

It would be nice, but it wouldn't be my it wouldn't be in the top portion of my priorities.

Uh because my understanding is we could be serviced, we could be served and told that you have to turn that off.

I mean, and like we speak to about two different things.

We're talking about, I mean, look um Lee, you're talking about uh direct camp, I'm sorry, you're talking about the hydrogenerator at Lee Creek.

Jimmy is talking about the backup generator at Mountainburg that at Lake Fort Smith.

So we're talking we're talking about two different things here.

I'm talking about the thing that's gonna affect me having a good large source of water.

Is that in the CIP?

That's the hydrogenerator at Lee Creek.

And that is not in this that is so far that is in the items that we have identified in the operating budget for expense of the operating budget and not in not in these numbers.

But then Andy, you're telling me that that will be something that maybe we could consider putting in a CIP?

I would recommend looking at doing that.

Okay.

So it's not gonna affect necessarily the debt service coverage ratio, but from uh um maintaining um uh adequate working capital and the operating fund for water and sewer, it would be uh, you know, I wouldn't I wouldn't spend three money, three million dollars out of that uh working capital towards that large.

I wouldn't either.

That's why I'm asking the question.

Yeah, the other one is if we can fund it out of here, that's that was an avenue I thought we should look at, but I definitely would like you all to look at that.

And the other one is are we there was mention of this, and I know we're bringing down water leaks.

We also talked about water line construction being done by city employees.

If do we have an idea of if the water leaks are bringing way down and we get to a manageable workflow on that, can we do some water line construction?

Uh I see Mr.

Meeker getting up.

Can we do some of that in-house?

And is maybe that a way to start chipping away at the water infrastructure.

That's my last question.

Thank you.

Yes, we might we might could do some, but uh you uh it's it's hard to say at this point exactly how you know how much you know we're not gonna be able to do major stuff, major lines, but smaller stuff.

You don't want to put that 48-inch line in?

No, no, we're we don't need to be doing that.

So I just those are things I'd like to make sure that we're exploring.

I mean, I think those are that was a great suggestion, especially if we get leaks down to that manageable level, and I think you're gonna have that happen.

Then now we can get into the idea of getting some winds in towns, or even there was just there was talk about uh, you know, water meters.

Maybe some of these meters are not reading right.

Can we look at exploring in-house, changing out some meters where we suspect that that could be the case, uh, or even exploring our own bench test system.

I was I was told, well, we can't test the the big lines, you know, ourselves.

Could we explore how could we develop that in-house so that we could do bench testing?

Those are just some thoughts there in my head based on what I've had from our previous conversations.

I so on the bench test we would have to have an extremely large facility to be able to uh test the meters over uh two inch.

Uh the there's one at Fayetteville, if somebody would like to go up there and that they're pretty free with uh giving the tours of their site.

It's an extremely wonderful facility, but it's it's huge to be able to test the large meters.

It's my response.

It's my understanding we can test our large meters in the field.

We don't have to have a bench.

So you can test two you can test the flow, the low fro, low flow on the large meters.

So what what they do is they take a two-inch meter out in the field and test the six-inch meter with a two-inch meter and see if it at the low flow fits as accurate.

Because we're talking about how to get revenue, you know.

We when we talk about budget cuts and things, if we could find a way to generate revenue, but but doing it in-house, not bringing in you know, consultants.

I I think we're setting ourselves a good foundation here with with managing the crisis part of this, then now we could start maybe being proactive instead of reactive.

So we we have in the past in-house replaced over two-thirds of the meters in uh a little less than two years.

Okay.

Those are just ways to generate revenue.

I I think I would I would like, and thank you, Director Camp.

You know, as we move through these, I mean it would seem to me, and and just a thought.

I I think the way 2A, especially the water systems maintenance and improvements, non-consent decree needs, what we're talking about now.

I mean, I think this really needs to be reformatted and how it's talked about and how it's presented to us and how it's presented to the public.

I think we really need to have you know, not all the the columns and rows and all this stuff.

I mean, I think we need to hear um from professional folks inside the city who have the responsibility and potentially professional folks from the outside.

What we really truly believe in this category, non-consent decree, water systems maintenance and improvements, what absolutely needs to be done by between now and the end of 2030 in order to maximize the use and the safety of our water system because it you know we can't we can't just sort of go forward in this giant, you know, basically nine-year uh process as it's approved here with a oh, you know, we'll we'll we'll figure that out, or there'll be something we'll call some bonds at some point.

I mean, it needs to be presented to us, not just as a as a financial problem.

We need to hear and have clearly spelled out to us what are the things that have to happen, what projects have to be done between now and five years from now that will maximize the likelihood of our system still being uh doing what it needs to do uh to provide services to our um residents and our customers.

I sort of have that done under well I uh under priority for 2026.

So uh on my priority list for 2026, I show you the things that for my number one priority is replacing the line going under uh interstate 540 at Uper Lane.

When the first phase of uh 540 was constructed, every line crossing 540 was replaced with a steel line, and every one of them has failed except for this 16-inch line.

So then I list in priority orders, you know, that being number one, number two, number three as to what items are most critical for the system.

Oh sure, and I have no issue, I don't think any of us do with as Jeff mentioned a little while ago talking about 2026, indeed 2026 is almost upon us, but you move past 2026 on this graph, it becomes trouble.

It becomes uh b mathematical theoretical exercises.

So Matt, I'm sorry.

Our our our biggest and most pressing issues from the standpoint of of public works and everything on on the existing system is like Jimmy mentioned right there, the crossing there at Uper Lane on I540, and then the uh 30-inch transmission line repairs to it there at the Midland Avenue Bridge.

Those are our two biggest issues and concerns and that we want to see addressed and and there's funding available as I understand it for both of those projects, but those those need to get done.

Thank you.

So do we have any uh action or thoughts as it relates to item two A?

Are we looking for action?

Well, we have a request about placing uh each of these resolutions in on a future regular meeting.

Um, but if we have feedback now, now is probably the time for it.

I don't have any feedback besides what I've given.

Okay.

