Well, good evening, and welcome to the Fort Smith City Board of Directors meeting on this December sixteenth of twenty twenty-five.

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

In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray.

Amen.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, if you would please call the roll.

Directors Rigo.

Here.

Good.

Here.

Kim?

Here.

George Kit Savis.

Christina Kit Savis.

Here.

Settled.

Here.

Martin.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

This time I'll ask if there's any board member or direct or director that may have an item, uh, any item of business not already on the agenda for this meeting.

Okay.

Director Cassavage.

I don't have a new item, but I do believe that items five and six were improperly placed on the agenda, and I'd like um legal opinion from Colby about proceeding with those.

And I would reference the language and the ordinance we passed on November 18th to put guardrails on situations like this that says if the estimated cost of a capital uh project, and I think this would fall under a project by the definition included in the ordinance.

If it's estimated to be more than a hundred thousand dollars, the management fees at Parrott Island for this year are budgeted at 105,000.

Um in years past we've spent over a hundred thousand dollars.

Well, I think it gets to is how does the board want to interpret capital project, major capital project.

We've got a definition.

Uh does does this item fit within it?

Uh I mean, I I don't know.

I'd really like to see the ordinance again, but I I think it's a call for the board.

Um, you know, this certainly isn't you know, it's not uh an acquisition of something, you know, like uh a uh a new construction project.

Is it a new financial obligation to the city?

It certainly could be uh if the city's taking on the county's interest.

So I don't I don't know.

I mean it's the it's the board's call.

Uh I suppose I would argue it is an acquisition because we would be acquiring the county share.

Yeah.

Well, I again I think it's it's fairly it's cut fairly, you know, finally about how you want to define major capital project in that ordinance that you passed a couple weeks ago.

Um I you know if if the board considers this the major capital project, then I guess it needs to comply with the ordinance it just passed.

Okay.

Um then I would like to make a motion to remove items five and six from the agenda, send them to the first study session in January and follow the ordinance set on November eighteenth.

What do we know?

I'm waiting for a second.

Do we do we need to take a vote?

Okay.

No.

Good.

Yes.

Kim.

No, because I think we'll be talking about something of an amendment.

George Kit Savis?

Yeah.

Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

Settled?

No.

Martin.

Yes.

Motion passes.

One favor, three opposed.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

I'm sorry, let's let's back up for a moment.

Uh at this time, we will have uh some special recognition.

First of all, I'd like to thank the people at FIG and Fern Florida, uh, located at 922 U.S.

Highway Cedriuan for providing the beautiful pointsetters that we have uh this evening.

So let's give them a round of applause.

Thank you.

And it's that time of year and uh the last meeting before Christmas.

I'm always on the lookout for the guy in the red suit and the reindeer.

So if anyone has seen Santa, ah, there he is.

The one and only Santa Claus.

One and only people tonight.

I'll back up again.

Well, can I call come to bring a little Christmas cheer to the board and administration?

And so I want a little bit different route this year.

You get a stocking this year.

And no, I did not put coal in it.

What you do have is a bunch of candy.

A slanky.

A canister, a flour.

A floark.

You know that's not the case like what it was.

So here's the weird child from the board of directors and administration tonight.

But you know what?

This time of year we get extremely busy.

That's right.

Smile laugh.

Enjoy our family and our friends.

All years.

I mean, all the toys.

You know what?

I'm looking, Santa's looking at you right now, and I see smiles everywhere.

And it's all recognition grab holds at because this is the reason for this time of year.

So Santa hopes your year is blessed as a toy, laughter, surrounded by family and friends, and happiness.

And I I hope I'm just gonna say I hope the prayer of Santa as we step through the 2026.

It is the most blessed year the force has ever had.

Bless you and Merry Christmas.

Let's give a big round of applause.

Uh Santa Claus, uh, who is head of our neighborhood services, Mr.

Sean Garr.

Thanks, Sean.

Thank you very much.

Just time we're gonna again take one step backwards and approve the minutes uh of the December uh second regular meeting.

So moved.

Second, thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

As revised, as revised.

Thank you.

So moved as the rise.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

That we'll go to the first item on the agenda.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

The first item tonight is an ordinance amending the 2025 budget to account for the final revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year 2025.

This action establishes the final record of the 2025 operating and capital budgets.

Chief Financial Officer Andy Richards will address this item and answer any questions from the board.

All right, good evening.

So the proposed ordinance, as uh Mr.

Dingman said, is our final amendment of budget for 2025.

It's based upon the 2025 projections uh that we've compiled by working through the budget process with the departments uh since about August.

I'd say that probably that's probably been the main part of the focus since August.

Um the results for what we've projected for 2025.

Um is much improved from what we've what's been adopted and and what we've been working with as far as the budget for 25.

At one time we had appropriations that would create a what we had budgeted as a deficiency of revenues under expenditures of almost 19.5 million dollars.

That's been reduced to 14.9 million dollars through the projections.

So that comes about through adjustment of our forecasted revenues in the general fund as well as any budget savings that we were able to realize during the course of the year.

So that uh projected fund balance is 20.5 million dollars, which accounts for about 28 percent contingency reserve, which is well above our uh board's established policy.

So that is um a good sign for us, you know, to end the year.

The other funds are similar uh results.

Uh the street maintenance fund, we still have a uh contingency reserve of 68 percent.

Water and sewer fund.

We had a amended the budget deficit of 3.8 million dollars.

Actually, we're projecting a $3.4 million surplus, uh ending at 38% contingency reserve.

Um the debt service coverage based upon these numbers uh would be projected to be 122 percent.

Um in context, the 2024 numbers that we calculate this on would be calculated 100 percent.

Uh but at the close of the audit, the actual debt service coverage is 114 percent.

So it tends to trend higher.

Um hopefully that's remains the case.

We could have even higher debt service coverage once the audit and every all the year-in adjustments are made.

But um so the water consumer fund looks to be in good shape for 2025, and then solid waste based upon that uh 38 percent reserve.

Um the deficit drop from 2.9 to 2.4 during the projection.

So we're asking you to pass this.

This will be our uh final appropriated budget for the four operating funds for 2025, and I'll answer any questions you have.

Okay, thank you very much, Andy.

Madam Crook, did anyone sign up to speak on this item?

None indicating.

Thank you.

Just time we entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance.

So move second, thank you.

Just time we'll entertain comments from the board, Director Neil Martin, you recognize.

Yeah, I'm glad we have a good good crowd here tonight because I think this is important.

So um just just lay the land.

I I did not vote for the 25 budget.

I I felt like there were uh heavy on the expenditure side, specifically the general fund.

That being said, I think it's important to note for for everybody here, there's still a healthy fund balance in all these funds.

It's like a savings account.

So we always try to keep a certain amount on hand in case uh there are issues that that come up during the year.

Um, but our fund balance and all these funds are sufficient.

Now, I want to I want to call attention to the water and sewer fund that Andy just talked about a little bit ago.

And he talked about a debt service coverage ratio.

That is the number that we need to hit.

We we have to hit a certain number, or bondholders say you have to raise water rates, which is what happened a couple years ago.

We got too low.

And you remember with those water rates were raised, we were able to get to a a uh what'd you say, 122 percent?

Yes, 122 percent.

We were flirting with not even hitting 100 percent.

Once you don't hit 100 percent, that's when the bondholders have problems and potentially force you to raise rates.

So I think it's important for everybody to know that that uh debt service coverage ratio and the amount of money that we have in a savings account for each one of these funds is critical in uh in order for us to be able to operate.

So um, even though we had a heavy spending year on the general fund, we still have plenty of dollars in the general fund, uh plenty of reserve in the general fund to be able to meet any unforeseen obligations, things like that.

So I uh I wanted everybody just to kind of understand where where this uh is coming from.

We did make corrections in 25, so um we have a balanced budget uh in in a lot of ways.

Uh and so I think we saw heavy spending in 25, and we've corrected that in 26.

We'll vote on that here in just a second.

But um just wanted everybody to be aware of how much uh or that we do have savings account and we're uh you know we've got savings to be able to cover things that come up throughout the year.

So just wanted to share that with this group since we've got a large a large crowd tonight.

Thank you, Director Sale.

Did you have any comments?

Yeah, I did.

Thank you.

Andy, on the general fund, you're estimating that we'd be at 28.3 percent for the general fund at the end of the year, is that correct?

Correct.

And that's gonna equate to 20.5 million dollars sitting in the bank for us.

Yes.

And you're only talking a slight, it's gonna go down maybe a million dollars, but we'd be at 34 because our expenditure is going to go down the following 26.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

So wealthy percentage, a lot of money, cash in the bank.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Okay.

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if you please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitzavis.

I'm sorry?

No.

Christina Kitsavis?

No.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

No.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Five in favor and two opposed.

Thank you.

Item number two.

Item two is a public hearing and ordinance to adopt the fiscal year 2026 operating budget for the City of Fort Smith.

This process started in July with department heads in preparing and submitting their budget requests for 2026 after the initial compilation and some early discussions with each department head.

A preliminary document was provided to the board of directors on October 14th.

That particular version of the budget included an operating deficit in each of the four operating funds plus significant capital requests.

From that point, following the board's general direction that the operating budgets for each of the four operating funds be presented as structurally balanced.

We have proceeded as directed to present to you tonight a structurally balanced budget structurally balanced operating budget for the City of Fort Smith's 2026 fiscal year.

There were some hard decisions in this process.

Perhaps most significant was the elimination of the 61.15 full-time equivalent vacant staff positions across all funds, but also specifically the general fund, including the elimination of vacant police and fire uniform positions.

Reducing the number of personnel on the city staff is the most direct way to reduce operating expenses for this year and for future years, and eliminating vacant positions allows us to do so without laying off any existing employees.

In addition to the reducing the size of the operating budget request, 2026 budget also incorporates the reorganization of staff that implemented that was implemented this fall.

This reorganization reclassifies some of our staff and reorganizes the budget.

Its direct impact on the budget will be inefficiencies gained that allow staff to be managed and operate more efficiently to provide the services expected of city government.

Balancing this budget also has the impact of improving the reserve balances for each fund, allowing for a limited amount of capital expenditures on equipment replacement and facility improvements, and still result in a healthy reserve balance for each fund.

With that introduction, I'll recognize Mr.

Richards again for any further comments or questions related to the proposed 2026 budget for the city of Fort Smith.

I guess I'll just start out by saying, you know, I kind of feel like it's been a year for me expressing concern, particularly for the general fund, but some of the other funds.

I mean, our I think we've had this conversation meeting after beating uh when financial decisions were brought to the board that the trajectory that we were on, the spending patterns um were not sustainable.

And um, and then even earlier this fall, when when the first round when we put everyone's request in for 26, I mean uh one of the one of the directors asked me what my confidence level was in balance in the budget, and at that time I thought it's not very high.

Um because we basically need to cut about 13 million dollars or um whatever that large number was during that process.

And so in um, but you know, I'm about to say I have to applaud the administration, the department heads and the board of directors for the support and encouragement that everyone came together and what we have tonight, I believe is a structurally balanced budget from the operating standpoint, which fun fundamentally is a big positive.

large number was um during that process and so in um but you know I'm about to say I have to applaud the administration the department heads and the board of directors for the support and encouragement um that everyone came together and what we have tonight I believe is a structurally balanced budget from the operating standpoint which fun fundamentally is a big positive it's in the general fund in all four of the operating funds in fact um you know we do see a small decrease in projected fund balance um for uh some of these funds but that isn't that is attributed to uh making one time capital purchases which I think a good strategy for uh the city going forward is is to balance the day to day spending the operating revenues recurring revenues recurring expenditures make sure those are balanced and then from that point you look at the can the reserves that we have the fund balances and that should be an indicator how much uh capital spending you can do uh per fund so and that's basically what's being presented tonight um here the general fund we talked you know alluded to uh we've got a projected 34 percent reserve uh we've got about a million two hundred and fifty thousand in planned capital purchases and a balanced operating budget um that looks like a healthy general fund to me but if you went back and looked at the past two or three years at some of these blistering depths that we started to uh incur and then budget for you know that's where the that's where my concern was earlier you know in this past year so I'm very optimistic about this proposed budget tonight street maintenance fund um always has a a good healthy balance there at projected at 60 percent reserve water and sewer fund you know we went to the budget hearing and we still weren't quite there as far as debt service cut coverage reserve when we when we met for the budget hearing back on November 17th so we went back to work there we were able to cut uh operating expenditures further um we had more data to look at the revenues and what what billings look like out of the utility fund uh for water and sewer and you know we raised the projections up a little bit which I feel pretty comfortable in doing based upon the the the more data that we've got and so and we're projecting a debt service coverage of 115 percent um in the water and sewer fund for 2026 and then solid waste um 36 percent projected reserve at the end excess of re revenues over expenditures 91,000 dollars that's after depositing you know significant funds into the sinking fund to help cover future landfill um care costs and and other equipment plan equipment purchases in the future so um you know I wouldn't I'd highly recommend adopting this budget for 26.

