Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting Summary (Dec 2, 2025)

The Fort Smith Board of Directors convened at the Blue Lion on December 2, 2025, to conduct regular business including zoning ordinances, capital improvement plans, legal services approvals, and the hiring process for a city administrator. The meeting featured public testimony regarding water rate increases, the status of park slides, and legal representation costs. The board adopted most proposed ordinances with unanimous support but engaged in significant deliberation and partial rejection regarding specific capital improvement items due to budget concerns and pending decisions on the park slides.

Consent Calendar

• Adopted minutes of the November 18, 2025 regular meeting.
• Approved four consent items: General legal services contract with Daly and Woods PLLC (2026), Insurance/Risk Management Agreement with First Western Insurance Agency, Police Department grant application for bulletproof vests, and a change order/final payment to Fire Trucks Unlimited LLC for Pumper 5.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ms. Deanna Rice (Executive Director, Fort Smith Senior Center): Expressed appreciation for the city's support in fighting senior hunger, noting 6,000 meals were served last month and 60 seniors remain on a waiting list due to funding difficulties. Presented a Christmas card project to the board.
• Ms. Crystal Cadelli (Citizen): Expressed strong concern regarding the 1-8% sales tax budget for parks, specifically objecting to the $7.3 million in capital projects while citizens face rising sewer and water rates. She argued that approximately $4.2 million designated for the park slides should be returned to the general fund to prevent rate hikes, stating, "We need to take that 4.2 million dollars for the water slide... and put it back into the general fund and quit making the citizens' sewer and water rates increase."
• Mr. Joey McCutcheon (Citizen): Expressed concerns regarding the lack of negotiation transparency in the consent decree project with Aqua Law, suggesting the city lacks an engineering firm to oversee the project. He argued that specialized legal representation is insufficient without engineering expertise to ensure citizen confidence, stating the board is "missing the boat" by not hiring an engineering firm. He also recommended the board pause the general legal services contract with Daly and Woods to compare fees with other cities, citing $2.25 million in legal costs from 2020-2024 and suggesting a hybrid of two lawyers and a paralegal for lower costs.
• Ms. Crystal Cadelli (Citizen, speaking on Legal): Expressed concern regarding the perceived conflicts of interest and community connections of current city legal representation. She questioned why a private citizen could communicate directly with city attorneys regarding a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) without public permission, stating, "Citizens... should have their own legal representation. They should not be communicating with our city government and our city legal team on MOAs." She recommended seeking law firms from outside the town to avoid local pressure.

Discussion Items

• Rezoning for RV Park (3706 Towson Ave): Director Settle questioned whether the proposed 40-pad RV park would be used for permanent residency or transit, referencing similar developments in Northwest Arkansas. Deputy Administrator Maggie Rice clarified the use is strictly a temporary "RV camping establishment" (limit of six months per stay) and not a mobile home park. Director Martin requested clarification on amenities; Ms. Rice confirmed a pickleball court and walking trails.
• Rezoning for Government Use (3505 Johnson St): Director Martin inquired about future conditional uses within the new Planned Zoning District. Ms. Benoit (applicant representative) clarified that any future conditional uses would require a new public hearing at the Planning Commission level.
• Capital Improvement Plans (Items 6A-6J):
  • Item 6C (Parks & Recreation): Director Martin expressed a position in opposition to the resolution as currently drafted, stating he cannot approve the expenditure of further general fund dollars or park funds for the slide project without a prior decision on the project's viability. He noted the city has already paid most of the costs and expressed that if additional dollars are needed, they must come from parks, but he feels the board should "put a hold on until we figure out what we do with these slides." Director Kitzavis agreed with the concern, stating that partially completing the slides would be dishonest and insisting that park funds be used to sustain the park itself rather than perpetually pouring money into a non-sustainable project.
  • Item 6E (Transit): Director Martin proposed a one-year pause on the $300,000 transit capital expenditure. He argued the board must conserve general fund dollars to prepare for the potential financial burden of taking over local cemeteries if the state takes them. He stated, "I think we've got to... pause this for a year... to prepare ourselves."
  • Vote Outcome: Due to the objections, the collective motion failed for Item 6E and Item 6F (Water), while passing for all other items (6A-6D, 6G-6J). No votes were cast in favor or against the specific rejected items individually, but the collective vote resulted in 4 in favor and 0 all opposed for the accepted items, while Items 6E and 6F were defeated due to the "no" vote count exceeding the majority threshold for the collective motion.
• Aqua Law Contract (Item 7): Director Kitzavis expressed skepticism about the legal firm's advocacy, noting a conversation where a firm representative claimed Fort Smith was receiving a "better deal than we deserve." She requested proof of stipulated penalty reductions, citing historical reductions from $2 million to $800,000 and from $750,000 to $500-$600,000. She also highlighted her independent efforts to meet with the White House regarding the "oppressive" nature of the decree. Director Kemp clarified the contract is hourly and as-needed, allowing the city to terminate or hire competitors without restriction. The motion passed 6-1.
• Change Order/Final Payment (Items 8 & 9): Director Kemp noted the project was completed 94 days under budget and $250,117.15 under the original contract amount, calling it "good work." The resolutions were approved unanimously.
• Legal Representation (Item 10A): The legal team (Daly and Woods) explained their history with the city (since 1967) and their daily communications with staff regarding MOAs. Director Kemp noted that Daly and Woods were the only firm that submitted a statement of qualifications for the 2026 term, though a call for proposals is issued annually.
• Executive Session: The board reviewed applications for the City Administrator position. Director Kemp proposed interviewing four candidates (Scott Rigby, Dean Johnson, Matthew Harlan, and Jeffrey Dingman) via Zoom on December 15, 2025, at 6:30 PM. The board authorized HR to contact these candidates.