Uh well, we'll move forward to item two B and we'll circle back on how we're handling each of these.

Okay.

Uh 2B is uh wastewater system maintenance and improvements non-consent decree.

And Andy, do you mind just coming uh up for these given that there's a lot of uh financial questions?

So to B, Jimmy, did you have anything particular you wish to highlight for the year ahead?

This one has uh funding or is is in a better projected funding situation than item two at the better projected funding.

Uh there's there's one item I I would like to uh point out that is in the wrong location, the money is in the wrong location, and that's uh on the second page of is the the Mazard plan upgrade.

This is uh a future build out that should be slid all the way to the end of the CIP instead of being front loaded.

So rather than 10 million in 2026, 30 million, 30 million, 30 million through 2029, you would recommend that all be further to the right.

Right.

Okay.

Any questions or comments on 2B?

So so I know I know these are all sewer related, but um how do these fall out of the consent decree?

Meaning why aren't these consent decree projects?

Yeah.

Well uh the treatment plants aren't part of the C D.

None of none of the treatment plants fall into that.

And there are there's a portion of our collection system that is non-CD.

Everything in Fort Chaffee is not under the C D.

All the all the expansion that's been going on in the city.

Because it's too to be part of the C D, the we have to operate the collection and treatment of it.

That water is treated by barling.

It's not treated by us.

So it it doesn't relieve us from having to do the SSA work.

It doesn't relieve us from having to make make the corrections.

It's just not we don't have any uh penalties if we don't have any penalties yet.

I mean it could become a separate C D or it could be added to this CD.

But that's that's another example of non uh C D spending.

Okay.

Andy, from a financial standpoint, is there anything you wished to highlight about item uh 2B here and and 2B and this plan and uh the funding uh looking forward on this one?

Um nothing comes to mind unless you have specific questions.

Mr.

Cannon.

Are there are any of the planned projects here going to prevent future consent decree violations?

I mean I know they're not non-consent decree related because the government, but but but any of these projects are they just purely kind of system modernization and maintenance of it?

They their modernization had they're upgrading some of our uh lift stations, you know, right sizing them to make sure that we don't have sanitary overflows uh so uh the they definitely have a relation to the CD, but they they kind of are peripheral.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions, Director Good?

Actually, I'll see Mr.

Bible standing by the advice.

Do you have any comments you want to add?

So the question was does any of this keep us out of a consent decree?

And yes.

Um if we do not take care of our collection system, that's what got us into the consent decree to begin with.

Um one item that we have, and if you'll scroll up a little bit, Josh, is the aeration basin for Mazard, and that is because we are currently under a consent administrative order with DEQ.

That was a voluntary action that we ask to be put into because we're having problems meeting our our permit limits.

Um this kind of keeps the scope of what we need to do at Mazart down a little bit, um, if you will, because we don't have to do the full build out, but this will bring us into compliance with our permit.

Um my fear is without doing stuff like this, it could end up underneath the consent decree, which then is a mandate.

And the project that you just mentioned is around a $30 million expense spread out over the next three years, but unlike what we're discussing in item 2A, there is funding for these efforts, correct?

Right.

So the funding for these efforts, and we're being very strategical in these, is actually also the um sales and use tax and bond.

It was written for Clean Water Act and CD compliance, and it is so that we don't keep seeing a growth in the cost of the C D.

Well, and I was just gonna say, if that's it sounds like it could be linked more than we thought.

Is there an opportunity to utilize percentages of those projects to take advantage of our bond issue if it's going to keep us from expanding a consent decree?

And that's what we're doing.

We're looking at bundling projects, uh, engineering is working with the operations group that is over the treatment to get our biggest bang for our buck.

Okay.

Uh there's nothing else on 2B, 2C is the CIP overview for wastewater system maintenance and improvements, and this is consent decree.

And it it am I correct in saying that item 2C represents the current um summation, if you will, of uh the next 10 years moving forward or nine years with the consent decree?

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Okay.

Anything uh you gentlemen would like to highlight before we have any questions?

I would like to highlight on on the second page.

Uh we got uh a line item that two and a half million dollars a year for contract sewer line televising and CIPP.

Uh you know some portion of that, the the sewer line cleaning and televising could be brought inside for uh public works if they have operable uh equipment.

You know, they they have they have a fairly good number in their fleet for television and and cleaning, but they're they're old, it's very old equipment.

Uh the second item I would like to point out is the uh consent decree program management is two and a half million dollars a year.

We did not approve uh the contract for project management this year.

But if if we go with project management, we had to fund it.

Uh you know, when we first entered the C D, we did have a project manager that was going to manage all our projects, and my predecessor and Lance's predecessor changed directions and we geared up to uh do that management in-house.

But if we make the decision to hire a project manager, then we're gonna have this this expense.

May I ask a question about that specifically?

Was the motivation behind that decision to move away from an external project manager model in the early stages of the consent decree?

Was that a pure cost motivation or was there a displeasure with the service provided or not provided by the external project manager?

Both.

Okay.

Thank you.

Dre, do you remember?

I think it was cost related.

Yeah.

At the time, because we we didn't have any we didn't have funding, so we're trying to put everything we could towards the funding of it.

Director Martin?

Who who was it that we contracted?

CDM.

CDM.

Okay.

And it was it's 2.5 million dollars.

Is that what we that what we were an agreement?

Were you saying was it that high?

Was it that high then?

Yeah.

No.

I think it's high now.

I don't think it was high back then.

Well, and of course, this is just a budgeted amount.

I mean not a contract.

I mean, I should I to be honest, I didn't think it was going to be that high.

CDM Smith contract was, I believe, almost $9 million over three years.

Okay.

Um we cut that at, I believe around four to five million that we had spent.

We were very dissatisfied with uh the group and what we were getting on our return on investment.

Some of the stuff that we they helped us with was really good, but for the most part, it was not worth the uh funds, and it was actually something that uh internal audit and uh administration and utility management uh all agreed that it needed to be terminated.

So so what would we what could we expect from um uh program management, project management of the consent decree?

Well what would be what would be our reasonable expectation?