I think it's a it's a good path forward you know we're still gonna have to deal with you know inflation in the future and and you know rising costs and as you know hopefully not as to the extreme that we've dealt with the past two or three years but this is a good foot forward and you know hopefully we continue to work like this in the future and and continue on a good path of sustainability for these operating funds.

I'll stand for questions.

Okay thank you very much at this time we will formally open uh the public hearing uh madam clerk is there anyone to speak on this item yes we have four individuals sign in and first being Lavon Morton and each will have two minutes director mortar you're recognized thank you uh I'm Lavon Morton I'm resident of Fort Smith Andy said a lot of what I was going to say so I'm not gonna repeat that but I will say that um the first budget I looked at uh had an eight million dollar deficit for the general fund and um as Andy said it and I've been through this process with in a lot of large organizations either as an auditor or as someone who worked for the organization it's really hard to uh to cut things that you want to fund and things that are requested by departments but uh I have to say the administration the department heads and the board uh did a lot of work on that and you and I'll say that from my perspective you did the right thing.

I mean it's hard to to say no on things like that but um as uh uh Mr.

Richards pointed out you were running that eight million dollar deficit within two years you would have been out of money and and unable to operate and you know and and that's that's just not not something you can get to.

Now, my view is that you will begin to see tax collection increases in 26, and hopefully a year from now, when you're considering the budget, you'll be in a much better position.

Uh as it is, though, the work that you've all done that is so hard has put all these funds in a very good position.

And as a citizen, I thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening.

It was it is a relief and very exciting to hear about the balanced budget and um you know the the cuts that the departments have made.

Uh I would like to request that this board, you know, really acknowledge what the departments did by cutting head count and also by cutting and reducing their budgets, especially our fire and police.

Um they have hard jobs, and um, you know, I feel like they they should have everything they need to protect the citizens of Fort Smith.

Um I also urge this board to remain committed to being fiscally responsible.

We do not need another park at Hackme Brick.

Sarah has stood at this podium on many occasions throughout the last year and a half, stating that she doesn't even have the equipment to maintain the parts that already exist.

We needed to focus on them and getting her the equipment that she needs and not adding any more.

We also do not need to have sole responsibility for Pear Island.

We will be taking on not only the equipment but also the water lines, and we all know here that we are facing uh infrastructure crisis, and we we do not need to add anything to our budget.

I think that we need to be very conscious of um what we approve, and I think Miss Ketzavas tonight for um bringing the Pair Island five and six agenda up because I think that this board needs time to investigate what's going on with ARM and also with the county.

I don't think that a director should ever bring something up that is that important with only a week's notice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Shane McKinney and uh board and and audience, I'm gonna ask that make sure you comment uh stick to the item on the agenda.

Hi.

Sorry for everybody that's behind my head right now.

I just had surgery, so it kind of looks gross for everybody behind me.

Um I want to talk about an item on this agenda uh that's part of this budget, which is Miss Laura's.

Um we've I'm glad that the board seems to want to approve and fund Ms.

Laura's and take care of it.

But the building is in disrepair.

This is one of our historic sites in Fort Smith.

This is important for every citizen who's been a part like I do Airbnbs.

I do tourism coming to town, and I can tell you people taught more highly leaving Miss Laura's than they do the U.S.

Marshall's Museum.

Uh people come back and share more positive things when they go visit Miss Laura's than they do our Fort Smith Museum of History.

It is an incredible asset, and the siding is falling off of it.

It's being exposed to water.

The capital expenditure last year that could have fixed that was declined because they didn't want to have the restrictions that came with a literal matching grant.

Which is absurd that our city council and our budget would turn down matching funds to repair a historic building like that.

I would love to get matching funds on my projects.

Um is just absolutely absurd for the purpose of trying to maintain some kind of control.

I'm not exactly sure what it is.

But this next year's budget needs to include the capital expenditures necessary to fix this, or else what's the point in running it?

It's just gonna fill with mold, it's just gonna become a problem.

It's going to be way more expensive to fix next time than it is this time.

So this needs to be addressed, it needs to be added.

I know from uh sources that this was brought up to Jeff Dingman beforehand and was kept off of the vote tonight.

So uh nobody's aware of it, or it wasn't included in the budget despite it being brought up already.

Maybe it was missed, maybe it got stacked up in paperwork.

I'm not exactly sure why.

But we need if we're going to save this museum, we need to save it properly.

It's not even that much to fix this as far as our city budget goes.

It's a pretty small amount, and I think it's something we should all be able to get behind.

Thank you.

And last we have a Tommy, is it Wagley, Wagley?

Wagley.

Okay.

Shane actually led into what I was going to talk about.

Yes, the grant was denied because he didn't want the uh conservation easier.

Yes.

Conservation.

Thank you.

And I know what y'all is looking at says that the new budget does not include the capital project to replace or repair the building that's exterior.

My question is that last year there was already money set aside for this.

There is in the 2025 budget.

There's 310,000 that was allocated to Miss Lores for the exterior building projects for the siding for the parking lot.

Where is this money?

We've had several people bring this through city administration trying to get this brought to the board and have been denied at every step.

And I want to know where this money is, why we are being denied funds for this actively every time it gets brought up and tried to be brought in front of the board.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all.

That's all that have sounded.

Thank you.

Yes.

Just in in terms of a response, the the dollars that are in the non-departmental fund for capital expenditure, well, actually in Miss Laura's fund, uh is $310,000 and it's in the 2025 budget.

It is unexpended.

For us to consider as we as we do early in the year with a carry carry over of the dollars for one particular purpose to accomplish that project in a future year.

But that will come with a specific discussion and review by the board when we come forward with those requests.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Was that money from the insurance for the hail damage?

No.

No, that the roof was repaired on the building, so that money was spent that way.

Okay.

Thank you.

It just time we were formed to close a public hearing.

And we would entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance with suspension of the rules.

So move suspension of the rules.

Second.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please read the ordinance.

An ordinance to adopt the fiscal year 2026 operating budget and to provide other matters relating there too.

I think at this time we'll entertain comments from the board.

I think uh Director Christina Savage was first in the queue.

Andy, do you mind to come back up?

So when I look at this, what concerns me is that even with the adjustments, the budget outpaces what's sustainable because revenues are continuing to decline, expenses are continuing to increase.

I'm wondering if you share Mr.

Morton's optimism that sales tax collections will increase in 26.

Uh I'm just kind of neutral on that right now.

I mean, it could be, I mean, we have seen increases in the recent months, but it seems like um uh month, you know, year over year, our sales tax the last couple months has been up.

So uh we could see some growth in sales tax.

Um, I don't know consider how significant, you know.

I'm just kind of I definitely don't want to plan for large increases without seeing some of that realize.

I just don't think that's prudent.

When we held our budget meeting and we talked about the debt service coverage and water and sewer, I believe the number we were presented with was far less than 115 percent.

How how'd you get there?

Uh on the debt service coverage.

Um we got there on the expenditure, the expense side and the revenue side.

Um we went through I went through the projections and you know, we've kind of seen the volume being billed kind of be declining, but we also noticed how much rainfall we got, how wet 2025 was.

So we projected a 2 percent increase in in uh build volume for next year and raised revenues up some, but also there were extensive cuts to operating expenses as well in the budget.

So your projections aren't factoring in any sort of future rate increase, because I know that was discussed, that was brought up at the at the budget meeting.

No, uh only the three and a half percent that's already been voted and passed for the sewer.

That's the only rate increase that's built into the projections.

Okay.

That's all I have for Andy.

I would just like to say that the cuts to police and fire.

I I don't know that I want to see those as permanent cuts.

I would support a hiring freeze, and I don't know if if Chief Baker is here.

Is he there in the back?

Chief, would you mind to come up?

You know, with Fort Smith growing and and changing, um cutting police is not where I want to save money.

If we make these cuts permanent instead of just a hiring freeze, how long does it take to get those positions back?

Is that something that takes a long time to do?

Well, I would have to come back to the board and get approval to add those positions.

I mean, but once you cut them, they're gone.

And it would require an action by the board to bring them back.

Do you have any concerns about public safety with not filling these positions?

I know last night was was there a high-speed chase on Rogers Avenue.

I think speeds exceeding 100 miles an hour.

Uh I heard about it.

I don't think it involved us, but yes, cutting police officers certainly concerns me.

Um I have said for a number of years that we need to be adding police officers.

Plan was to start adding five a year in 2028.

Uh we have gotten ahead of that through grants and other things by adding a few officers uh and in this year and and the previous year.

Uh so yes, uh I'm concerned that reducing the number of police officers that we have available uh could impact public safety in a negative way.

Okay.

Thank you for your input.

I would just also like to add that you know, making these permanent cuts to fire, we still don't know for certain how does this affect our ISO rating, and we certainly don't want everyone's insurance to increase if that ISO rating um uh you know if we can't maintain it.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Director Rego.

Thank you.

Uh this is our comments as it relates to the general fund.

Uh you know, just wanted to thank the administration, the finance team, uh, colleagues, you know, for the work that's gone into this over the last number of months.

This general fund budget that's presented to us tonight, uh made up of the seven you know, sub-areas, policy administration, management services, development services, police fire, operational services, and non-departmental.

This budget represents a $15.8 million reduction versus the projected 2025 uh spending that we just voted on a moment ago.

Uh the average uh reduction across those seven areas breaks down to about a 15 percent reduction versus 2025 levels of spending.

The general fund budget is five million dollars leaner than the original proposal that was brought to us in October.

And this budget shows 1.7 million dollars less spending than what we actually spent in 2022.

So this is five years ago.

This is very significant uh substantial work done by the finance department.

Um when it comes to um the the conversation around um you know the the removal of unfilled um positions across all sorts of departments, including um with the police, you know, that lowers the authorization cap from 168 to 160.

We currently have 155 uh uniformed officers, so there's still uh room there um for growth.

So thank you to the administration finance team um for the work that you put in on this.

the the conversation around um you know the the removal of unfilled um positions across all sorts of departments including um with the police you know that lowers the authorization cap from 168 to 160 we currently have 155 uh uniformed officers so there's still uh room there um for growth so thank you to the administration finance team um for the work that you put in on this thank you director neil mark so uh yeah I I think um 25 was a was a tough year tough budget that we uh that was passed um again I I voted against that but I think this 2026 budget is is a good budget in the fact that we all came together and look understood that we couldn't continue going this route so uh you know the the items that were uh they were talked about by um by Andy and then outlined by Director Rigo I think uh underscore the point this is this is a balanced budget across the board with continuing uh with enough savings to be able to cover things that that potentially pop up so we're we're being fiscally sound in our spending but we're also being fiscally sound in the fact that we have reserves um so I'm I'm pleased with that you know I did get a chance to talk to the to the or communicate with the chief of police and the and the fire chief and you know when we when we talk about cutting officers that's obviously not something we want to do but I applaud uh Chief Baker and how he uh initiated that because the the the places where we're gonna see a cut on in the police department are uh some crisis intervention unit officers uh information desk officers and then a property crimes uh uh position so the the crisis intervention unit we're not cutting those positions those folks are going to be integrated with um with teams out in the field so those crisis intervention officers are gonna stay they're gonna be doing the work uh with mental health and those types of things as they go out on call so they're gonna be with um with our uh um they're gonna be out on patrol doing doing what they do um information desk that's gonna be housed and and or it's gonna be handled a different a couple different ways with some maybe some non-uniform folks and and and so I think I I applaud Chief Baker and how he he did this we but what I the one thing I will say is we need to look at our uh our quarterly financial statements and we've got to be very mindful of where we're at at the end of March and we've got to be very mindful of our response times out in the Chaffee Crossing area to make sure that we're maintaining that ISO rating on on fire but also we've got to make sure that we come back and we talk to Chief Baker and we assess how these cuts are impacting uh his department um I appreciate his reallocation I think that's good but we've got to make sure that we we don't just make the if if we pass the budget tonight we don't just pass it and just say okay we'll deal with it again at the end of 2026 as we're paying for 2027.

