OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Fort Smith City Board Study Session - January 13, 2026

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, January 13, 2026
BodyFort Smith, Arkansas
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, January 13, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:34:39

Transcript — Verbatim
1:39

Good evening and welcome to the Fort Smith City Board of Directors Study Session on this January 13th of 2026.

1:47

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

1:54

Um couple of housekeeping notes.

1:56

Keep in mind that there are no public comments during the study session and even doing the citizens' form.

2:03

Uh you required uh there would be no discussion on items that are on tonight's agenda.

2:12

Okay.

2:12

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

2:17

Thank you, Mayor.

2:17

The first item of the tonight is an update and presentation from RDG planning and design on the master plan project for the acne brick property.

2:26

The city purchased this property in 2023 for the joint purpose of stormwater mitigation, property reclamation, and parks amenities.

2:34

While work on the stormwater management portion of the project is progressing, the city contracted with RDG planning and design about a year ago to solicit community feedback and present options as to what the city might do with the property above and beyond the stormwater management component.

2:51

At this point, I will ask uh Scott Crawford and Brian Trustee from RDG to uh go through their presentation and uh answer questions that the board may have.

3:02

Thank you.

3:08

Thank you, Jeff, and members of the board and those in attendance.

3:13

As Jeff mentioned, my name is Scott Crawford.

3:16

I'm with RDG Planning Design.

3:17

Joining me today is Brian Trusty with PROS Consulting, one of our consulting partners that's been working on the project since we began.

3:24

And what we'd like to do tonight is uh share with you the process that we've gone through to date, uh, the material that's been generated, the feedback we've received from the community thus far, and then uh a brief overview of what the next steps are.

3:37

And we'll go through this pretty quickly.

3:39

If you have questions, feel free to chime in.

3:41

We can certainly entertain questions as we go or at the end.

3:44

The overall uh cadence of what we'd like to review is give you an overview of the master planning part A process that we've been through, summarize the guiding principles that were established by the various committees that oversaw the project, uh, walk through the preliminary concept alternatives for the property that have been developed to date, share with you several case studies that are similar to what is being articulated in those alternatives, and then spend about the second half of our presentation summarizing the community engagement and feedback that we've received today.

4:17

So without uh further ado, the master planning part A, if you recall when RDG was contracted with the city, we identified part A and Part B master planning services.

4:27

We are nearing the conclusion of part A at this point.

4:31

This is the consulting team that's been working on the project from the very beginning that included us, RDG, Brian with PROS Consulting, as well as his uh colleague Dalton and McClellan uh consulting engineers here in Fort Smith, Chris, Andy, and Ben have been assisting with that um here locally.

5:00

The committee structure that was established was there was a core team that provided oversight for the project and guidance, a technical committee that consists of several directors within the city to provide technical assistance and review of the concept alternatives as they were being created, and a steering committee of other community constituents and leaders throughout Fort Smith that all met on a regular cadence through the process.

5:18

Phase one or part A included initial goal setting, which established the guiding principles that we're about to jump into, extensive inventory and analysis, some marketing market analysis and benchmarking against other communities and project types of similar typology, extensive coordination with the stormwater management and mitigation project that Half Associates was leading with civil engineering or with uh city engineering, and then uh that culminated in the concept uh alternatives that were developed that we're going to share tonight.

5:52

That process uh started in earnest in April, and we're here today in January to get uh final feedback from the uh board of directors.

6:00

We'll do a similar presentation with the parks and recreation commission tomorrow and collect their feedback and then bundle all that up into a phase 1A deliverable to Sarah and the Parks and Recreation Department that will essentially be the first three chapters of the master plan report.

6:17

So the guiding principles that were established from the project, these were several of the images that resonated and scored very, very highly through a pretty extensive visual listening exercise that we did with the technical committee, the steering committee, and then asked the general public to weigh in during the public open house in December as far as the character, recreational opportunities and overall aesthetic that was desired for the property in the future.

6:41

Those informed the six guiding principles that were established.

6:45

Number one being flood mitigation and stormwater management above all.

6:49

Number two being designing with nature to inspire, engage, and connect people back to nature, low maintenance and operational resiliency, uniqueness of place, accessibility, and overall economic benefit to Fort Smith.

7:03

And we'll go through just a short bit of detail on each one of these.

7:06

The flood mitigation and stormwater management, first and foremost for the property to mitigate uh flooding downstream through stormwater detention basins.

7:16

Designing with nature to connect people back to nature through the decades of mining and brick production that took place on a very heavy industrial scale to bring and restore uh the native environment and connect people back to that on the property.