So some of that's going to be the um the financial analysis that we have to do annually as part of the modification that is built into that um as well as there is uh uh in one draft that we did um because we actually started to work on one and Mr.

Dingman and I both agreed that until we had a finalized agreement with the the government, there was no sense in estimating what we would need.

Um but there was some room for project actual project management.

Should we become overwhelmed, we have a a whole bunch of our engineers leave and we needed help with that, there was a portion of that.

And that 2.5 is a not to exceed amount.

It's it's not a we're gonna spend two and a half million, but uh also hydraulic model on call was going to be in there as well as some help with the annual report because EPA and DOJ want to change the format to a um a more EPA review friendly version, and I I mean it's not that big of a deal, but it is to get that kind of set up to where we could do it in-house, and that's what we actually utilized CDM Smith for in the beginning was our first couple of reports, and then after that, there was no need for them because we could do it in house.

But you weren't you weren't satisfied with them, right?

We were not satisfied with a lot of aspects of CDM Smith.

Um would it be um a reasonable assumption that we would see some overall cost savings on the consent decree?

I mean, we've identified all these projects and we estimate those things out, but let's say we estimate them out at six hundred million additional dollars.

Would would it be reasonable for us to come back and say it's five hundred million?

It's five fifty, something like that.

Like after if it's all after we spend the money, we realize it's less than what we anticipated through that monitoring of what we're spending, looking at the projects that were going out to bid, modifications, those types of things.

That that is one thing that you can have as part of your program management is for them to review engineer estimates, um delivery types, things of that nature.

Again, it's what we request that the it that goes into the scope.

Yeah.

Um, I I've never been a big proponent of having an engineer just write the scope and give it to you.

Uh we've always okay we work together on the scope so that we get what we want.

The engineers don't have a blank check when they're writing scope.

So to that end, if that's something that the board would want in a um program management, we would put that in.

Maybe we maybe we cut something else back a little bit to keep the cost down because I want to be very um cost effective in anything we do.

But I mean it's kind of like our internal auditor.

Internal auditor at a minimum should pay for themselves.

Uh I would these these people at a bare minimum should pay for themselves, then also with the size of this whole thing.

Right.

You should see savings coming off the the back end.

Does it mean we're not going to pay for the next 10 years or the next eight years, but at some point instead of 600, it's it's you know 500, 550, something like that.

One one thing that uh and I believe Director Settle will remember, we had a I think it was a five year three three-year or four-year contract with CDM right up front that should have never been entered into.

Uh when you're looking at program management, something like that, it's a year-to-year uh agreement.

So if at the end of a year you're not happy, you just don't enter into a new agreement and you've you know what you've spent in that one year, you're done.

So that that then also, as I mentioned, like the annual report, you can sit there and look at that and say, okay, we can now that you've helped us with the first one or two, from here on out, our staff can handle that.

We we're not gonna pay you to do something that we already know how to do.

So you can right size that as you go as well.

I guess what I look at is I look at these two projects, the ones in-house, once proposed do out-house.

And so why not bring in reverse them?

Why not bring in the television sewer line TV cameras, bring that in-house like we did the painting for the streets, see what the cost would be.

At the end of the day, you might find out you can do it cheaper, which you'll probably will be, and then flip it and say, what would it cost to do program management, construction management, budgets, whatever, outside and bring that to the board and say, hey, it's gonna cost this for this and this for this, and let the board make the call.

Yeah, I think uh Mr.

Meeker actually has already kind of looked at the cleaning and televising.

Um, and I hate to put him on the spot, but uh if he has, I'd be more than happy to relinquish my time to him.

Well, and as he comes, I'd even say which it's okay to bring these things in, but we do need to make sure do they have the manpower and do they need more manpower and not being against adding their more manpower, especially if it's gonna bring a big savings.

So we've got uh we've got five jet trucks and we've got uh two camera trucks, and so our five jet trucks, we try to keep three.

I mean, they're they're old.

Uh we're we're uh budgeting to replace one of them this year.

Our oldest ones of 2008.

Uh we try to keep three running at all times, but uh uh a lot of times we've only got one running at a time out of the five.

And uh uh so we're not in good shape equipment-wise.

If if we have the equipment, yes, we can do it.

Uh camera truck, we also have an issue where we've got a camera truck that's down all the time, uh one of the two.

So yeah, it's just a matter of keeping the equipment up and running.

Uh but that's gonna probably take some investment.

So is it equipment and personnel?

What about personnel?

I think we're fine on the personnel front.

It's it's the equipment issue.

But we need those for the consent decree, correct?

We need to we need to be doing the television camera for consent decree.

Yeah.

So that follows under the the consent decree.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Mr.

Dr.

Martin.

And yeah, one thing that I I would like to have come to the board is um that program management for us to be able to review.

I think we need to take bids.

I think we need to we need to move.

That was my that was my suggestion.

Okay, I think we need to move on as in 26.

Like we need to have that in 26.

Early 26.

Yep.

So I would even in the scope of that, I'd like to see that the projects potentially maybe needing to be moved forward.

You know, but if we had a firm look at this and say, hey guys, I know you all have seen it this way, but I like outside the box thinkers because they're not in our constant, you know, battles of what we're having to always shuffle and do.

If they can come in and say, Yeah, but if you move these two or three projects up, you're gonna have a savings or less SSOs and maybe a mod maybe we go back to the federal government and say, hey, we want to take out these projects because by moving this project forward, we've resolved you know, another 30 percent on the SSOs.

So I mean, those are sort of the things that I'm thinking about when I think about a firm.

And I think we should have that conversation, you know, concurrently or close to concurrently with when we're reassessing those projects that we tabled earlier to the breakdown.

If I may, two things.

Um number one, uh we cannot bid out um program management.

It is a professional service under state law.

We can do an RFQ if the board should should like that, and we can actually have the board help set the scope.

But I did want to make sure that that I stated that up front.

Um and we we actually one thing I I will point out, um the CIP as you see it for the CD was what we said we would do with DOJ and EPA.

They are not opposed to us moving things up.