We've got to continue to monitor that assess that make changes where we need to make changes maybe revenues do increase in 26 and that allows us to potentially be able to uh to hire hire some officers back get that get that going hire some fire department staff back.

But we've got to be really mindful of what's going on I appreciate this budget.

I think this was good.

I think we got there and um but it is proceed with caution is what I'll say proceed with caution in all these funds and making sure that our debt service coverage ratio everybody needs to understand that.

Make sure that debt service coverage ratio is above 110 percent that's the key 110 percent if it's 110 percent we're okay.

As it drops below that we start getting into trouble.

So we've got to make sure that our spending on the water and sewer side is appropriate.

So I think this is good.

I I look I look forward to to the to the vote on this Director Andre Good Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm gonna thank the staff for doing exactly what you said we have presented a structurally balanced budget at the board's request at you know at any um citizens' request they would want the city to have a balanced budget you know we all know sitting up here that we have a finite amount of money to work with you know we also know that we provide services and that's what we're supposed to do.

So there is an infinite amount of expectation from the city to provide services that are important to the community.

Some of those are the Hamilton House Hamilton House, Ms.

Laura's, you know, we talk about police and fire.

You know there's a whole lot of issues nonprofits there are many issues that we are asked to fund.

So you know we see you know that the budget was cut you know we see where the cuts were made what we don't see is the unintended consequence of what is going to happen when people see that services and funding for programs that they expect and want simply aren't there.

You know, we all know that insurance and all other kind of rates are increasing.

You know, so yes, this is very difficult.

Um the gentleman said it was it's hard to cut funding for things that you want to support.

I know everyone out there has not pet projects, but maybe programs, organizations that you believe in, that you support, that you want to support, but maybe your neighbor doesn't.

That's what makes it hard decisions for us to make.

Again, we have an infinite amount of money, we know that.

You know, this board, I don't believe, sits up here and spends money carelessly, especially if we ask administration and finance.

You know, how are we looking?

And yes, Mr.

Richards did say approach with caution.

But I'd like to call on uh Mr.

Levon Morton, if you don't mind, can you talk a little bit about uh tax increases?

I know Mr.

Richards mentioned that, and I know you have a really good grasp on this.

Well, I will I just want to clarify what my uh or add to the comments I made uh regarding my expectation that taxes would tax collections would increase in uh 2026.

I I think that for three reasons.

Number one, Sebastian County had the highest reappraisal increase in property values in the state of Arkansas, 63 percent.

Now, not all of that certainly flows to the city.

Uh the schools get the line share of that, but there are several funds in the city, including the general fund and some police funds and some street funds that get some of those property taxes.

So that's number one.

Number two, Bass Pro will open sometime in 26, and I and based on their original projections that came to the board when I was on the board.

Um, there will be generally there will be a lot of sales tax generated on that.

And since the board, since there's none of that that's going to go back to them, the city will get its its local share and the county will get its local share.

Third thing is the tax law that was passed uh by Congress in 2025, July, and signed July 1st, has a lot of tax cuts that will kick in really for the first time when people get their refunds in uh 2026 for 25, and then also be in place all through 26.

And every economist is saying that is going to have a significant positive impact on the economy.

So those are the three reasons that I uh was thinking about when I said I believe tax increases will increase in 26.

I will also say that based on what the stock market's done, and I've run these numbers myself, starting in 27, there's going to be a decrease in the required contributions to the LOP fee funds because of the money that the board voted to put in uh in 2018 and 2020.

That has made a huge difference in the level of funding and decreased our future obligations by a very large number, and you'll begin to see that uh in in 2027.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very insightful.

Director Savage.

So uh I guess my my question is for Andy.

Structurally, how did we balance this budget when expenses still exceed revenue?

Is it because we're drawing down reserves?

I mean, I know we've eliminated the vacant positions, but how how are we at a balanced budget if we're spending more than we're taking in?

I mean, I'm not a finance person, so I guess I need you to explain that to me.

We're balanced from the op from our operating revenues and expenditures.

We are using about 1.2 million dollars of our general existing general funds to make capital purchases.

That's what we're doing.

So we have, you know, we can make 1.2 million dollars in capital purchases, still have 34 percent contingency reserve left over.

So you know, I think it's critical to to make sure that our day-to-day spending is not exceeding our day-to-day revenue intake.

I think I think before we were we were I calculated we were probably burning about $13,000 a day on day-to-day spend.

But if you may so if you maintain that, that's fiscally sustainable, and then if your reserves are higher enough, you can use that to make one-time non-reoccurring purchases.

Shouldn't we if there's confidence that sales tax will increase for the shouldn't we put those capital purchases off for a year until we see that that money comes in?

Well, I mean, at some point you've got to replace some capital.

I mean, that's those those are the priorities that you need to balance, yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Director Kim.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh I want to say thank you to the administration for this.

I I know the comments that were shared as uh Andy Richards acknowledged earlier as the CFO that this was going to be hard, but the hard work hard work was done by department heads and by administration.

I really want to say thank you.

And I also echo the sentiments of uh Director Martin.

I do think it's administration's responsibility uh to bring this back no matter if the board happened to remember or not, uh, at each quarter just to try to give us updates on how we're doing alongside of what we forecasted versus also what we're really doing.

You know, budgets are about priorities.

They're not about they're not guaranteed dollars.

Um I think if we can remember that and just try to remember if we need to clarify our priorities, then let's make amendments and do so.

And if that means we can add more to first responders, obviously I think there's a shared sentiment among that.

I would say also just for record that I would ask that Chief Baker and Chief Clark keep an eye on our public safety and concerns that they might have or the ISO ratings and things of that nature.

I definitely don't want the board caught by surprise in fiscal 26.

Um so if it if we think that that's where things are heading, then then maybe the cut was too deep and we need to talk about it sooner than later.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Yes.

Mr.

Mayor, I would like to make uh two separate motions.

Uh I'd like to make a motion uh first to amend the budget ordinance to reprogram 100,000 of the 20.5 million dollar fund balance to be utilized for potential maintenance of the properties currently owned by the Fort Smith Cemeteries Incorporated.

If the city is not the owner of the properties by March 1st, 2026, that money will revert back to the fund balance.

Okay.

You heard the motion?

All second.

We have a second.

And that's just I I brought this forward to try to give us some flexibility specifically set aside over the next few months as we engage in that process of deciding how to proceed forward on this, uh, that important topic that's unresolved.

Uh I do think that putting a March 1st time horizon on it.

Uh and then if if we're not the owner of the property by the first sending that 100,000 back to the fund balance.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think Director Good was next in the Q and then Director Settle.

Thank you.

I would also like to make a motion to amend the budget uh to include the can we vote on this through one at a time.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

My question to Jared is are you just proposing to set aside the money, not spend it?

And if we're not the owners of the property, then it goes back to the general fund.

Correct.

And if we are, then the board will have a vote on that.

If we are, then the money is already allocated for for that.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Directors Kim?

No.

George Gitzavis?

No.

Christina Kitsavis?

No.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

No.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

The motion is defeated with three in favor and four opposed.

And I had an additional motion, Mayor.

Uh to amend our budget ordinance to reprogram $15,000 from the $20.5 million fund balance towards the Fort Smith Museum of History, raising their budget utility uh reimbursement amount from $20,000 to $35,000.

I'll second that.

Second.

Madam Clerk.

Directors George Kittsabas.

We're not doing any call.

Where does this money come from?

What department?

This would be from the General Defense.

No, I'm going to know.

For context, we haven't called have you called the vote yet, Mayor?

Uh yes, she was getting ready to call a role.

I would like to have some discussion on these amendments first.

Well, it's just this one.

We already defeated the one about the cemeteries.

What I was going to say contextually is that the this was a request that came in from the Museum of History reflecting a uh increased utility cost in their budget.

We have for decades uh provided out of the non-departmental general fund line uh $20,000 uh to the museum to help with their utility costs.

They made a request for $35,000 uh reflecting an increased uh expense on their end.

I don't believe we uh discussed it at any great length during the budget hearing, but it was a request that came in via letter and email uh to us, and so making an amendment uh reflecting that.

Okay.

Uh fundamentally I I don't have a problem with setting aside money for the cemeteries.

We've we've already put some money towards their care and maintenance or towards the museum, but I would like to see if the budget passes first and then come back around and bring these as separate items.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, I I agree with that.

I'd like to let's get this thing, let's get let's make the decision on the budget and then circle back.

Now we've already defeated the one.

Um I don't know if are we are we gonna have to vote?

Are we we're here ready to vote?

So I uh I I'm my thing is we're let's I want to see if the budget is passed.

I don't feel like we're at a point where we start adding stuff to it.

Um I know it's a small amount, but I don't want to uh continue to add stuff to it.

I think we did we we deal with this later, but I think we're at the budget or we're at the time to vote on this item, so let's just go ahead and vote.

Okay.

Director Kemp.

Just one more comment while we're talking about this for discussion.

That uh I'm not necessarily standing against it.

I just I'm against it at this phase of the year.

If we get to the second quarter and their utilities are indeed rising, then I think that's a matter that can be addressed as we see the utilities rising.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Well, I I would just say I think they've already seen their utilities writing rising.

I would just say I'm not opposed to it, I'm just opposed to doing it in this format.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Clerk Directors Christina Kitsavis?

No.

Settle?

Yes.

Martin?

No.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

No.

Motion is defeated with three in favor and four opposed.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

So there any other comments on uh item two.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, call the roll.

Directors Christina Kitzavis.

Voting on item two.

I'm sorry.

Let's do that again.

I got out of line.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kittsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavis.

So just to be clear, we're voting on item two.

Yes.

No.

Motion passes with six in favor and one opposed.

Thank you.

We'll go to item number three.

Item three involves two items related to the Fort Smith alleyway rehabilitation project.

This project will enhance specific alleyways of Fort Smith rights of way that already belong to the city as pedestrian and bikeway centered facilities.

The aid and the mobility of citizens, making it easier and safer to move about the city without acquiring new right-of-way or building new trails from scratch.

This project is 100% funded by the climate pollution reduction grant.

The city was awarded in 2024.

Item 3A specifically is an ordinance approving a contract with Western Millright Commercial Construction for the Alleyway Rehabilitation Project and authorizing change order number one to the contract.

This project is well within the CPRG grant allocation to this project.

Director of Citizen Services, Joshua Robertson will speak further to this item.

To go along with what Acting City Administrator stated, the project is 100 percent funded by the CPRG.

And following completion of the final design, the engineering estimate for the project came in at $4,304, $304,190.

The bid opening occurred on September 4th with the lowest responsive bid submitted at $2,189,410.

After execution of the standard bid process, the city attempted to align this project with other CPRG items on the board agenda.

This coordination pushed the item beyond the 60-day post uh bid window, at which point the contractor requested revisions to several bid item quantities.

Additionally, design changes were made to adjust alleywis and remove the uh colored stamped concrete from the project scope.

Uh the revisions consolidated and change order number one, which increases the contract by uh $554,862.50, uh, bringing the new total contract amount to $2,744,272 and 50 cents.

Even though these um adjustments, the overall contract price remains well below the engineering estimate and is still the lowest bid by a significant margin.

City staff recommends the approval of this contract to allow construction to proceed and uh keep this project moving.