7:32

Low maintenance and operational resiliency has been top of mind, durable materials, resiliency of how they're actually put together, and operational efficiencies to benefit the city long term.

7:45

Uniqueness of place for those of you that had the opportunity to be out on the site.

7:49

It's a quite a compelling experience.

7:51

It has one of the highest elevation points in the county that overlooks the river valley and downtown with some pretty impressive views up on the top ridge and a very expansive open area down on the lower area.

8:05

Accessibility, designing experiences for people of all generations, mobilities and accessible opportunities for people to experience things together.

8:16

And the sixth and final guiding principle was overall economic uh benefit to this to the community through direct and indirect dollars that could be realized and/or generated both in the short term and long term from development of this property into a public amenity.

8:34

The three primary concept alternatives that were developed were all grounded in those guiding principles.

8:40

Each one has a different level of emphasis and articulation of the guiding principles.

8:45

And these the information that we're about to walk through is all available to anyone in the public that wants to view it on the website that was launched shortly after the public open house, the third week of December, and we'll walk through a summary of that feedback that we received.

9:00

But connecting this park and its location to the community.

9:04

Fort Smith is very fortunate to have this much public open land available directly in the center of your community to be converted into public use and connecting that to your existing and future planned trail system.

9:16

And focusing again on that story of water.

9:19

This is essentially to identify there are on the on the right-hand side of the slide and the darker and lighter blue are the two major watersheds that flow through this site that will actually detain the water on the property, slow it down as it's released out further downstream to mitigate some of the flooding challenges that have been occurring further downstream.

9:38

And that will happen in kind of three different areas on the property that we'll talk about in just a moment.

9:44

We also looked at the history of the site as it relates to the context of the community, decades of mining that took place on the west side of the property on the west side of Old Greenwood Road.

10:00

That material then conveyed over the street and to the east side of the property, processed and produced and produced into clay and clay then fired into bricks that were used to build things throughout the community and beyond.

10:26

An additional inventory and analysis of the topography, quite a bit of grade change is just intuitively as you come down Greenwood Road and the amount of grade change that you have, all of that is articulated and even amplified on the property with some of the higher bluffs and ridge lines that exist out there as well.

10:44

And now we're going to walk through the three alternatives then that kind of took all of the community feedback that we had received, the priorities of the guiding principles, and then develop that into three primary alternatives.

10:55

Concept alternative one is focused exclusively on flood control and flood mitigation downstream.

11:02

On the east side of Greenwood Road, there would be a dry detention basin to uh detain and slow down water that's coming through that tributary.

11:10

On the west side of the road, there'd be what we're calling the central basin, which has the number three on it there in your diagrams.

11:18

And on the west side, there would be an additional basin that would be created on the west side of the property over here to detain the water here.

11:27

The intent behind all of this is to mitigate the hundred-year storm event.

11:31

Um these would be dry basins during non-rain events.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Parks and Recreation████████████████████████████28%
Budget Equity Analysis█████████████13%
Audit and Oversight████████████12%
Community Engagement████████8%
Public Engagement████████8%
Procedural██████6%
Water And Wastewater Management█████5%
Procurement████4%
Fiscal Sustainability██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Fort Smith City Board of Directors Study Session - January 13, 2026

The Fort Smith City Board of Directors convened for a study session to review the master plan for the Acme Brick property, discuss ongoing infrastructure projects, address the financial status of Parrot Island Water Park, and review compliance with state statutes and best practices. The session featured presentations from consultants on property alternatives and extensive board deliberation regarding flood mitigation priorities, fiscal constraints, and community engagement preferences.