In fact, that was the whole reason we had to look at bonding is because they wanted everything moved up.

We we do need to be very careful in if we move things back that we're still meeting the requirements.

And I will let you know that Jimmy has worked very hard on the design projects that you approved last Tuesday.

Um those are to reduce the number of SSOs that we have, and we are working on a project management plan that are sorry, an asset management plan that actually looks at where the SSOs are, and that will be what drives the um the designs and the projects in the future, and that's something that EPA has actually agreed to, and that's that we're working on on the negotiations.

Come and give a presentation to us about their pitch of what they can do and why they should be picked.

I mean, we're talking about a massive project for the city of Fort Smith.

It's one of the number one things that we're always talking about.

I'd look to I'd like to hear their their you know, sort of elevator expanded elevator pitch on why they should be picked to be the management firm for us.

I would agree with that.

In and out of the city.

There may be somebody outside the city that's got there.

I will state that we would be looking at a um if you remember former director Morton talked about searching all over the nation.

That was actually what we were looking at was people that actually had experience with CDs and program management in CDs.

So thank you.

Okay.

So uh since items two A through C all deal in that water and wastewater space, uh, and we will need uh to make some changes.

We've talked a little bit about them.

Uh I think in a regular meeting is probably the legislative vehicle for making those changes.

Do we have uh concurrence from at least two directors to place items two A, B, and C for consideration on a future regular meeting?

So moved.

Do we have a second?

Okay, Director Kemp and Director Good.

Uh thank you.

And uh Andy, if you don't mind staying for these next two just in case there are financial uh questions.

Thank you, Jimmy.

Uh item five two D is the five-year CIP review for the police department.

Chief Baker out of his sick bed, very patient with us tonight.

Hope that you've had some improvements today, sir, and thank you for being here.

Try not to go dying on that.

We would very much appreciate you not dying.

Is that agreement or concurrence?

Oh no.

Yes, sir.

Well first of all, I apologize for the the mask, but I don't think anybody wants to get a dose of whatever it is that I've picked up from wherever.

And I've also completely forgotten how irritating these things are.

Uh well, that's booting up.

I'll go ahead and say what I shared in in the email to you today is that I intended to present two options for our capital improvement plan tonight.

One that uh included the purchasing of vehicles outright and the other uh leasing vehicles from enterprise leasing.

Um really trying to get all this together at the end of last week while I was in Durant, Oklahoma, um, and there was some uh last minute um hiccups with uh insurance costs that would be associated with the leasing program.

And I did not want to bring something to you that had any kind of questions about uh costs that weren't presented that I didn't have the answers to, and so uh we're gonna continue to try to get answers.

I'm not sure what that's doing.

This worked fine when we first came in here.

So Chief, are you saying because we have the two options here, one for purchasing, one for leasing?

Are you saying that you know at present you're not you would not be comfortable with us uh proceeding with the leasing option?

That is correct.

Okay.

If we get to the point where we can find a pathway that and it still makes sense uh that we could um present to you, then we'll do that.

But uh as it is right now, um requesting to pull that option from discussion and we'll just look at our CIP as a purchase option.

So since the vehicle conversation is a little bit um stalled out, no pun intended.

Are there are there other uh what are the other items that you really wish to highlight for us that are non-vehicular in nature?

So do you have are you looking at the um the Excel spreadsheet?

Yeah, we have the packet in front of us.

Okay.

Um so first of all, it's very difficult to put together a capital improvement plan if I don't know what the um funds that are going to be available to us.

Uh if you look on the tab one year one through five, uh this begins in 2026.

Uh we removed at administration's request, removed the personnel category that was historically there since the beginning of the sales taxes and created essentially a turnback fund that's uh be line 22 or row 22 in red, the available total available for salary.

So each year making funds available to turn back to the general fund to help with the salaries, the police officer's salaries.

Uh by my previous uh presentation to the board, I had um indicated that I intend to request a 10% across the board raise.

Um that included having available uh one million dollar uh general fund equipment fund that I have been told is probably not gonna make it through uh the budget discussions.

So removing that from the equation in the first or column C of 2026, it's a list of proposed expenses, and you can tab on each of the categories for technology mobility and facilities, and I really hope to be able to do this live.

Oh, it is behind me.

Um for technology, looking at uh $737,000 for the axon uh pay annual payment that includes our uh body worn cameras, our in-car cameras, tasers, uh the axon perform, uh the uh storage, video storage.

Um this is is an annual contract cost.

Um for uh crime prevention and detection.

Uh we're looking at $25,000 to refurbish uh our portable elevated uh observation tower.

This is something that's uh used quite regularly uh for special events, a large crowd uh events, and also uh is borrowed by uh agencies in Northwest Arkansas.

We often do equipment trades, they have some equipment that we need special equipment, and they don't have a tower, so um we we regularly put that on loan uh to other agencies, particularly in Northwest Arkansas.

And then their officer safety and equipment uh we're needing to purchase additional uh Walter firearms.

The department's been going through a transition uh to those officers that want them uh to carry Walters instead of Glocks.

Uh we're also adding optics to those uh weapons.

Uh we made considerable inroads this year with funds that we had available, uh but we still have additional ah there we go, outstanding.

Hopefully it'll stay.

Um annual expense for body armor.

That this is the full cost.

Uh if you if you look back here on uh on the first tab, I've also built in revenue sources.

Some of these you've seen before, some of you haven't, but um I'm gonna be completely transparent about the dollars that we're talking about and and uh potential revenue sources.

Uh I added uh for this year uh grant funding.

We historically receive the federal bulletproof vest grant as well as the JAG grant uh for use or equipment.

Uh and so uh 2026 is our light year for the the JAG grant, so we're anticipating between it and bulletproof vests uh a total of 46,600.

And so that 93,000 dollar expense for bulletproof vests, roughly 21,000 of that will be uh paid for with the grant.

Roughly $21,000 of that will be paid for with the grant.

But primarily our biggest need in capital is and always will be vehicles.

And so in lieu of completely starting a brand new fleet of 60 vehicles that we can replace every five years on a regular basis, reduce maintenance costs, all the things, all the benefits that we were hoping to achieve through the leasing program.