And I'll stand for questions.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, all the citizens' comments.

Uh yes, we have Joe Elskin, and then we also have Andy Hannah to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

I I would assume I wouldn't have to say very much about this since it's totally funded.

But it does make me feel that we need more grants like this.

And I would like to think that the board would support these because the consequences of not spending my federal tax money back in Fort Smith.

It's gonna make me mad.

Um I also I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of pinching pennies.

My dad always said it's the little leaks that sink ships.

And he commanded uh a ship during World War II, so I believe him.

Um my husband doubles down on that.

But the fact is that if we don't invest in things that the citizens need, like alleyways are great beautification, they uplift neighborhoods.

Um we want uh we want to be competitive with uh visitors, we want those EV uh installed, the B uh chargers installed.

We want more grants that uh use my taxpayer money, and I feel like it's very important to me that morale, city morale, and it is uplifted by projects that we do.

I am a little a little concerned about morale, and I hope that you all will look at each of the um departments because you gave them a 15% cut demand.

They delivered, but you probably don't know the price that they are paying and the people of Fort Smith are paying.

And I I wish you would look into that.

I'm a people person.

You need to make sure the people have positive hope and uh faith in in what we're doing for them.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, was there anyone else to speak on this item?

None indicated.

Just time we entertain a motion to adopt the resolutions.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Um comments from the board, uh, Director Christina Kasavitch, you recognize?

Josh, I feel like this needs to be rebid.

Because they the 60-day window closed, and then they went back and revised their unit prices up uh was it $555,000, and they've seen what everybody else has bid.

You know, it seems like we could have given our local people the opportunity to lower their price.

You see, because you know they they took out the stamped concrete option.

Um but you know now they've seen everyone else's bids.

They can't just bid and then come back and say, well, now we need to increase our our price.

Again, I mean when they did the adjustments, it was still the lowest bid by a large margin, even by the next uh lowest bid, and so we felt comfortable bringing it to the board for consideration for approval.

Okay, I'll I'll let everyone else weigh in.

Uh Director Seville, you would next in the case.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Josh, I I think that we can have a legal issue here.

Because you allowed a company to rebid a project that they already knew the end game with the other betters.

You didn't allow the other bidders to bid down.

Regardless of if you asked one bidder increase by $556,000, you should allow everybody else to rebid the project.

That's plain and simple.

By doing this, you're causing problems.

Look in the bid pro look in the bid package.

I'll give you an example.

There's one line just kind of just my mind.

Um concrete went from $65 to $75 on eight-inch thickness per unit cost.

You know, look at those, those are the numbers.

You go from $70 on already $25 for service line to a thousand to $1,500 per unit.

So the bid went from $450 to $27,000 on one line item.

How can that be fair to the other contractors that bid the project?

It's not.

It can't be.

It's not.

I'll vote for this project.

It was done right.

But I can't vote for something that wasn't done fair.

You should give everybody the same opportunity.

That's what this is what we're trying to be fair here.

We're people are here watching us daily, and what was the lowest bidder?

I don't care if a little bidder gave everybody the same option.

I heard that you called it and said, is your bid still good?

The second and third person said yes.

But you didn't tell them that, hey, the other guy's rebid and raising this bid up, did you?

Um the engineering firm did speak with the next lowest bidder.

Yeah, but he didn't ask him, hey, the other guys are rebidding it.

Would you like to rebid?

Understood.

To me, that's where we should be at.

So this one should get tabled or should get rebidted.

Because what I don't want to hear is we focus on this, and I'm asking for legal opinion is we if we allow this, what happens if that second guy says, Well, I didn't get a chance to do it, and we're in court because of that.

Yeah.

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

I would I'm I'm vote I'll vote vote for this.

But let's do it the right way.

That's all I'm asking for.

Do we need to table this?

I'd ask Kobe.

Kobe, can you can you join here?

I mean, that we're not asking for a uh a uh a waiver and uh exceptional bidding process, correct?

This is just a standard bid.

Well yeah, this wasn't a waiver, right?

This this wasn't a waiver.

Yeah.

No.

The problem is the 60-day the lowest bidder is not bound by their bid anymore.

Um so yeah, after you're after they're not bound by it, uh I mean, you know, the city didn't accept it timely.

So I mean I think that's within the board's discretion if you want to start the start the process over, go rebid it, give every other you know bidder a chance to review their bids again.

But I mean you're uh legally the lowest bidder is not bound by that bid.

But neither is the upper bidder either.

Well, nobody's bound by them because they're the the 60 days.

That's kind of my bidding.

Is nobody had the opportunity.

So once the the lowest bidder saw everybody else's higher numbers, they could raise their price and still say I'm lower, but I've gained $600,000.

Yeah, but the the optics don't look right.

Yeah, the the the cards are on the table at that point.

Everybody knows what the bids are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, I I think uh the people that lost on this is the citizens of Fort Smith with that bid raising it to $555,000.

I'm I I'm I'm I make a motion to send this back out for rebid.

I'll second that.

Director Rigo.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, uh, per the uh Roberts Rules of Order uh motions supersede discussion.

So that has to be uh Director Martin's motion has to be addressed.

Okay, Madam Clerk.

But I do have an inquiry as as it relates to the motion.

Uh could we have some context about or some information about what is the uh rebid process look like?

You know, if that the motion passes, hey, I'd be the motion is to to send this out for a rebid.

When does that start?

When does the timer start, you know, fill in some context for me for us, please?

Well, we would first of the year we would put the bid back out like we did originally, and um I forgot how many days we put out the bid, and uh you're looking probably the early first quarter um having another low bid that we'll be bringing to the board.

Can you bring this back to us February first, the first meeting of February?

Isn't it is it a 21-day bid process?

I think it was 20, 21 days, yes.

Okay, so if you put it out the second, you get it by the 23rd, you ward it.

If it's a contract already know, you've already got their bid bid bonds information, so why why we couldn't do it in February?

Just all the preparation it would be kind of tight with the holiday and trying to get all of that completed.

I mean, could could we shoot for that?

Yeah, February 3rd.

That would be better to be able to do that.

Shoot for it and what do you mean?

Or the 17th, then it comes to the 17th.

I'd like to see it sooner rather than later.

Which would be best for you, Josh?

Which date?

Um again, we can shoot for the first, but I mean at the latest, I'm sure we can bring it to the second meeting in February.

Okay.

I appreciate your time, Josh.

I know you've worked hard on this.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So Josh, you do you have any concerns?

Do you have a cons any concerns about tabling this?

Are there anything?

Is there anything that we might not be aware of that might negatively impact this project?

No concerns as far as this negatively impacting the the project.

Um we were looking at a 300-day um window to have this project completed.

And so even with this uh being tabled and doing this in the first part of um January and going into February, still could be done by the end of uh 26.

Uh we're still in a good timeline as far as our our work plan with our uh sub-recipient agreement.

Um, I just I just feel we if we do put it back out, we will be getting uh probably bids closer to the engineering estimate that's now been put out there as well.

So before we were going to have a little over two million dollars left on this certain piece of the grant to do um additional work.

Yes, Director Kemp.

Just just for clarity, I want to hear this.

Are you saying that if this was approved on this part, you would have had two million in excess?

Yes.

And that your concerns are if we table this, everyone's numbers are going to come closer to engineer numbers, and you won't have that much access.

That's just anything to just know, correct.

I just want to make sure I understand.

Thank you.

Director Good.

Very good question, Director Kemp.

I appreciate you bringing that up.

Um but I just have a couple of comments I wanted to make before we even took the vote.

Uh, just on the alleyways, um, have some conversations, and it's pretty obvious that particularly on on the north side of town.

The alleyways are a maintenance issue.

Umys tend to get blighted and neglected uh and used for uh garbage dumps.

Uh so that being the case, I definitely think we need to maintain our property.

Uh so this is a maintenance issue that we definitely should uh approve, in my opinion.

Not only that, you know, the LED lighting uh issue, uh it would actually help the safety and security of our neighborhoods and those predictions and bikes bikers walking.

Director Kemp.

I Josh one more question.

Uh with a company being so far under the others.

Was there ever a concern about the potential of the workmanship?

I mean, when you talk about such a big gap, that that feels yeah.

How could one group be so wrong?

And then were those top two, were they kind of close in their grouping?

Yes, and it's in the packet.

Um yes, there was a concern that I had with that.

But then after talking with McClellan engineers, they've done projects with them in other cities in Arkansas and have had uh great results with the company, so they felt confident uh that this company, even though it was a low bid, would still do quality work on this project.

Um you had uh four overall bids.

Um the next lowest bid was 3.6 million, the next one was 3.8, and then the large a large bid came in at 6.2 million.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So we have a motion on the table to table this item.

Motion to rebid.

Motion to have to rebid.

Okay.

Yes, Gorray.

Josh, if if if you said you if you had some more money, what what else would you do with that money?

Would you have done more alleyway work?

We'd be bring those options to the board.

That's I have obviously an option that's already been approved by the EPA.

But um, even Deputy City Administrator Maggie Rice wanted me to look with other departments to kind of search and see what other type projects that we have designed that could potentially fit uh the climate pollution reduction grant um requirements, and then bring those options to the board to decide um what we would like to do and try to apply with the EPA.

And we could even do it by priority too.

Okay, thank you very much, sir.

Appreciate it.

Yes, Director Kemp.

Is this as simple as allowing the administration just to call the other bidders and allow them an opportunity to to if they want to adjust their bid or if we know that they're not?

There's a set process for that.

Okay, follow it.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's a motion on the table to um to allow for the rebidding.

We'll reject the bid and then rebid this project.

Madam Clerk, you need to call a role on this, of course.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsabis?

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Motion pass the seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll go to item four.

Item four is a resolution authorizing an agreement with Francis Energy for installation, operation, and maintenance of electric vehicle charging stations at seven city-owned locations in Fort Smith.

This project is also 100% funded by the climate pollution reduction grant.

The city was awarded in 2024.

Mr.

Raffertson.

Yes, an RFP was issued in August with final selection completed in September following the evaluation process.

Francis Energy was the company that was selected as the contractor for this project.

The charging stations will be installed at West End Park, Main Library, the Convention Center, Riverfront Park, John Bell Junior Park, the Senior Activity Center, and the Miller Branch Library.

The project was allocated at 3.2 million from the city's total 14.5 million dollar uh grant award.

And with that, I will stand with for questions.

Thank you very much.

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

Yes, just one uh Joe Elskin.

Sorry, I'm reading.

I don't have much to say except um it's been in pri it in process for two years, right?

Yep.

And um meanwhile, uh Bayville has over 20 EV charging stations.

They um I want charging stations here to invite visitors to spend the night to know that that um they can bring their cars in and it will be convenient.

I think this is um a part of what's happening everywhere, and I want to be a part of that.

Okay, you know, and I certainly hope that we don't ask for a rebed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joe.

Just time we're gonna take a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Any comments from the board?

Director Rego.

Yes, I find this to be uh tremendously exciting.

Uh a good and approved uh use of the federal grant.

I had a question, Josh, about uh will there be um and forgive my ignorance on this question.

Uh is there going to be some sales tax revenue generated off the usage of uh these chargers?

Yes, just like anything purchased in the city will have sales tax attached to it.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Settle.

Uh Josh, was there any consideration of anything on the east side of town?

I know that looks like uh on Rogers Avenue or the main library is that is there anything on the east side of town, or is there not property that we own that we could do this at?

Yes, we had a long list, and it came down to some of the parks.

Um even Sarah, you know, relayed that not not enough parking.

There's even a parking problem now.

If we take some of those spaces for EV, then that's gonna cause more of an issue.

Uh a lot of the libraries in different places on the east side of town were not close enough to major corridors or um areas with a lot of amenities, and so it became diff kind of down to where Francis Energy looked at it to see where they felt like the stations would get the most traffic and get the most sales.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any other comments from the board?

Madam Clark, please call the roll.

Directors Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitzavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero appointment.

Go to item number seven.

Item seven is a corrective action.

A resolution amending resolution R-179-25 that was approved on November 4th, ordering a construction contract to inline our solutions for a consent decree remedial measures project.