Consent Calendar

  • Act 235 Compliance: No action required; the board acknowledged the annual statutory requirement to assemble the governing body for 2026, though an ordinance setting meeting dates had already been adopted.
  • Board Best Practices Review: No action taken; Director Christina Savage proposed amendments to strengthen conflict of interest disclosure and remove language regarding limited resources, but no vote was held pending potential future agenda items.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Tommy Wagley: Expressed full support for implementing a fee-based system to require contractors to rent city streets for traffic control, citing potential revenue generation (potentially over $1 million per project) and improved public safety through adherence to MUTCD standards.
  • Daniel Williams: Expressed strong opposition to the city engaging in revenue-generating activities (such as alcohol sales) or prioritizing capital amenities (water slides) over critical public needs; highlighted concern regarding school shutdowns, reduced school income, and the Learns Act; questioned the transparency of financial numbers and the lack of accountability for administrative leaders.
  • Chris Cadelli: Expressed strong support for a conservative city administrator with integrity and fiscal discipline; criticized the "water slide fiasco" and requested the Citizens' Forum be moved to the beginning of meetings to avoid stacking delays during controversial discussions.
  • Crystal Cadelli: Expressed opposition to the proposed water slide installation, arguing that infrastructure issues and water affordability (forcing families to choose between food and water bills) are higher priorities; stated that the city should focus on maintaining existing parks rather than building new ones.
  • Glenn Forte: Expressed fierce opposition to current municipal management and law enforcement practices; alleged negligence regarding dog control, property maintenance issues, and police transparency; demanded a pay cut for city staff and the police chief's resignation due to perceived cover-ups of crime.
  • Joe Elskin: Expressed concern regarding the 15% across-the-board cuts that eliminated the transit voucher program essential for disadvantaged citizens; suggested incentives for low-income housing near transit lines.
  • Dr. Charlie Hartsfield: Expressed support for prioritizing flood mitigation first (Concept 1) before developing recreational amenities; voiced opposition to developing the southern ridge area due to the presence of a water tower and oil/gas station.
  • Casey Millspaw: Questioned the leadership regarding the decision to proceed with the water slide purchase; expressed strong support for exploring the sale of the water slide components or the entire park to potential buyers rather than incurring a projected $7 million cost; noted community engagement against the spending.
  • Acme Brick Property Attendees: Several members of the public who arrived to comment on the Acme Brick property were reminded that public comments on agenda items not listed for the Citizens' Forum were restricted, though they were invited to comment electronically via the project website.

Discussion Items

  • Acme Brick Property Master Plan (Concept Alternatives):

    • Staff Presentation: RDG Planning Design and PROS Consulting presented three concept alternatives, all adhering to the guiding principle of flood mitigation.
      • Concept 1: Focused exclusively on flood control and dry detention basins.
      • Concept 2: Integrated a wet basin (lake), adventure islands, trails, and public amenities while meeting flood targets.
      • Concept 3: Included Concept 2 amenities plus private development parcels (14 acres on the south, 2 acres on the east).
    • Community Feedback: Summary of engagement showed 53% support for Concept 2, 28% for Concept 3, and 19% for Concept 1. Overwhelming support was expressed for flood mitigation as the central focus.
    • Director Neil Martin: Expressed skepticism regarding the lack of engineering data validating the flood mitigation claims; demanded the review of the stormwater manager report from Half Associates to validate the project's core function.
    • Director Good: Expressed support for combining flood mitigation with recreational amenities (Concept 2), citing the need to improve the city for future generations and noting that the community desires both safety and public spaces.
    • Director Settle: Concerned about public safety regarding the lake (drowning risks) and accessibility of the water feature; supported the inclusion of trails and amenities to attract visitors and grow the tax base.
    • Director Rigo: Expressed opposition to Concept 1 as a standalone "plain chain" project; argued that without recreational amenities, private foundation funding is unlikely, suggesting a cost-benefit analysis between dry and wet basins.
    • Director Kemp: Expressed concern about the water tower aesthetics if private development proceeds and questioned the extent of flood mitigation benefits and potential grant opportunities.
    • Director Cassavitz: Expressed concern that the city had not yet secured funding commitments from private foundations as initially implied during the property purchase discussions; noted that the initial master plan scope was scaled back due to cost, but a full scope is needed for grant applications.
    • Director Savage: Questioned the legal and budgetary implications of using capital funds for operations and advocated for the full financial picture before committing to the park project.

  • Miss Laura's Museum Maintenance:

    • Staff Report: The building's siding requires repair due to wear and tear (not hail), and the parking lot needs fixing. Staff has two quotes: $109,000 (siding/molding) and $123,000 (parking).
    • Director Kemp: Supported the quotes and recommended an RFP process to explore long-lasting composite materials to reduce future upkeep costs.
    • Director Rigo: Expressed support for the $109,000 bid, noting it is within the unspent carryover funds from the 2025 budget and does not require new general fund allocation.
    • Director Good: Supported the repairs, emphasizing the urgency of preventing further damage to the historic structure.

  • Consent Decree Projects (SSA Remedial Measures):

    • Staff Presentation: Engineering Director Todd Mikey reported that low bids for 2016 contract items were 60-75% over engineering estimates due to local contractor capacity limits.
    • Action: The board directed staff to reject original bids, repackage the projects into smaller segments (splitting into 2 or 3 sections) to allow more local contractors to bid competitively, and stagger the bidding process.