This doesn't provide every officer with a vehicle as we'd like to do for the with the take-home program, but it does get more vehicles on the street.

So in 2026, we're looking at purchasing 17 patrol vehicles, four special op vehicles, five uh CID vehicles, which are typically unmarked, uh, two canine vehicles.

The two canine vehicles that we currently have in our fleet are on their absolute last legs.

Uh we've got the we have got to replace those vehicles if we're going to continue to have a canine program.

Um we need to start replacing some bicycles and motorcycles.

We've got we've got a couple of motorcycles that are getting pretty high mileage now been going since 2018.

Uh and similarly for subsequent years.

Chief, if I may, so in the 2026, the that's in the mobility section, the vehicular uh amount you're seeking to spend would be uh $1,750,000.

Totals there under mobile.

1.3, 300,000, 85,000.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And then uh on facilities, really, the I mean we've we've got we've got the uh headquarters building that I mean it's getting old.

We need to continue to do work on it, but the big expense for 2026 is the environmental control system.

We requested that last year.

Uh it was cut.

Uh we have a $300,000 plus cooling tower and boiler system that we just replaced that uh is in danger of of uh being badly damaged or destroyed if we don't update these environmental control systems.

This is so that the facility maintenance person can monitor the systems remotely and knowing that there's something amiss and address those problems before they turn into major issues.

Uh we're not doing anything with the firing range in 2026.

Uh the only thing that I included for the second precinct and the training facility is our expected design costs.

Uh we've we've already spent roughly $20,000 in developing the initial schematics for that uh facility.

If we get to a certain point and can't go any further, then we won't be billed for design phases that we haven't gotten to.

But currently that um the second precinct project is unfunded, and you can see in the details at the top the uh the two uh designs that we currently have, which I mean one is the what uh the full Monty the everything that we'd hope to accomplish with the training facility, uh a fully functioning second police department uh crime information center.

Uh current estimates are about 11 million dollars for that.

Um split into two phases with the training facility being first 4.6 million, and then development of the second precinct and uh crime information center at 6.7 million, and then the lighter version option B is uh eight eight point three million, and I'm sure we can pare it down even more.

Uh I think probably the uh the biggest asset um that we can launch there is the dedicated regional training facility.

Uh I think that will where we get the the most interest for uh help with funding, and would also get police officers on the location uh just not to the level that we had initially hoped.

Um and so the design costs are are built in 27, 28.

I do have in 2027 um spending 75,000 dollars on upgrading the community room at the police department.

Uh that the carpet in there is aging.

Uh there's some technology updates that we need to do just to make it more of a a usable space.

Uh and then replacing all of the carpeting upstairs with laminate flooring in 2028.

And then 29 does uh continuing design costs and phase two construction, but it highlighted in year yellow is unfunded.

So go going back to um tab one, the year one through five.

Um if we look at the anticipated expense for 2026, uh 2.798 seven million dollars.

We have total anticipated funding, including carrying forward two point two approximately two point two million dollars that we have accumulated in our sales tax fund puts us at six point uh six million two hundred twenty-nine thousand six hundred dollars.

Uh and then you can well you can't see, but it's built into the functions.

Um the uh total funding minus the expense uh with us clawing back five hundred thousand dollars to keep in our sales tax fund uh leaves a total available for salaries at 2.93 million.

Uh if we had had the one million dollar general fund uh the dedicated uh amount, you see that brings that to 3.9 million.

Um so I mean if you if you if there are questions, if you think you know there's something here that you think we should spend less on or or more on.

I mean I uh we can manipulate the numbers now uh but I mean we really are asking for uh the bare minimum, I believe.

I believe this is a compromise over what we were hoping to accomplish and hopefully we'll be able to find a pathway to make the uh fleet leasing possible.

Uh well, and so chief, I mean in in summation your expenses that you're requesting total about 2.8 million dollars and your anticipated revenue is 3.6 uh million dollars.

And so you know, thank you for uh the work that you and all the folks in your department have put in uh throughout this process to um present us with something that you know represents what you need uh and what you desire in a in a sustainable way.

Um does anybody else have any comments or questions for the chief director camp?

Uh yes.

Uh Chief, the I just was talking to uh a vendor in town and then I've heard it from another another uh mechanic firm as well.

On so I've heard of two separate people have we ever explored going back to when we have a vehicle worked on that we haven't worked on with one of our Fort Smith guys, or if we're gonna outfit a vehicle that we don't use like I think they're talking about that we might use Omega and Van Buren, but I know there was some company that I talked to that was said, man.

I wish we would have a chance to earn the right to be able to show Fort Smith that we could do some stuff.

I was not aware that there was anybody available in Fort Smith.

When we went with Omega, they were the only game in town that could handle um the number of vehicles that we needed serviced.

They also they also offered a five-year warranty on all of their installation, so I mean that would that would obviously be a big selling point, but I mean if you have a line on on another vendor, we'd be happy to consider them.

Yeah, I'll definitely get that for you because there was one that I think you know they're trying to get things going and they have a pretty decent size operation, but that was as we were talking about it.

Um just came up in conversation.

I think for me, I'm just talking to my fellow colleagues here.

It's it's it's more about I need to see the entire general fund picture here and understand it.

And I'm really looking forward to the budget hearing because I think there are many ways to try to get to a balanced general fund budget.

There are many ways to get there.

Um and and so I don't think we have to just narrow down on some things here, but I needed the knowledge, so I appreciate the information.

But I am looking forward to figuring out from the conversation how can we get there in the best ways possible that get the most equipment possible or things that we need that services that we know we need to provide possible.

So I'm looking forward to the budget hearing mainly.

Anything else for Chief Baker.

Chief, any chief, any final words for us?

I just want to go home and go to bed.

I understand.

Well I appreciate that.

I can I at least I I completely understand the need to balance the budget to reduce the deficit spending.

But I would really ask that you think hard before cutting salaries and personnel from the police department.

I don't think it's gonna go well.