The proposed resolution amends the number of days referenced for the project from the originally referenced 270 days to the 305 days that are required for the contract period.

Mr.

Jimmy Johnson is present to speak to the details of this action and respond to questions.

Okay.

Yes, sir, Jimmy.

You write it.

It's just the uh correction of a scribbers error like Jeff said from uh 270 days to 300 uh five days on the uh resolution.

Okay.

So it matched the contract.

Okay.

Very good.

Well, then citizens' comments, Madam Clerk.

None indicating.

Okay.

Entertain a motion to adopt a resolution.

So move.

So thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the role.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis.

Christina Gassavis has settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item eight.

Similarly, item eight is also a corrective action, a resolution amending resolution R-183-25 that was approved on November 4th, awarding a construction contract of forescreen.

The proposed resolution amends the number of days referenced for the project from the originally referenced 360 days to the 330 days that are required for the contract period.

Again, Jimmy Johnson will speak to the details of this item.

So again, uh we're just correcting the resolution to reflect what's actually in the contract from 360 to 330 days.

Okay.

Thank you, Jimmy.

Any citizens' comments, Madam Clark.

Mr.

Barry McCormick here to answer questions only.

Thank you for being here.

Entertainment motion to adopt a resolution.

So I moved.

Second, please.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Please call the roll.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Kittsavis.

Christina Kittsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um there's item clerk.

I'm looking at in my document.

This is item nine G and 9H.

Um not identified as consent decree items.

Therefore, request they be removed from the consent agenda.

Okay.

Okay.

Would you speak to that, please?

Sure.

There are there are nine items listed on tonight's consent agenda as and however items G and H are specifically related to a consent decree project and is according to the board's policy need to be considered separately from the regular consent agenda.

So I might ask that items G and H be considered separately from the remaining portion of the consent agenda.

Okay.

We'll do those items first.

Certainly.

Item 9G is a resolution authorizing change order number one with Crawford construction for basin 10 and 14 capacity improvements, phase three, project number 23-07-C1.

This item is a consent decree item.

I'll let's defer to uh Mr.

Jimmy Johnson for any questions related to this item.

So on March 26th, uh 2024, the Board of Directors approved the bid of Crawford Construction Company in the amount of five million eighty-three thousand seventy-two dollars and fifty cents.

The scope of the consent decree project included realignment of approximately thirteen hundred linear feet of sanitary sewer and also increasing the pipe size from twelve inch to twenty-four inch diameter and installed seven man holes.

The project was completed below the original contract amount, but took longer to complete than allowed by the original contract time.

A reconciliation change order is required to uh correct the amount and the days.

The this reconciliation change order decreases the contract amount by 174,571 dollars and increases the contract time by 179 days with the noodle total contract amount of 4,908, 501 dollars and fifty cents and adjusted the contract time to 44 449 days.

That I'll stand with uh for you, Jimmy.

Uh any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

Need a motion to adopt the resolution.

Settled second.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Please call the roll.

Directors George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis, yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin, yes.

Rego.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

Motion passes six in favor and zero opposed.

Nine H.

Yes, nine H is a resolution accepting as complete this project we just spoke about and authorizing final pay for basin 10 and 14 capacity improvements.

Phase three, project number 23-07-01.

So basically, the part of the reduction in the contract amount was uh $13,000 in liquidated damages, which have been assessed against the contractor, and the rest was uh savings of of construction methods.

Uh the project was completed 3.7% under the original contract amount and 179 days over the original contract time.

Okay, thank you, Jimmy.

Any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

We need your motion to adopt a resolution.

So second.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board?

Please call the roll.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego.

Good.

Yes.

Kim?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, at this time we will go to the balance of the consent agenda.

Yes.

On tonight there are seven items remaining on the consent agenda.

We have a resolution approving specific excess insurance for workers' compensation coverage.

A resolution accepting bids for purchase of sand aggregates and concrete for 2026.

A resolution authorizing change order number one for traffic signal project at 20 for traffic signal project number 23-09-B.

A resolution accepting as complete and authorizing the final payment for traffic signal project at uh sorry 23-09-B.

A resolution accepting completion authorizing final pay for traffic signal project 24-09-b.

A resolution authorizing change order number two with Forgeman for the Highway 45 utility relocation project number 19-12-C1 and a resolution approving a settlement agreement regarding acquisition of easements for Lake Fort Smith Water Transmission Line Project, Project 18-20.

Mayor got a question on item A.

Item A.

Any others?

Okay.

You recognize Director Settle.

You recognize.

Go ahead.

I thank you.

Um who's come up here.

Eric, do we know if we got a uh just a quote or a bid from Arcosell Miss Polygon on their workers' conference insurance program?

Yes.

Excuse me.

Yes, we did reach out to the municipal league to get a quote uh and and have some comparables to see what we would what we would be looking at.

Um it is very comparable for this year, but we would have saved significant numbers in years past when we had better claims years.

This just happens to be a bad claims year, so therefore we are paying a little bit more.

Uh in the future, I'd like to at least have the bids inside the packet so we can see if that happened or not.

Okay.

We can we could definitely make sure that happens.

And I've I've also talked to to Philip and moving forward every year when we rebid that we'll always reach out to AML uh so we at least have them along with any other outside bidders that may that may uh submit bids.

Thank you very much.

Any citizens' comments on any of the items, Madam Clerk.

Uh only Mr.

McCormick's our questions on that on item 9F.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Uh we need a motion to adopt all consent agenda items with the exceptions of uh items 9G and 9H, which we voted on separately.

Some of them second.

Thank you.

Any further comments from the board?

Director Kemp.

Mayor, it looked as if that there might be a permission by you or the board to hear from Mr.

Mary.

It seemed like you had a concern that you'd like to speak to.

It's up to the board.

Did you want to speak, Philip?

Please come.

We did get with AML on the workers' comp.

That would have entailed a regular workers' comp policy.

What you have right now is a self-insurance program where you'll pay the first claim claim dollars on up to half a million on anyone who's hurt unless it's a police or fireman, at which time that's 750,000.

And then you have an access work comp policy that comes in and takes it on up into the clouds.

You to weigh the compare, you look at the dollars you've paid in claims, what's it gonna cost for the excess reinsurance and the third party administrator, and then you total that number, and then you compare it to a regular work comp policy to see which way is best.

In a regular work comp policy, you pay the premium of 1.2.

And then if you had a great year, only $5,600,000, you don't get that money back.

In self-insurance, you get that money back because you never had to pay it.

Uh point one.

Point two, uh, experience modifier, you're you don't have a factor where you're judged by the National Council on Compensation.

If you go into a regular policy, National Council on Compensation will levy an experience modifier factor, and given your losses are a lot more in your premiums, you're going to go from a 1.0 to a 2.0 in two years.

So that 1.2 could double to 2.4.

We will go to AML every year for the benchmark that you seek and that we proceed.

But I will always you've been self-insured for 30 years, and it served you well.

You get the gravy dollars, you control the claims, and you you get the that those gravy dollars, they're a good thing to have when you have a good year.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, folks.

Are they any other comments from the board?

Madam Clerk, call the role.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George gets abyss.

Yes.

Christina Kissatis.

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you very much for the work to our finance department.

Thank you for the work and all of our uh department heads and staff.

Thank you for the work.

Uh strong cities uh have the capacity to do the tough work.

And you've done that, and we really appreciate that.

This time we'll go to uh Director Rego, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I just wanted to express my appreciation to to Josh and the folks at the city uh and and recommend that people watch it if they haven't.

Uh there was a very, very cool video uh that the city posted last week um that was with Colonel uh Matrix ID uh from the um uh 85th uh fire group that does the F-35 training mission.

Very, very cool video.

Um again, you know, can't state enough how uh grateful we are to everyone who's worked so hard over the years, city administration, the chamber, our congressional delegation, Mayor McGill himself personally, uh the work that they put in uh to bring that mission here.

Um and it's just it's phenomenal.

Uh and we've always strongly supported that mission uh at the city level, and and that's what we're gonna continue to do.

So it's a super cool video, and I recommend people check it out.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh I'd like to make that motion now for study session early in January, so the board can discuss um funding uh some of the um organizations or programs that have come up tonight.

You know, mine that I wanted to bring up was um the carryover uh that was already committed uh to for uh Ms.

Laura's I'd like to make that as a motion to have a study session to discuss those items.

We need to second second.

I second that.

Okay.

We got a second.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Do we need to vote on Director Good's motion?

I think so.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'd like to make a motion.

Uh before I do, I just want to say thank you.

Thank you to my colleagues last night uh being able to conduct interviews and uh we've started with these four candidates and were able to conduct Zoom interviews, and uh it was a late night, and I appreciate your time and that you allotted to do that.

And in the spirit of that, I'd like to make a motion for an executive session following our regular meeting on January 6th for further discussion of the applicants previously interviewed for the position of city administrator.

Second that.

Thank you.

That's all, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Director Josh Gasavitsch.

Jeff.

Tell me we're seriously not considering turning that me brick into a park.

We are certainly we are looking at the potential for master planning a park there.

We're not looking for specific investment in the park.

My understanding was we mainly for the retention bond.

Certainly is, and that remains the case.

Which is fine with me.

Yes, I voted for that.

But what are we going to get the money to do to bid to do that?

That remains to be seen.

But you can't you can't build something that doesn't have a plan.

Jeff, we have 35 parks already.

I don't understand.

It's is I mean, uh I I don't.

Um I mean, you know, not that I mean uh I I just do you think maybe we could we could sell the land to the developers or at least our least and at least part of it, land lose part of it to people, and income come in?

Well, part of the there's to that end there today their RDG has been in town uh conducting stakeholder meetings and held a public uh public input session earlier this this evening.

And the concepts that they're showing include a concept that proposes to lease and or sell a portion of that property to private development for development of items that would uh complement the of city's further development or investment in parks and recreation on that property.

Now that's just on the western portion on the eastern portion that is consumed essentially by a a stormwater facility.

And so the the primary purchase the primary purpose of that all of that property remains uh stormwater detention and mitigation of flood uh flash flooding and such in that area and areas downstream from there.

Uh but with that being said, if we do if we are looking at uh uh a stormwater facility there, it it makes some sense to look at what other things we might do or plan to do in the future that could complement that and also provide parks and recreation types of activities for our citizens.

And so that is the the process that is going right now.

It and to your point.

No, there are not dollars allocated for improvement of parks amenities on that property.

We are early in this process.

There may be there may be a function for uh development of part of it that helps pay for part of that those improvements.

We don't know that yet, but this is the the important part that we're doing now is taking a look at the master planning process so that we can have a plan for that going forward in the future if we decide to do so.

Uh we also have an obligation to plan for the future of this community.

Thank you.

And and we're not water tower, there you go.

Thank you, sir.

Director We go.

Well, I mean, on this topic, I think it's very important to note that we're not spending money.

We spent the money and purchased the land over two years ago.

We allocated money for a master planning process that is being utilized uh, I think over a year ago.

There's not, you know, I understand that, you know, as public meetings start, uh, people perhaps have the sense that something is imminent or right around the corner.

I mean, that that's simply not the case.

We we own a parcel of property.

We spent some money with firms to look into potential ways to use that property if there were ever to be a decision to uh invest further resource in that property.

Um, you know, the the ordinance we worked on two weeks ago.

I mean, there would be a study session about it.

There would be a deliberate plan, there would be something specific to consider.

So I think that uh getting public input is important, and it's something that we're we've paid for and allocated money for to have uh firms and professionals that do this.

And I think I for one am glad that uh there's public input hearings happening and that people are participating.

Okay, thank you.

Uh in fact, they did have some drawings and uh renditions of what that project would look like uh at the riverfront park uh this afternoon.

Um Director Christina Savans.

Jeff, last week I called for an audit of Parrot Island and requested an independent independent third party audit.

Do you have any updates on the progress of that?

I some.

Uh the the management agreement does provide the city, the owner, to conduct a third-party audit, and so that is established.

I've met with Andy and also with our internal law auditor, Amanda Strange, to talk about that concept of what might be needed.