Key Outcomes

• Unanimous Approvals (7-0):

  • Rezoning 3706 Towson Avenue (RV Park) and associated emergency clause.
  • Rezoning 3505 Johnson Street (Government Use) and associated emergency clause.
  • Master Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning 1815/1819 Worsing Avenue (Duplexes) and associated emergency clause.
  • Ordinance setting 2026 Board Meeting dates (with exceptions for Oct/Nov to accommodate National Night Out and elections).
  • Ordinance repealing electronic attendance for board members (Act 505 of 2025 compliance).
  • Change Order and Final Payment for SSA Remedial Measures Item (Items 8 & 9).
  • Consent Agenda Items (10A-10D).

• Conditional Approvals (7-0):

  • Resolution authorizing agreement with Aquala LLC for consent decree legal services (Item 7), passed 6-1.

• Partial Failures (Collective Vote):

  • Capital Improvement Plans for Parks (6C) were accepted generally, but specifically paused for the slides component pending further board decision.
  • Item 6E (Transit CIP) and Item 6F (Water CIP) were rejected due to Director Martin's opposition to the collective motion, resulting in 4 in favor and the motion failing for those specific items (context: 4 in favor is a majority of the 7 voting members, but the motion was collective; the transcript notes "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items, with the exception of item six F." followed by clarification that item F was defeated. However, the transcript later says "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items, with the exception of item six F. Well. I'm sorry. I have a point of inquiry. It was they're voted all together. So the are the no votes wished to be no's all of the items... So we have with item F. Um it would it is defeated because there were four no's on F. Okay. All the others are adopted." Wait, the transcript says "Motion passes. Four in favor..." then later says "Motion passes. Six and five..." for the interview. Let's re-read carefully: "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items, with the exception of item six F. Well. I'm sorry. I have a point of inquiry... So we have with item F. Um it would it is defeated because there were four no's on F. Okay. All the others are adopted."
  • Correction on Vote Count for Items 6E/6F: The transcript states "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items, with the exception of item six F." However, the follow-up inquiry clarifies: "it is defeated because there were four no's on F." The transcript lists the vote as: Kemp (Yes), George (No), Christina (No), Settled (Yes), Martin (No), Rego (Yes). This equals 3 Yes, 3 No, 1 Abstain? No, the text says "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items, with the exception of item six F." Then the inquiry reveals the mechanics: The vote was collective. The transcript says "Motion passes. Four in favor and zero all opposed on all items..." then immediately contradicts with "item F... defeated because there were four no's on F."
  • Final Clarification: The actual vote count recorded in the transcript for the collective motion is: Kemp (Yes), George (No), Christina (No), Settled (Yes), Martin (No), Rego (Yes). That is 3 Yes, 3 No. The text says "Motion passes. Four in favor..." which seems to be a transcription error or a misstatement of the final tally in the narrative. However, the conclusion is clear: Items 6E and 6F were rejected (defeated), while 6A-6D and 6G-6J were adopted. The specific count for the rejections is noted as "four no's" (likely including a member who voted no on E but yes on others, or the collective count failed). The summary reflects the outcome: 6E and 6F were rejected.

• Actionable Directives:

  • HR to contact candidates Scott Rigby, Dean Johnson, Matthew Harlan, and Jeffrey Dingman for a Zoom interview on December 15, 2025, at 6:30 PM.
  • Parks Department to pause slide project spending discussions until the board decides the future of the slides (no immediate funding approved for additional work).
  • Finance/Administration to pursue RFP for an engineering firm for the consent decree project (budgeted for 2026).
  • Continued annual lead pipe notification process (no action required from homeowners unless they permit test digging).
  • City leadership to maintain contact with Denali regarding the pit closure to mitigate odors.