Give them uh a glimmer of hope uh so hopefully we'll be able to accomplish that.

But I I do understand and appreciate the situation that we're all in and that you're having to write.

So that's all.

Thank you for being here, Chief.

Thank you for pushing through.

Thank you.

And uh our last presentation for the night is uh from our new fire chief, uh Chief Clark for the five-year CIP for the fire department uh out of their portion of sales and use tax.

I think so.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks again, Chief.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Can't keep a good man down.

Yeah.

It's all yours, buddy.

Congratulations.

Congratulations, man.

Thank you.

Any opening comments for us, Chief?

Um, well, ours is pretty well stayed the same for several years, several years since I've been involved.

Um apparatus continues to be the main problem that we're dealing with.

Turnaround times, expenses.

Um we're still on track.

We've extended out the how long 4803 is gonna last for us with the refurbs that we're doing.

Um we're kind of in the same boat though, wanting to see what uh comes of the budget hearings because like Chief Baker said, we've already been talking, we know there's got to be some tough decisions made, but to prevent really drastic decisions that would have to be make made in another year or two if we don't start writing this.

But um I pretty much just stand for questions that anybody has on any of it.

What are you seeing for lead times for pumpers now and ladder trucks?

Is it still two or three years?

Is it gotten better?

Oh, yeah.

We're right now I'm working on rescue one, which is a tough one because their pumpers and our ladders were pretty happy with what we've been ordering, so we can pretty much order it, be under contract in a very short period of time.

Heavy rescues and one-off fully custom um 48 months to 51 months was the estimate.

So I should have ordered it a couple of years ago.

Four years?

Yeah, because our current one has about it has over 120 really hard 120,000 miles on it.

Is that what is the is it uh is that driving the cost up?

Is there so much there the there's so many people wanting them, so it's just driving the cost up.

Is that part of the equation?

There's been federal hearings on uh Pierce and Rev groups leadership were brought in that I've watched.

I don't think I don't know that anything will come of it.

They're supposed to be actually doing an investigation, they claim just because it has gotten ridiculous.

Rev we would be in worse shape with Rev Group, really, because people at least we can get our parts.

Okay.

Um departments with Rev group have had trucks down for over a year waiting on certain parts.

But uh are they are they in the states Rev Group where are they located at?

They own everything but two or three fire apparatus manufacturers now.

Because I looked at another, we're an all-pierce fleet.

Okay now.

Now I actually looked at a different vendor for a rescue since it is a fully custom one off.

Um they make outstanding bodies out of Colorado.

It's a small small company, they only build about 55 a year.

They're all handmade, they're a little more expensive, but we have a lot of body issues.

They have outstanding, that's their specialty is how great their bodies are, but it only comes on a chassis and cab that comes from Rev Group, so it would make nightmares for my fleet maintenance guys.

Okay.

So we stuck with Pierce.

I mean, I remember when we put this tax out there years ago, the you know, it was like a million dollars for a truck or even less for pumper.

Now they're oh yeah, we were in trouble that probably about six hundred thousand for a pumper.

That sounds about right, and about a million for a ladder.

Is that about right?

Yeah, and we thought that was high back then, and now oh yeah, I was I was uh captain on the when we bought the six with the bond and the new station and the 4803 that were 1.1 million for those towers.

And so is there anybody new jumping into the game?

It seems like a great business to be.

Well, I take where I was gonna go with my next comment was does it make sense for us to talk to the our chamber and say, hey, you need to go recruit this this company to come here and put a plan here because it seems like there's a need to drive more fire apparatus.

They are to lower the cost to your point, Lee.

They are trying.

They bought a plant in Tennessee because they have tapped the Appleton, Wisconsin area.

They also have a plant in Florida where they build another cabin chassis because we actually had considered it is a we buy the Cadillac of fire apparatus.

Their Florida plant builds the Hyundai or Chevy.

So Roland just bought one and we had high hopes to see how their experience was, and it was horrible.

I mean, they had huge mistakes.

The pump um housing was completely messed up.

And those cheaper ones now are going for Roland paid about 700,000 for theirs for volunteer fire department.

So but so that one kind of was out, but it's hard to go to other vendors because um it gets hard on the maintenance side because it gets costly with additional software for diagnosing stuff.

Um the engines pretty much where we stick with Cummins, you know, so we're we would be okay there.

Pierce's electronic system, which are really really involved, um, are proprietary.

Is there thought more anymore about the Tahoe?

You know, uh one of the things I thought was interesting was getting something like that, so we're not sending that big truck out for everything on out there that's being called out.

We've tried for a couple of years, but they just keep getting cut.

But we're we're taking steps.

We just moved last week to the new Pro Phoenix CAD.

Um, so we had to wait for that because Chief Waters and I had worked on changing our run assignments for calls, and uh we have reduced fire alarms now to a pumper and a ladder going to it to greatly reduce the number of apparatus because we had five apparatus going to an alarm the fire alarm, which was overkill.

We did have all our company officers go through identified high hazards in their districts, uh just so we still run five apparatus too, our hospitals, our schools, daycares, and any type of industrial high hazard that they identified.

We put a identifier on it in the new CAD system so that it will tell the dispatcher to send the original five.

We didn't didn't want to get to uh something like a nursing home and then because fire alarms do turn out to be a real fire sometimes.

Yeah.

Lee, do you want to start a business?

Well, you and I go together and make fire trucks.

I'm just thinking about trying to find a ways for the city to have revenue, and I'm thinking of fire truck business sounds like a great plan to be a part of.

No, I don't have any other questions, Vice Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions for Chief Clark?

Okay.

Uh can we have thank you, Chief?

A uh two directors place uh the police CIP and the fire CIP on a future agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All right, thank you.

And thank you, Chief.

Uh folks, please take some time uh to review the preliminary agenda uh for the November 18th regular meeting coming up next Tuesday.

Uh just as a reminder, uh thank you, Andy.

The city offices are closed tomorrow, uh, November the 11th in observance of Veterans Day.

Thank you to Josh and the communications folks for communicating as always with holidays about um service adjustments.