They are um reaching out to their contacts in terms of trying to identify a potential cost for that uh audit.

The management agreement does also provide that the cost of the audit is is to be considered an operational cost of the park.

So and that's that's just a point I wanted to make, but we haven't identified necessarily the cost of that yet, but that is something that we are pursuing.

So on the when I was going through their profit and loss statement on the advertising other line, they had budgeted 2500 dollars.

They spent fifty over fifty-eight thousand dollars.

Was that ever approved?

Um the the specifics of their operating budget don't necessarily get approved by us if they work if they're working within the confines of the dollars that they have already allocated in their budget.

So we I mean they don't they don't have to necessarily ask us for adjusting line items.

Okay, thanks.

Direct to settle.

It's the Christmas season, and as everybody knows, uh it's a great time for the city.

There are a lot of uh beautiful displays throughout the city.

A lot of people put a lot of time and effort to their displays, and I'd encourage everybody to go out there, see the displays that people put together and enjoy the Christmas spirit.

Uh our city is doing really well.

And we we gotta be blessed who we are.

And and I appreciate everyone on the board and the citizens out there, but city is doing well.

So thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Director Neil Martin.

We received a draft utilities audit from Baker Tilly.

Um that has been sent to a few members of the audit committee.

So um the those folks are providing feedback and uh Baker Tilly is making edits, and then once those kind of those things are finalized, the board should see that.

So uh I wanted you guys to be aware that Baker Tilly is nearing the end of their engagement with us, and um we should have something in our hands fairly soon related to the utilities audit.

Um the other thing that I wanted to make mention of is um I was reached out to by Denali.

We talked about Denali uh water uh the other day.

Um they are getting ready to close out the lagoon in Crawford County.

So we talked a little bit about it last week.

Um they're going through some uh some permitting process, but they are anticipating that lagoon, that final clean out of the lagoon in January 2026.

Now we all know what happens when they clean out the lagoon.

That causes issues.

I will I am directing city administration to reach out to Denali because they've asked if there are any outdoor activities, anything that would you know potentially be impacted by that final clean out.

So we want to minimize that as much as possible.

Doesn't sound like we're gonna be able to minimize it much, but it's in January.

Hopefully it's cold, everybody's inside, and it's not as impactful, but it's going to be there.

So I would rec I'm asking administration to reach out to them to help coordinate when that final lagoon clean out occurs.

Mr.

Administrator.

Thank you, Mayor.

We're going to reconvene.

The following recommendations have been made.

Let's see, we got four.

Okay.

Okay, we're back.

Thank you.

Just time we'd like to announce uh the following.

Advertising and promotion commission, uh Daniel Mann uh has been reappointed the library board of trustees, uh Shirley Hardwick and Christopher Hooks entertain a motion to accept those appointments.

Okay.

Okay, all in favor?

All right, thank you.

This time we're going to uh motion to adjourn.

Need a motion to adjourn, need a second and okay.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Okay.

Just time we're gonna call to order uh the special study session.

Okay.

Just time we'll go right to item number one.

The uh the December ninth study session included continued discussion of the fate of the three cemetery properties owned by Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

has asked the city to consider acquiring ownership of the cemetery properties and operating them as city-owned cemeteries.

Alternatively, a private entity has discussed the property with the nonprofit entity and separately reached out to the members of the board of directors expressing interest and acquiring and continuing to operate them as privately owned cemeteries.

Representatives from the Broilman Memorial Group are present this evening to address the board and answer any questions.

So I might ask um the gent gentleman from Broilman Memorial Group will introduce themselves and um start in on the discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here.

Thanks for being here, gentlemen.

Yeah, good evening.

Um I'm glad I'm not here to talk about water parks or budget tonight.

I can tell you that.

I know you're it's you all have done a great job, and and it looks like the community has a lot of passion about the city that they live in.

Um my name is Micah Brown.

Um I am the CEO and founder of Broilman Memorial Group.

Um have some experience about thirteen years in operating and owning cemeteries and funeral homes, and um the thought of these three cemeteries came to our attention a few months ago.

And we spoke with the uh chairman of the board of the nonprofit at great length.

Uh took some time to talk with him, and and they ask us a lot of questions about how can a cemetery operate in a profitable fashion.

What does it take for that to happen?

And so myself and Robert uh Doyle, he is also a co-founder of our company.

Uh we talked to him in great length, several hours about how that happens and what it takes to maintain that.

At the end of that, it was kind of our understanding that he might go forward with some of that information as he was looking to see what option was going to be best.

And I think we ended up speaking with uh Jeff and Neil, Mr.

Martin, Mr.

Dingman about some of this later in the game.

And so we tried to give some information as best we could at that point.

So that kind of brought us here today.

I'll give you a little background about our company, just so you know who you're talking to.

And then I think that you've been provided some information that we sent along prior to tonight that we'll just go over and see if you then have any questions.

Had a company in with two partners in Atlanta, Georgia, for a while.

We ended up divesting of those companies a few years ago to a company from Spain.

And since we have started Broilman Memorial Group in January of 2024, we started with two locations in Virginia, and now we have 18 locations spanning from Virginia to California.

One of them is here in Fort Smith.

So when we learned about the opera that I call it an opportunity, but when we learned about the three cemeteries here in Fort Smith that were in duress, we thought it might be to the city's advantage, to the community's advantage, for us to step forward and see if we could help.

So when we take over a cemetery, one of our focuses is what do we need to do in that cemetery?

What do we, what improvements do we need to make so that that cemetery can become one of the premier choices for the community?

It takes a time investment, a financial investment, and a really strong understanding about how to operate a cemetery so that it can last and not just be okay now and then maybe sold tomorrow or given up tomorrow or whatever the case may be.

The second thing that we try to do is focus on the opportunity for the staff and the people that work within our company to grow personally and professionally.

That means for them personally to grow, increase their income, find opportunities for them to better themselves financially within the company, and then also professionally, so that they don't come into the company or the industry thinking, well, this is just this is as far as I can go.

If we as a company are provide an opportunity for them to grow professionally and becoming the premier choice in the community, then we gotta probably be doing the right things in order to do that.

The last thing is the vision to grow using profits generated from current operations and being committed to not going into debt for acquisitions or operations.

So since we started, this was our vision, and so far we've been able to fulfill that vision.

As we've acquired 18 cemeteries across the country, we haven't borrowed money, we haven't gone into debt, we don't use any debt service whatsoever for any of that growth because we've been able to figure out how to operate the cemeteries in a way where they can sustain themselves individually.

Here's what that means.

Lots of cemeteries all across the country operate as what's known in the industry as at need operations, meaning someone passes away, they come and buy a plot, they pay the opening closing.

That's the way a lot of cemeteries have operated in the past and still try to operate today.

It's just not sustainable.

The better way that we see, we see a better way, and that is through the pre-need operation and education within the community, which helps people to understand it's better for you to make these decisions ahead of time when you freeze the price at today's number rather than having to worry about inflation.

Cemetery and funeral expenses double about every seven years.

So our goal is to try to educate the communities that we serve in to help them understand they can make decisions now.

They freeze the price at today's price so they don't have to pay the difference when the time comes.

And then they get to they get to make all these decisions together rather than leaving one spouse or the other left to decide.

Or what she would have wanted.

Most of our cemetery offices have windows where we can look out into the cemeteries, and we have the fortunate or unfortunate, whichever the case may be, opportunity to see people come and visit during the day.

And we can see the result of that visit.

And usually when you're talking about a spouse, now it varies, but generally when you're talking about a spouse, the male usually passes away first.

It's normally the wife visiting.

And there's a there's a very different demeanor in someone who has pre-arranged and is standing there and being able to think about the love they have for that person, the times they shared, rather than thinking, I wonder if the decisions I made are the decisions he would have made for himself.

And so the pre-need part of the industry is not only what benefits the community and serves the community best, but it also is what sustains a cemetery.

Because according to the state laws, we have to trust money that comes in pre-need.

We can't spend it.

So if you come into the cemetery and you purchase something ahead of time, with the exception of a plot, that's the only exception.

Everything else, a percentage in an Arkansas, a large percentage of the money has to be put into trust.

And we can't touch that money until the person passes away and needs the service.

Then we can draw the money out of the trust fund and pay for it.

So what it guarantees is that the price is never going to increase for that family, and the service is already paid for and guaranteed the funds are guaranteed to be there.

So how does that help us sustain the cemetery?

Well, the state allows us to be able to invest those trust funds in very conservative manners, meaning we can't invest it in ways where we're going to lose it, right?

And so the earnings off of those trusts help us to maintain the cemetery and ensure, and we tell every family when you pre-arrange with a perpetual care cemetery that is operated in the right way, it ensures that this your cemetery is going to look a hundred years from now just like it looks today.

Because it's guaranteed that the money is going to be there to take care of it.

Now that means you have to have a robust pre-need operation because those trusts have to continue to grow, right?

If you don't, and you operate at need, then there's no trust money continuing to build, so there's no fund there, there's no earnings every year to be able to maintain the cemetery.

So without getting into too much more detail, there is a very precise way to operate a cemetery in a way that does profit the private owner.

I'm not going to argue that, but also benefits the community more than any owner, whether it's the city or anybody else that operates it in an at need manner, where you just wait for somebody to pass away, and then they have to pay whatever the price is that day.

So if somebody pre-arranges, we'll let them pay up to 48 months with zero interest.

We don't charge any extra fees.

Once it's paid for, it's in trust, and then it's it's there for them when they're ready.

So I would also kind of bring you to there's some information you have about pricing that we provided ahead of time.

And on there, you'll see that all of the cemeteries that we operate, including the one here in Fort Smith already, uh, we we set up a portion of the cemetery as a complimentary garden.

What that means is there is a part of the cemetery that's dedicated for people who want to be buried in a perpetual care cemetery so that they know that their loved ones gonna be taken care of forever, but maybe they just don't have the financial ability to do it.

They can choose the complimentary garden, and not only do we not charge them for the space, but we pay out of pocket for the perpetual care that the state requires.

So the state requires a minimum perpetual care fee be paid, whether you give a space away or charge for it.

So we offer at every cemetery, if it worked out that this was something that was viable, and we took these cemeteries over, we would offer at every one of these cemeteries a garden for people in the community be buried at it at no charge.

Now, obviously, there are options within the cemetery that some are better gardens, some are you know more desirable gardens or something like that where they could opt to go in a garden where there was a fee for a plot as well.

We um also have a price match guarantee within our company, so we don't ever want to go in and people feel like they have to worry about whether or not they're being price gouged at the worst moment.

You know, it's it's when there's a tragedy occurs, it's not a time where we're thinking very clearly.

A lot of times we're thinking with emotion, spending based on emotion, and so we offer a price match guarantee so people can have the confidence when they come and talk with us that we're not trying to sell them something based on making the maximum amount of profit.

If they make a choice with the cemetery that we run and operate, they can take that and compare it against outside vendors, other options within the city or the community or the county, and we'll price match if if we're the cemetery that they want to be at.

So we just don't think people ought to be worried in that moment about whether or not they're getting charged a fair fee for what their desire is, or maybe what their family's wish was.

Um I'm just gonna interrupt quickly.

I've got a question.

You're talking about price matching.

You already have one cemetery here, right?

Yes, ma'am.

If you take over the other three, you basically control the market.

So who who would they be price matching against?

Well, two things.

Um, one, there are there are outside vendors still that produce headstones, vaults, those kinds of things.

Funeral homes sell headstones and vaults, so we would price match against those people.

The only thing that there may not be a uh competitive market for would be spaces or opening closings, which in our proposal we have said, you know, if if we if this worked out, if this was something that worked out, we would be happy to agree to a maximum rate increase year over year.

And in here we put 4%, but I have no problem matching the approved water rate increase that was discussed earlier at 3% and just making sure there's no option for raising prices to where this goes into a trust fund, what happens if you go out of business?

Well, I'm gonna tell you from my view, it sounds a little bit like a Ponzi scheme.

Tell me how you come to that conclusion.

Well, just the way you're structuring it, you know, you've always we structure it within the state guidelines, period.

It's exactly how this is.