  • Parrot Island Water Park Lease & Audit:

    • Lease Agreement: Sebastian County proposed a lease transfer to the city to end the 50-50 operating partnership, citing opposition to future shared costs for a water slide expansion planned by the city.
    • Director Settle: Expressed support for the city taking sole ownership to allow revenue-generating amenities like alcohol sales (beer and wine) and to increase park sustainability.
    • Director Kemp: Opposed the immediate lease transfer without a financial buyout or commitment from the county for future maintenance liabilities; recommended redlining the agreement to ensure county accountability.
    • Director Rigo: Opposed ending the partnership prematurely; emphasized the need for a compelling reason to release the county from a contract valid until 2032.
    • Director Cassavitz: Expressed concern that absolving the county of responsibility does not guarantee alcohol sales and that the city must be protected against future maintenance costs.
    • Director Savage: Expressed support for the city taking over if the agreement ensures the city can make decisions (like adding alcohol) without county approval.
    • Director Martin: Required specific contractual changes, including a county buyout fund for aging infrastructure and protection against unreasonable county interference in future expansions.
    • Audit Procedures: The Audit Advisory Committee proposed an "Agreed Upon Procedures" (AUP) engagement to address operational concerns quickly and cost-effectively, rather than a full financial audit.
    • Director Cassavitz: Supported the AUP but insisted that it must include specific testing on unpaid invoices, cost centers, and maintenance practices (winterization) before any decision on the lease is made.

  • Parrot Island Water Slide Installation:

    • Status: Bids received were $2-3 million over the $4.2 million appropriation, primarily due to market delays and material costs. A new proposal with Royal Ridge lowers the infrastructure cost but requires additional funding for pool equipment.
    • Total Cost: Estimated at $2.7 million for full completion (including fencing, landscaping, and pool equipment).
    • Board Deliberation:
      • Director Rigo: Proposed funding the $924,935 gap using unspent appropriation funds, interest earnings, and the general fund balance.
      • Director George Cassavitz: Strongly opposed spending $7 million on slides while police and fire unfilled positions exist; argued that the city is overspending and misallocating priorities.
      • Director Good: Supported the project as a capital expense, noting the general fund balance (projected at 34%) can absorb the cost without dropping below the mandated 25% reserve.
      • Controller/Staff: Confirmed the city is finishing 2025 in the red (overspending), but the projected fund balance for 2026 remains above 30% even with the expenditure.
      • Director Savage: Questioned why the $760,000 in interest earnings was not disclosed earlier when funds were pulled from the general fund.