Now we'll go into our citizens forum uh portion.

Uh Madam Clerk, who do we have first?

Just as a reminder, folks have five minutes.

Uh first we have Glenn Forte.

That calls the fire.

The ambulance at all hours.

She's on painkillers and alcohol, waking me up, waking the neighbors up.

The police are parking at the church, walking with the light to not make lights and make noise, and she's screaming and hollering.

I need help.

I need help.

When are we gonna stop it?

It's abuse to the people on the street to have a fire truck and an airline show up at 11, 1, 3 in the morning.

She tried to kill her mother.

Her mother's gone now.

Supposedly, somewhat to the injuries in the fire department lived at her house for a couple of years because her and the mother used to get into it.

The mother's 82 years old.

She had a knee replacement, and the daughter moved in, and the daughter would be the instigator going after the mother.

And I didn't know why the fire truck kept coming to the house.

They told me why.

It's because they got into it all the time.

Now the daughter's high on drugs.

She's bringing Johnson off the streets, and I'll leave it at that.

Now I'm gonna get to a situation.

Being a senior citizen, I had a vehicle in a garage.

The mechanic told me the landlord had a toad.

I called the tow company, they told me the mechanic shop had a tow.

I go to pick it up at $650 for a tow for less than three miles.

Now I understand the owner of the business is in control to 10 or 12 licenses running organized crime out of there because there's allegations there's been money laundering, illegal activities, and I'm not gonna go to the police department with this.

I'm gonna go to the FBI.

That's how bad I feel about this police department to investigate this.

They take me as a foreigner from another world and think they can hook me for 650 for a tow for less than three miles.

The other issue I have is Patriot Uities have come to my neighborhood.

The city's never used a street sweeper in my neighborhood.

We have gravel, we have asphalt, we have dirt, we have stone all over the streets in my neighborhood because the machines drop it while they're working, they never clean up.

They leave trash and debris and buckets in people's yards and pieces of machinery in people's yards.

It shouldn't look like this.

It looks like hell.

I had the city down there.

One of the parties here in the room is Maggie Rice and Carl Nevin.

And I believe somebody by the name of Johnson and engineering come down.

The place looks like hell.

They dig holes, they had a hole there for three weeks, maybe a month, six feet deep.

One end of it wasn't protected, the side wasn't protected.

I had to call the city.

I called Sean God, Glenn, I'll take care of it, no problem.

He did take care of it.

He did a great job, but it took three days for someone to get out there to fix it.

I could have drove my car in it, or a kid could have fell in there.

It's a disgrace the way this company operates.

It's a piss poor operation.

That's all I have to say.

They should be by it.

My neighborhood?

The ghetto.

North End Street.

North End Street.

Go take a ride over there tomorrow.

There's and I also ride a scooter.

I'm seven years old.

There is shit from one end to the other end because of this company.

You people have never come in that neighborhood and swept the street.

It never needed it.

Now the asphalt they put on the streets to batch them.

It's all over the other streets in the neighborhood.

They went out and cleaned it.

They left one little pile of gravel on the corner of North and six houses from my property.

That's all the cleaning they did.

There's gravel all over the edges of the streets.

And they expect to get paid.

Then they leave for weeks at a time.

Two and three weeks at a time, they leave.

Machinery in the street, vehicles in the street.

We had a cancer patient, have a fund racer two weeks ago.

It's very inconvenient.

And for the mailman and UPS.

It's a disgrace of this company, they the way they operate, and it's a shame you people hire them.

Patriot utilities is on the vehicle that does the digging.

Sewer line.

And they've left the cement two pieces of basins in the guys yacht across the street since April.

They still haven't put them in the ground.

They stand out there with your hands in the pocket, one guy sitting on a machine doing nothing for hours.

I have taken pictures and video.

I didn't bring it in, but I can.

It's a disgrace.

Thank you all.

Okay.

Next.

I know that uh Jeff and Maggie have taken some notes uh on these items and we'll be looking into some of those things that have been brought up.

Uh who do we have next, Madam Clerk?

Next we have Eric Wideman.

Thank you for being here, sir.

Good evening, everybody.

This is my first time at this, so uh bear with me, please.

Anyway, I grew up here most of my life.

I remember when Mayor Ray Baker used to say life's worth living in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Well, it's not anymore.

It's up to everyone here to make it better.

I want to know what your plans are dealing with the city of Arcoma, not paying their bills.

And is there any way to enforce what you might already have in place?

Well, we're we they've charged we're in media or are we in mediation?

Is that what you would call it?

Where we're working with them.

We are we have we have we've got a third party working with us and uh an uninterested third party to evaluate the uh the rate proposal that we uh devised last spring, May and June time frame.

Um our coma was was not in favor of of the proposals that we made, and so our uh our eight dollar and seventy-five cent per CCF wholesale rate is what is their rate uh going forward.

And so as they've been billed, they've been paying um a portion of the of their bill, but they've not paid all of it, so we do have an outstanding balance.

In the meantime, we are working with them through the through this third party to like I said, evaluate the the rate setting that we put together.

Um they we had a meeting with them last week uh to and some treated some more information with them, and we anticipate within the next week or so we go to um to have some information back uh regarding analysis of how how the rate should be constructed and how the rate that we devised um is either similar or different to what the independent third party comes back with.

And so what you know assuming they come back with a rate for us to consider for our coma to consider, uh assuming it's acceptable to both governing bodies going forward, then we'll we'll bring that to this board and we'll have that discussion.

Um other than that, that's that's all that I can report really at this point.

All right, thank you.

Okay, uh, I want to know what the city of why the city of Fort Smith is even discussing the Towson Avenue deal.

What do we possibly have to gain from it?

Flood mitigation.

The state highway is gonna give up, they're gonna give up the rights of the highway of Towson Avenue.

So that we take it over with them repaving it, or they're gonna just drop it, move their state highway to Wheeler.

It's not it's this is a state highway initiative.

They are going to remove a bunch of state highways throughout the state of Arkansas.