How much of your sales or the pre-need?

Because most people depend on life insurance to I mean, people are broke, most people depend on life insurance to cover these costs.

Yeah, we would highly recommend not to do that, and I'll tell you why.

If you're if your burial is gonna cost you three thousand dollars, and you buy a ten thousand dollar life insurance policy, and say you're 60 years old, you're gonna pay on that life insurance policy for the next 20 years to get 10,000 worth of benefit.

If your death, if your burial is gonna cost $3,000, you're only gonna pay until the $3,000 is paid for.

So it's a much better benefit to the person who is planning for the end of life to not depend on life insurance because, like I said, the cost is gonna double every seven years.

So it's really difficult to plan for life insurance to be able to cover those costs, and you're gonna pay on life insurance until you pass away.

So you can pay $20,000 in.

Only get a $10,000 benefit.

But when you pre-arrange for your death, your death arrangements, you're only gonna pay what it costs.

There's no more paying after that.

Well, it seems like based on what you said, you've always got to be pre-selling and pre-selling and pre-selling.

That's why I said it it sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

I don't really understand the business model or how it can operate under the conditions of significantly uh decreased burial rates.

Well, if you're pre-selling, the burial rate's gonna go up over time.

I mean, it if it doesn't depend on at need burials.

There's no way a business can operate where there's zero control within the business.

And if you're depending on at need burial rates, you have zero control over your revenue.

We've had a lot of discussion tonight about how revenue is going to go up, how we're gonna depend on revenue, what tax increases can we depend on, those kinds of things because we want to think about what we can control.

And the only thing that we can control in death care is pre-arrangement.

There's one thing that we know.

There's what about a hundred thousand people in Fort Smith?

All hundred thousand of them are gonna have to make this decision.

So what's your financial condition currently?

Look, what's your cash on hand?

I'm not here to discuss how much cash we have on hand.

Okay.

How many complaints have been filed against you over the past two years you've been in business?

Over the past how long?

You said you you started up in 24?

Is that correct?

How many complaints have been filed against you in that time?

I would say there's probably been half a dozen across the United States complaints about one thing or another.

Some things are things we don't have a control over.

I did bring with me um 31 since September 1st.

There are 31 positive surveys returned just from the state of Arkansas.

What do you mean, State of Arkansas?

What do you what do you mean state of Arkansas?

So the cement we have eight cemeteries in the state of Arkansas.

After every burial, we send out a survey just to every family doesn't return it, but for the option to make sure we hear back to make sure we're doing the best we possibly can.

Since September 1st, there's been 31 positive surveys returned just on cemeteries that we have here in the state of Arkansas.

Thank you.

You may continue.

If you have anything further.

No, go ahead.

You can ask all questions.

Director Rigo.

Mike is uh thanks for being here tonight.

Sure.

Uh thanks for traveling from Tennessee.

Understand?

Um so in the packet, I just wanted to ask a couple questions.

There's a uh I would call it a rough draft of a uh proposal.

You talk about paying a sum of fifty thousand dollars for the three cemeteries.

Now, of course, I think it's very important to note and note again, these are not cemeteries that we currently control or operate.

So, you know, the that purchase dialogue is not, you know, one that's gonna be had um with us at this juncture.

You mentioned in the proposal, just a few more questions, providing um uh complete the transaction with no due diligence uh and according to regulations issued by State Cemetery Board and Division of Insurance.

Talk to me, maybe it's terminology that you know we're passing on a little bit, but what do you mean by no due diligence on a transaction?

So a lot of times in an acquisition process, someone will make an offer and then they'll go through a due diligence process.

The purpose of the due diligence is sometimes twofold.

It's really intended to be one-dimensional, but sometimes it's two-dimensional.

It's really the the reason for the due diligence is to go through and ensure that the claims the seller made about the finances, the availability and the inventory of whatever is being acquired, whether it's a cemetery property or any other one, are accurate so that the price you've agreed to pay based on what the seller said about the about the business is accurate.

The second thing that people will try to do during a due diligence process sometime is they'll make an offer that they think is a little high, and then they'll go through the due diligence process to deliberately find things to try to reduce the price and renegotiate it.

And so I was just simply trying to propose that we would act in good faith and that we would not go through a process where we're gonna try to uncover anything and everything.

There's a high likelihood in this situation, and I mean I've reviewed this with the with the nonprofit board quite a bit.

There's a really high likelihood that there's a major shortfall in the trust.

And that that'll have to be made up by somebody.

Could be to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So three more questions, uh kind of quicker ones.

Um in the packet, you included a letter of support recommendation from a Steve McDonald.

Who is that?

Why should that uh I think he describes it there in the letter?

He's he says he's owned cemeteries.

But he also served on the state board.

Is he currently on the board?

He's not because current board members wouldn't be able to recommend or not recommend someone for perfect per for purchase.

Um and then you also included some email traffic um with the state as it relates to a complaint that's active and open on the Edgewood Cemetery that you operate in North Little Rock, North Little Rock, correct?

Yes.

And there was some dialogue there last week.

Is that uh you know it remains open?

Um, but are you on the path of addressing and and closing that complaint?

It's not open now, so what happened was there's a there's an apartment complex just outside the cemetery, and there were some kids riding their bikes through the cemetery, and they had made a dirt ramp in the back of the cemetery.

And so there was a complaint filed with the state board that there was a dirt ramp in the cemetery for bicyclers.

We didn't know about it, but we've we've addressed it.

We told the lady that we every time there is something like this happens, I always give respond to the board with my personal cell phone number for the person who made the complaint to just reach out directly to me.

I spoke with a lady, I told her we would take care of it, and so she said, hey, I want to leave it open until I can go there myself and see that it's taken care of.

And in that response, since I was able to watch the video of last week's session and heard that there was some discussion of beware of private people or this group in particular, I thought it might be appropriate just to get directly from the board what they would be allowed to comment on as it re as it pertains to us, our license and how we're operating.

And so this lady is the kind of the administrator of the board, she's the one who who deals directly with the cemeteries on a day-to-day basis, and I just thought, well, it'd be a good idea to at least make sure we have documented that we're in good standing, and she kind of disguised some positive remarks there as best that she could without going over the line.

Sure.

Well, and the last thing, and I appreciate that context.

So, you know, I I think the thing that's most important for us, you know, because right now we're a interested third party.

Um it's very clear that you actively own and manage a number of cemeteries, you know, in Arkansas and elsewhere.

But what is the status of your dialogue, you know, relationship approach at present with Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

We have had the discussion with them.

We have told them we would be interested in helping out and taking them over, and then we have not had any discussion with them since.

We've reached out a couple times, they have not responded.

Okay.

The reason we're here today is because we were asked to be here.

And I appreciate that.

And again, thanks again for traveling here.

Okay, thank you.

Director Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you, Micah and uh Robert for coming tonight and to talk with us, especially from uh good long drive of Tennessee.

Um, I just have a about four things.

I'm gonna run through real quick.

Um, the infrastructure, you know, of these cemeteries, it's not just that they have struggled to maintain the mowing, but when we had talked to them, they had previously talked about infrastructure, you know, some flooding and some things that still need to be addressed.

When if you guys were to take this on, would you make a commitment to improving these infrastructure um negligences that are on the property?

Absolutely.

I'll give you an example.

When we took over the the cemetery over here, the Woodlawn Memorial Park, there were about 40 of the marble crypt fronts that were destroyed and covered up by plywood.

Um that was uh we don't know when that happened or how long it'd been that way, but um the first one of the first things we did was get a bid and get started.

Now they're not completely replaced yet, but they're in the process, they have to be made because that was done so long ago.

So point is that was about $18,000 project for that one thing, and and that's something we are committed to.

If it's going to be a premier cemetery choice of the community, we have to address those things.

Yeah, and on that note, um, so just one thing I I guess would advise you of is you know, this the city maintains a cemetery, Oak Cemetery.

Um had it since 1859.

Um still has availability for spot for plots to be purchased in that regard.

Um, you know, the city controls those rates, which I think are probably behind market value, meaning they're cheaper than everything.

When you talk about price match, are you saying excluding Oaks?

Because I don't I if you're gonna be waiting on the city to raise its rates before you could raise your rates on a price match, you know, it's it's really probably not likely the city is going to be so favorable to continue to raise rates, or do you see it as you're comparing it against other perpetual care cemeteries?

Well, I think you know it it kind of depends on where the city is on that at a particular time.

Um we say price match, we mean everybody.

So we would have to completely change that policy to to exclude the cemetery.

I don't think it would be fair to exclude the city cemetery and not and then price match everybody else.

I just want to be fair to the process.

You should have said I'm I'm actually uh I'm glad you're here tonight.

I I think that this deserves honest conversation because personally I want to kind of review this, but I I like where we're heading on the discussion.

But when you talked about price match, I'm thinking, well, Oak Cemetery is is very affordable in the sense of for what it is.

Uh I don't I don't know what what's the opening and closing at Oak Cemetery?

It just depends on the date.

If it is on Monday through Friday.

Monday through Friday is uh eight hundred.

Okay.

So we're awful close now.

Um we're within two hundred dollars on a Monday through Friday opening and closing now.

Um Saturday and Sunday go up, you know, just like that does.

But it opening and closing is not something that is price matched because once you set your price, the state requires that you leave it that way.

But headstones, grave plots, those things are all price matchable.

And I and I'm just trying to, I just want you to go in eyes wide open.

Sure.

I don't want you to I don't want you to think, hey, I wish they would have told me something like that.

And then I'm not sure.

No, no, no, no, no.

No, no.

We have no problem price.

Like I said, the opening closing is the only exception because the state doesn't allow us to adjust it.

The other thing is on on wood lawn, uh, when did you require woodlawn?

January 3rd of 2025.

And uh how has that gone?

Very well.

And is it possible?

I understand that uh you know you're talking about you're not here to talk about your financial position and things of that nature, and uh, you know, that's the oddity of this conversation is because we don't even own these cemeteries, so here we are talking to you as a government.

Is it possible that you could provide administration some PNLs of woodlawn?

I can I don't mind providing uh an income statement of every cemetery we operate in in the in the state.

Um I can tell you this.

Every cemetery that we have to taken over in the state of Arkansas was in the negative the last three years running when we took it over.

Sure.

Since we've acquired it January 3rd, the eight locations together have will end 2025 in the positive to the tune of about $800,000.

And is it because you're able to allow one, if one's struggling that the whole or they all individually have gone up?

We actually don't do that.

We we keep them separate because the only healthy way to operate them, any business if you have multi-locations is for them all to stand on two feet.

So if you look at them every single one, and we have a I have no problem providing it.

The uh the income statement shows them all side by side and it shows the revenue, the expenses, and what the net is.

So the last question I have for you is safeguards.

Let's say you know, the city decides, hey, we think this company deserves its fair shot at doing this opportunity since you had woodlawn.

Um and then let's say, boy, these three cemeteries was a little audacious.

Uh there were unforeseen things that you even you couldn't see with the 13 years of experience.

Uh do you have or do you have a policy or a way of creating safeguards as fallback procedures where it wouldn't just be I'm gonna send this back to receivership and then the city still ends up with it.

Um do you you know could you speak to that?

Yeah, you know, it's it's how do you rainy day plan?

So a nonprofit or a city for that matter can turn a perpetual care cemetery over to receivership with not a lot of repercussion.

Hey, we're a nonprofit, we didn't get the money, we turned it over to receivership, no big deal.

If we did that, number one, a private owner is looked at a little bit different through the state size, and they will force you to go down every avenue you possibly have available before you go that route.

So the state would put us in a position as a private owner that we would have to draw funds from another location or from our corporate office in order to keep those cemeteries afloat if we had it available.

We don't get those same kind of options.

The second thing, safeguard-wise, is yes, we want all of our cemeteries to operate individually, but obviously we won't let one suffer or go out of business or get to the point we don't have the option.

I mean, I I watched this last week, and and the gentleman referred to we're just gonna close the gates.

We don't have that option.

The state would not allow us to do that.

And so we have to make funds available if we decide to put our name on a cemetery to operate it in perpetuity.