Key Outcomes

  • Acme Brick Property: The board directed staff to incorporate feedback into the Part A deliverable by the end of January; Concept 2 (flood mitigation with lake amenities) received the highest community support and is the preferred direction for the master plan, pending further engineering validation from Half Associates.
  • Miss Laura's Museum: Staff was directed to proceed with soliciting bids (RFP) for the $109,000/ $123,000 repair estimates using existing fund balances.
  • Consent Decree Projects: The Engineering Department was directed to reject original bids, repackage the projects into smaller, more competitive segments, and re-bid in phases to engage local contractors.
  • Parrot Island: The board did not vote to accept the lease agreement; multiple directions were issued to administrate a counter-proposal (redlining) that includes a county buyout for infrastructure, protection against future maintenance liabilities, and a clear pathway for the city to make decisions on amenities. An Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP) audit was approved as the immediate next step to investigate operational concerns before a final decision on ownership is made.
  • Water Slides: The board directed administration to proceed with identifying funding (utilizing the $760k interest, $655k unspent appropriation, and the General Fund balance) to complete the slides for approx. $2.7 million, with the expectation to vote on the final allocation at the next regular meeting.
  • Citizen Feedback: The board noted the lack of transparency regarding fund balances and financial projections, with members calling for stricter fiscal discipline and better communication with the public during future budget cycles.
  • Procedural Note: City offices will be closed on Monday, January 19, 2026, for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the Fort Smith City Board of Directors Study Session on this January 13th of 2026. Keep in mind these meetings are being televised live for the benefit of our residents who can't be with us in person. Um couple of housekeeping notes. Keep in mind that there are no public comments during the study session and even doing the citizens' form. Uh you required uh there would be no discussion on items that are on tonight's agenda. Okay. With that, we will go to the first item on the agenda. Thank you, Mayor. The first item of the tonight is an update and presentation from RDG planning and design on the master plan project for the acne brick property. The city purchased this property in 2023 for the joint purpose of stormwater mitigation, property reclamation, and parks amenities. While work on the stormwater management portion of the project is progressing, the city contracted with RDG planning and design about a year ago to solicit community feedback and present options as to what the city might do with the property above and beyond the stormwater management component. At this point, I will ask uh Scott Crawford and Brian Trustee from RDG to uh go through their presentation and uh answer questions that the board may have. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff, and members of the board and those in attendance. As Jeff mentioned, my name is Scott Crawford. I'm with RDG Planning Design. Joining me today is Brian Trusty with PROS Consulting, one of our consulting partners that's been working on the project since we began. And what we'd like to do tonight is uh share with you the process that we've gone through to date, uh, the material that's been generated, the feedback we've received from the community thus far, and then uh a brief overview of what the next steps are. And we'll go through this pretty quickly. If you have questions, feel free to chime in. We can certainly entertain questions as we go or at the end. The overall uh cadence of what we'd like to review is give you an overview of the master planning part A process that we've been through, summarize the guiding principles that were established by the various committees that oversaw the project, uh, walk through the preliminary concept alternatives for the property that have been developed to date, share with you several case studies that are similar to what is being articulated in those alternatives, and then spend about the second half of our presentation summarizing the community engagement and feedback that we've received today. So without uh further ado, the master planning part A, if you recall when RDG was contracted with the city, we identified part A and Part B master planning services. We are nearing the conclusion of part A at this point. This is the consulting team that's been working on the project from the very beginning that included us, RDG, Brian with PROS Consulting, as well as his uh colleague Dalton and McClellan uh consulting engineers here in Fort Smith, Chris, Andy, and Ben have been assisting with that um here locally. The committee structure that was established was there was a core team that provided oversight for the project and guidance, a technical committee that consists of several directors within the city to provide technical assistance and review of the concept alternatives as they were being created, and a steering committee of other community constituents and leaders throughout Fort Smith that all met on a regular cadence through the process. Phase one or part A included initial goal setting, which established the guiding principles that we're about to jump into, extensive inventory and analysis, some marketing market analysis and benchmarking against other communities and project types of similar typology, extensive coordination with the stormwater management and mitigation project that Half Associates was leading with civil engineering or with uh city engineering, and then uh that culminated in the concept uh alternatives that were developed that we're going to share tonight. That process uh started in earnest in April, and we're here today in January to get uh final feedback from the uh board of directors. We'll do a similar presentation with the parks and recreation commission tomorrow and collect their feedback and then bundle all that up into a phase 1A deliverable to Sarah and the Parks and Recreation Department that will essentially be the first three chapters of the master plan report. So the guiding principles that were established from the project, these were several of the images that resonated and scored very, very highly through a pretty extensive visual listening exercise that we did with the technical committee, the steering committee, and then asked the general public to weigh in during the public open house in December as far as the character, recreational opportunities and overall aesthetic that was desired for the property in the future. Those informed the six guiding principles that were established. Number one being flood mitigation and stormwater management above all. Number two being designing with nature to inspire, engage, and connect people back to nature, low maintenance and operational resiliency, uniqueness of place, accessibility, and overall economic benefit to Fort Smith. And we'll go through just a short bit of detail on each one of these. The flood mitigation and stormwater management, first and foremost for the property to mitigate uh flooding downstream through stormwater detention basins. Designing with nature to connect people back to nature through the decades of mining and brick production that took place on a very heavy industrial scale to bring and restore uh the native environment and connect people back to that on the property. Low maintenance and operational resiliency has been top of mind, durable materials, resiliency of how they're actually put together, and operational efficiencies to benefit the city long term. Uniqueness of place for those of you that had the opportunity to be out on the site. It's a quite a compelling experience. It has one of the highest elevation points in the county that overlooks the river valley and downtown with some pretty impressive views up on the top ridge and a very expansive open area down on the lower area. Accessibility, designing experiences for people of all generations, mobilities and accessible opportunities for people to experience things together. And the sixth and final guiding principle was overall economic uh benefit to this to the community through direct and indirect dollars that could be realized and/or generated both in the short term and long term from development of this property into a public amenity. The three primary concept alternatives that were developed were all grounded in those guiding principles. Each one has a different level of emphasis and articulation of the guiding principles. And these the information that we're about to walk through is all available to anyone in the public that wants to view it on the website that was launched shortly after the public open house, the third week of December, and we'll walk through a summary of that feedback that we received. But connecting this park and its location to the community. Fort Smith is very fortunate to have this much public open land available directly in the center of your community to be converted into public use and connecting that to your existing and future planned trail system. And focusing again on that story of water. This is essentially to identify there are on the on the right-hand side of the slide and the darker and lighter blue are the two major watersheds that flow through this site that will actually detain the water on the property, slow it down as it's released out further downstream to mitigate some of the flooding challenges that have been occurring further downstream. And that will happen in kind of three different areas on the property that we'll talk about in just a moment.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com