So it's we can't we said, okay, we'll take it over, but you have to pave it and get it ready for us to take over so that way it starts because if not, they would just say we're done with it, and there's they'd give it to us without any fixing.

And businesses have been flooded.

So by making them what he just talked about, but by us pushing in on this, we're gonna be able to deal with the flooding issues.

That aren't you gonna have to do the communication or the lighting or something like you're talking about on East Rogers Avenue, aren't you gonna have to do that on Towson Avenue also?

They'll they'll reimburse us for those.

They'll reimburse us for those uh costs, anything like that.

All of a sudden, sidewalk all the way downtown.

You talked about life worth living in Fort Smith.

I mean, there's places where it's hard to walk down.

RDOT will be fixing that as well.

So what uh obviously it's been resurfaced.

They'll put sidewalks on either side and fix the stormwater uh flooding that happens whenever whenever we have uh heavy rainfalls.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Vice Mayor, with all due respect.

I saw you walk out or what leave the meeting after jumping down Mr.

Catalyst's throat for asking a perfect legitimate question.

You said you have a previous family commitment.

Don't you have a previous commitment to the citizens of Fort Smith, Arkansas?

You probably knew about the city board director's meeting before you made your family commitment.

I found it disrespectful.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

All right.

Next we have Joey McCutcheon, but I think he has left.

Okay, then we have Carl Nevin.

I'm Carl Nevin.

I appreciate all of y'all for the hard work you're doing.

I do appreciate the 10 million dollar deficit that you're dealing with.

I know that's not easy.

Uh what I want to talk about is the 11 million dollar engineering uh estimate and how it went to seven million dollars or 17 million dollars to six million dollar increase.

I think that that honestly needs to broke be broken into two different contracts.

Hopefully, we can save some money there.

Um that's all I have.

Thank you.

And that's what we're endeavoring to do.

Next we have Chris Cadelli.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um we were involved with a FOIA request uh request a couple weeks ago, and so that's what I want to speak on tonight.

Um got some rhetorical questions I'm gonna start with here.

What constitutes a conflict of interest?

I mean, I don't think this is rocket science, but Google tells us one example would be a public official has a conflict if they a family member or a business they own an interest in stands to benefit from a decision.

How do we manage conflicts of interest?

Well, number one, it should be disclosed in the very beginning.

Secondly, recusual, you know, you recusal should be next.

Uh officials must withdraw from meetings, discussions, and voting on matters involving the conflict of interest.

And then thirdly, abstention refraining from participating in any formal action that would benefit a private interest is crucial.

Here's what AI gave me when I tried to find the Fort Smith Code of Ethics.

I don't know if this is right.

You may be able to confirm this or deny it, uh, or correct me.

Fort Smith Code of Ethics is reflected in the city's mission, which emphasizes honesty, integrity, and financial responsibility.

On October 28th, Director Rigo, our esteemed vice mayor, uh made his highly anticipated return to social media and credited our FOIA request as the motivating factor for his return.

So to those who've been waiting on baited breath for this big day, you're welcome.

Mr.

Rigo had to return to social media for damage control.

He began this effort to deflect his own failures by playing the victim and characterizing our efforts as quote bullying, quote, cooked up conspiracies, and keyboard warriors who manufacture outrage.

I mean, I think we're familiar with with each other's faces at this point.

We come to these meetings.

I don't think I just sit behind a keyboard.

Uh you know, so I think that's ridiculous.

Uh he then proceeded to characterize his brother-in-law's involvement as purely altruistic.

Director Rigo's public reaction to the FOIA request hinted at what the FOIA would reveal.

We did not receive the first round of documents until the following day, but he clearly knew the FOIA would bring truth to light.

This FOIA request opened yet another embarrassing and shameful chapter in Fort Smith City governance.

You should have formally disclosed your conflict of interest right out of the gate.

You should have recused yourself from meetings, discussions, and votes regarding this project involving your brother-in-law.

We know you participated in at least one vote in the A and P commission.

In short, the FOIA documents refute all your denials.

And I'll close by saying this FOIA clearly showed Director Rigo behaving in a manner unaligned with the city's code of ethics, and he should be held accountable for doing so.

Concerned citizens should be able to ask questions of their city leaders.

We should be able to scrutinize their actions without fear of retribution or ridicule.

We're going to continue to ask questions regardless of any mischaracterization on your part.

Thank you.

And last we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

This evening I want to address the ethical responsibility of our government officials.

On Saturday, October 25th, I filed a FOIA request for details regarding the proposed sports complex and Mr.

Barrett's involvement in it.

While I had heard rumors suggesting a potential conflict of interest, I prefer to rely on evidence rather than hearsay.

Given the city's current financial struggles, I found it puzzling why there would be such a strong push for this complex, particularly since it would compete with an already struggling convention center.

Before I even received a response to my FOIA request, I noticed that Mr.

Rego had taken to several Facebook group pages to publicly challenge me in what seemed like an attempt to imitate, intimidate, or shame me for seeking public records.

In his post, he claimed his brother-in-law was a volunteer trying to do something positive for the community.

However, what he neglected to mention was that he was the one who introduced Mr.

Barrett and to Ashley to advocate for the sports complex.

Additionally, he participated in multiple conference calls alongside David Ashley, the Synergy Group, and Huddle Up, and had direct conversations with other directors about the complex.

Mr.

Rego complain claimed in his Facebook post that he would recuse himself from a vote concerning the sports complex.

However, he sits on the AMP commission board and was the one who initiated a motion to allocate 18,000 for a study on the sports complex.

Fully aware that his brother-in-law had already been appointed as the general contractor developer for the project and stood to gain gain financially if the board approved the complex.

This raises even more serious questions regarding Mr.

Rigo's ethical standards.

So we need we need you guys.

We know you have a hard job.

I know you have hard decisions to make, but the one thing that we do need is ethics.

Ethics are important.

This is our money, not your money.

And we need there's a lot of things that need to be corrected in the city.

And so I'm asking you guys to do this moving forward.

And I feel like that there does need to be some investigation on how this was handled.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, anyone else?

That's it.

All right.

We will entertain a motion to adjourn.

All in favor?