One more final question, I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

Did you, since you've taken woodlawn, have you ever gotten a notice?

And you know, did you ever not mow the property and and and the city come down on woodlawn since you guys are taking it on, or has the property been free and clear of uh write-ups?

Unless there's something I don't know about, I've never heard of anything where the city has come and said, hey, the the property's not being taken care of as it's supposed to be.

What's your annual reinvestment into the properties relative to income?

Well, first of all, you have to invest 20% of what you make has to go into your perpetual care fund.

So when you sell, when a private owner of a perpetual care cemetery sells a space for a thousand dollars, two hundred of that has to go back in their perpetual care.

It's mandated by the state.

We don't have an option.

Um we sell something that is not grass or property, then 10% or in some cases five percent have to go back into your trust fund in order to maintain the property.

And so those things, there's a minimum requirement by the state, but there's capital investments that vary property by property, just like your budget varies year by year on how much you're gonna spend on CapEx.

Um it is based on need, there's no set percentage.

So you know, you were talking about it'll double every seven years, but you're only you'll commit to an increase of three and a half to four percent per year.

How does that work?

I would commit to an increase of three and a half to four percent on opening, closing, and plot prices.

It's what uh I think that's what we wrote on our proposal.

Um we can't commit to that on headstones or vaults or crit plates or things like that because those are mandated by the vendor.

They may raise the price 10 percent.

We just got a letter a couple weeks ago from Matthews International, who's who we get all of our headstones through, that they're going up 6.75 percent.

Well, we we can't say that we're only gonna go up 3% on those items because we don't control the wholesale price.

Okay, I'll turn it over, thanks.

Director Neil Martin Um What's what's the governance of cemeteries?

Well, I mean, what's the governance of your cemetery?

Meaning from the state level?

Well, I mean, what it is their governance.

So from the state's perspective, yes, there's governing.

I mean, they they audit your books.

So there's there's two divisions in the state of Arkansas, there's two divisions of government for cemeteries.

One is the state board, which governs your perpetual care fund.

The other is the division of insurance, which governs your pre-need merchandise fund.

And so every three years, the the division of insurance audits your pre-need merchandise funds.

And the way they do that is they'll come in and they'll pull a certain amount of information out of your files and they'll audit it right there that day, and then they'll give you a response.

If there's any deficiencies, you have so long to correct them.

If they're too bad, then there's fines and bigger issues.

They can potentially take your permit away to operate a cemetery in that state.

On the perpetual care side or the state board side, they are there to give the community a safe objective option to go to and say, hey, look, my loved ones buried at this cemetery, and we don't feel it's being operated right.

And then the state will follow up with you just like that email you you all have there, um, and they'll say, hey, this has been brought to our attention, what can we do?

And so we'll address those things.

On as far as the the perpetual care side from the state, they require us to send in a uh report every year at the end of the year, and then they evaluate and audit that report.

Now we prefer not to do that ourselves because we know that our staff or anybody within the company could not be objective about how they audit those records.

So we hire a third party called FSI, Funeral Services International.

They're based in Montgomery, Alabama, and um, and they are who keeps our records for the perpetual care of the merchandise fund.

And so at the end of the year, they prepare the report, send it straight to the state so that we know it's completely objective and done exactly right.

And then the state audits that internally and they get back to us and let us know if we've done something right, wrong, or what what we need to do to fix it.

Okay.

So there's the I'm I'm assuming that's what it governs these cemeteries today.

So the entity that owns them today governs them the same way.

Possibly, although I know that, and I don't I don't know this.

I don't I wouldn't be able to answer a lot of questions about it, but I know that nonprofits are handled a little bit differently.

You're saying it's more stringent on the for-profit side?

I think it's significantly more stringent on the for-profit side because they know you're not gonna you have the you have the ability to not be as objective.

Okay.

Um what's your relationship like with the cemetery board?

Well, it's as indicated in the email, um, they they seem to feel positive about our response time when there is something that comes up.

We've had five or six times during the course of this year where somebody has contacted the state board and had something they wanted to see addressed.

Um, and so they feel like we respond in a timely manner.

Um we have complied with everything that they have asked us to comply with in order to hold our permit to operate in the state of Arkansas.

And we're in the process of other acquisitions within the state that they are right now that they're in the process of working through with us.

Do they have to review a cell to you?

They have to approve it before we can do it.

So with Woodlawn, they had to approve it before you could take it over.

Correct.

Okay.

And what does that look like?

It's a long process.

You you have to you have to fill out an application which has as detailed a financial information as you can get.

Yeah.

Um they have to, they're gonna approve that all of your entities and LLCs and all those kinds of things are in line and you don't have a structure as far as the legal side of it goes that looks like it's fishy, you know, uh, or that you're trying to get around something, and then they're gonna go do their due diligence within the industry.

I mean, that the the chairman of the board is the president of Roller Funeral Services, which is the largest funeral home ownership in the state of Arkansas, and he's very well connected throughout the country, and um they're gonna do their due diligence nationwide within the industry to make sure that there's nothing out there that you know would cause a problem down the road.

So uh so they've got to approve they you've got to pass all the tests in order for them to approve you purchase if if you were to go and get these cemeteries, they would have to approve you.

We can't get them, we can't get them.

We we what we would do is we would enter into a letter of intent.

Once we have the letter of intent, before we even go into a purchase agreement, we have to notify the state.

The state puts it on their agenda, and then they have usually it takes about three months for the approval process after you've gotten all of your application completely finished, and then they'll approve it or not approve it before you can even go further.

So if if we went for if this not we, if this thing happened, you haven't even started any of that yet.

So that due diligence hasn't even started with the state.

No, no, we would we would have to, I mean, it's still up, it would still be up in the air if you could.

The nonprofit would have to first agree for us to purchase it.

Okay, we would have to agree to a price.

They may not agree to $50,000.

I don't know, but but we would have to agree to a price, enter into a letter of intent that's executed by both parties, and then go before the state for them to even approve it.

Okay.

So are you aware of the liens on the properties?

Yes, I am.

Well, what makes uh what makes just last question for me?

What makes this advantageous to you?

Well any cemetery anywhere has a benefit to the community and to the private owner.

Because I understand that it's hard to understand, and I understand when you're part of operating a cemetery already and you know the books and how those things have worked for you or for the city, it's even more difficult to understand.

But any cemetery, anywhere operated the right way, invested in the right way, and used to help educate the community on the pre-need option is a viable option for profit.

And I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the only reason I'm doing this is because I care about the community.

That's not the case.

We want to profit from owning the cemetery.

Just like there's going to be a lot of tax revenue from Bass Pro, but Bass Pro's not coming here to break even.

They're coming here to make a profit, right?

Now the city's going to benefit from it, and it would be the same for us.

Um we would stand, we believe that there is no cemetery option that can't be profitable to some degree.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any further questions from the board?

Great.

I guess I'm just kind of stuck with on uh a question for us.

Next step.

Next steps.

What's next steps?

We're we're not even in this.

We're not we're not even in this.

We're not, and the other party is not even here, uh, which is interesting.

But uh my comment would be how long would that process take?

Because the concern of last week was, which is why we're here expeditiously, was that they are going to need to shut the gates.

And uh and and so from their concurrent perspective, that may be the choice they have to do.

How long is it does it take to get through that process for you guys to be approved by a state board?

Well, if the state board was not aware of the current situation, which my understanding is they are aware of the current situation, but if they weren't and it was just a buy-sell purchase agreement, it would probably take about 90 days for the state board to approve it.

However, in this case, I believe that the state board would be compassionate for the community and that they would probably allow some kind of management agreement while the approval process happens.

Okay.

So I believe we could propose to the state, hey, look, that we've agreed to buy it, they've agreed to sell it, they don't have the money, the time, or the staff to be able to service it for the next 90 days while we go through the process.

Can we take it over under a management agreement until the approval is done?

And I I believe they would be willing to discuss that.

So if we if we were to say as a city, and the board had a collective vote, which will have to have a vote, I guess, in some regard of a resolution of to what we were doing one way or the other here.

But if we were to say, okay, we're a no because we met with a company, we think y'all should talk and come to terms or whatever that looks like.

Um and let's say they say no, and they say we're not gonna talk to them convictionally, this is where we stand, and they let it go to receivership to the state.

My understanding is that at that point a judge is going to look at is there anyone out there?

And does a company like you get an opportunity to approach a judge and say, judge, this is where we are and where we are interested?

I think absolutely we could petition the state just verbally or by writing, hey, we'd like to be the receiver, and the state is gonna talk to the city, and the city can say, hey, look, we've talked to somebody that isn't seems to be in good standing, and if you all approve, we would rather them be the receiver than us be the receiver, the city.

Yeah, my understanding then listening to this.

I mean, I thank you for your conversation, thank you for your time.

I think for the perspective is we as a government stay out of the way.

Right.

Thank you.

Right.

I I think if it goes into receivership, any any I guess is any sale is over.

Like that you you say you're offering dollars.

If it goes into receivership, those dollars are.

Well, if we purchased it from the nonprofit, the non that we're not responsible for the lien, correct?

The nonprofit is so the city and the nonprofit would have to come to terms on are we gonna hold them responsible for the $85,000 liens?

Will we take $50,000?

Will we take $40,000 and let them take $10?

I don't know what your stance would be on that, but that would be between the city and the person the company the lien is against.

We're not buying their nonprofit.

We would just be buying the assets to operate them from them from then forward.

Now I think there's a discussion that I'm happy to be part of as it pertains to the $85,000 that the city has liens against the property and see how close we can manage to get to that.

You know, my my only concern is the community.

So I, you know, I'm not concerned about profit.

My my concern is the community.

And I mean your business model is not sustainable.

I mean, no cemetery is.

Well, I would highly disagree, and there's a lot of people that make their living.

I've been making my living 13 years on cemeteries, and I've not seen one that's not profitable that can't be sustainably profitable yet.

Well, you run out of space eventually.

Well, not necessarily.

So you think about it, there are in a cemetery, there are about 1,500 burials in an acre.

And so if there are 10 acres of undeveloped property, and I'm just using round numbers, that's 15,000 burials.

A place that's doing 100 burials a year, that's 150 years before they run out.

Um in that time, a lot of things are going to happen.

We're gonna build mausoleum spaces, we're gonna do all kinds of things.

Cremation is on the rise.

One of the things that we would do uh uh right up front is provide a substantial amount of cremation inventory at all the locations because that's a direction that people are going.

So once you start building up in a cemetery, you really prolong the opportunity.

But there are very few cemeteries in the in the country at this point in time that are in danger of running out of space.

Well, then you know the questions.

So what do we do?

Uh I mean, no action taking.

No action take.

Do do we need to we need to kind of help facilitate this?

I think we need to, I think would you make a motion that in direct administration to get um Fort Smith Cemeteries back in contact?

Maybe y'all could have a a conversation that's moderated by administration, um, knowing that the boards heard this and knowing that you were in public question and you you know stood the scrutiny of this board tonight and have stood your ground with what you believe to be true.

Um I would say maybe that administration can moderate a discussion, maybe it's like planning at I mean it would be put Maggie in a room with them and Fort Smith Cemeteries.

I mean, at this point, we're we have not chosen to at the the few the few times that Fort Smith Cemeteries Inc.

has been here.

We have not moved forward with putting it on an agenda to vote for it.

I think that kind of tells the sentiment of the board.

I think that means we move forward in that direction, some kind of mediation to move this thing along and um and try to bring it to a better resolution than receivership.

Correct.

Let's let the administrative visit with enforcement cemeteries group and uh and and highlight the study session if they're not listening in, good chance they are and see what uh they decide to do.

And I and I would say, I mean, I'm happy for us to plan any part of that discussion that is needed, but the discussion needs to happen first.

Is the discussion between the private parties?

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

If there's nothing else, again, thank you, gentlemen, for for making the trip for Smith and administration is available to assist you uh in any way possible.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Does the board think it would be the best option on our part just to reach back out to Fort Smith Cemetery's Inc.

and see where it goes from there?

That's certainly an option if you'd like to do that.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We did have a motion to adjourn.

Did we get a second?

Okay, thank you.