Good evening and welcome to the Fort Smith City Board of Directors meeting on this February seventeenth of twenty twenty-six.

Just a couple of housekeeping notes.

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

And also I'm going to ask all of us to refrain from making any personal uh attacks on any of our board members.

Uh if you have conversation with them, please please meet with them privately and have a conversation.

I think you would you would end up with something better.

Okay.

With that, uh, this time I'm going to ask Director Neil Martin to lead the invitation, Director Settle to read lead the pledge.

Pray with me, please.

Father, thank you for this opportunity to be here tonight, Lord.

Thank you for uh what you've created, this government, and Lord, that we get the opportunity to make decisions.

Lord, I pray that the things that we do tonight honor you, honor honor who you are and what you've made us to be.

And so, Father, I pray that you would guide our our hearts, guide our minds, give us wisdom as we deliberate and we make decisions.

Be with all those that will be coming to the board to speak to us, Lord, give them wisdom as well.

And Lord, I pray that we can leave here in a better place as a city.

Lord, we pray for blessing on this city.

We pray for growth, we pray for good things here, and Lord, we pray for good things amongst these good people that we have in Fort Smith.

So, Father, we love you, and we thank you, and we ask all these things in your precious and holy name.

Amen.

Good.

Here, Kim.

Here, George Kit Savage.

Here, settled.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Just I'm I'll ask if there's a member of the board of directors that may have any item of business not already on this evening's agenda.

Mayor, I I have uh I don't, but I just want to make a comment.

I'd like for uh you want to wait until uh I just want to make sure that uh Josh Robinson and Matt Meeker had I want to talk to y'all at the Fitchels Forum about this water situation before we leave.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thanks thanks, George.

Okay.

Uh with that, we'll ask for approval of the minutes of the February 3rd, 2026 regular meeting.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, thank you.

And as a reminder, a motion and second to adopt each of the following items must be offered before directors' comments are made.

Public comments on items must pertain to the presented item.

With that, we've got a special presentation this evening.

Come on down.

They look for me.

Yeah.

Ladies, come on down.

Come on down.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Avonley, and I wait, I'm with Troop 4324.

We are so excited that Girl Scout cookie, the the Girl Scout cookies are here.

Oh, we are too.

Okay.

Um we have nine different flavors this year, including your favorites from Thinman's, Carmo Delights, Peanut Butter Patties, and Classics like tree foils and lemonades, like also peanut butter sandwiches.

We have a new cookie this year.

It's called Explore More.

It is a Rocky Road-inspired sandwich cookie.

Cookie booth sales start this Friday, February 20th.

We will be at various businesses throughout the area.

To find the closest booth, you can download the cookie finder app.

Oh, visit GolScout.org.

And Antonio's dev code, the closest booth we'll show will be shown to you.

All boxes are six dollars a season.

Your cookie purchases directly benefit local Girl Scout troops by paying for memberships, badges, travel, and many other opportunities for our local girls.

We appreciate your continued support and look forward to seeing everybody at the booth this weekend.

We bought we brought cookies for all the directors.

Thank you for having us see you this weekend.

Thank you, Slady.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's give them a round of applause.

Thank you so much.

One of the great programs in our area, the Girl Scouting program.

Yeah, we will thank you.

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

Thank you, Mayor.

The first item tonight is an ordinance establishing accountability and disclosure standards for third-party intermediaries and city transactions.

This item was discussed at last week's study session and moved forward to consideration this evening by action of the board.

I will defer to Director Christina Kitsavis, who originally proposed this item.

So we had this discussion last week at the study session, and I feel like my ordinance was mischaracterized, so I want to be clear about what my intent was.

This ordinance is about addressing a gap in accountability.

It's not intended to be punitive.

When the board is presented with numbers, those numbers influence whether items pass or fail.

Yes, the slides were the catalyst for it, but ultimately this is about standardizing processes we already use in other departments, such as utilities.

When a third party negotiates pricing on the city's behalf, but is not contractually bound to the city.

Who are they accountable to?

Who are we accountable to?

I think this ordinance shows the public we know who we're accountable to.

American resort management functioned as an intermediary in this city transaction.

When these numbers materially change, someone has to be accountable for that gap.

Um currently in utilities, when we get an engineering estimate, these numbers are supported by data such as market rates and unit pricing.

Everything is documented.

What I'm seeking to do is standardize that process across all city business.

Um this ordinance does not assume bad faith.

All it asks is that you certify to the best of your knowledge the information is correct and that your financial interest in this project is disclosed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Just time would ask for any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk.

Well, we do have six individuals, the first being Kim Fodge.

And each will have two minutes.

Good evening.

Um the purchase of the slides for the Parrot Island expansion has been a convoluted mess and will continue to be a mess because due diligence was not performed by administration or the members of the board.

All issues that have occurred and concerns that have been addressed surrounding the purchase and installation of the slides go much deeper than teenagers and college students making minor transactional mistakes, and for anyone to say that blame is being placed on them is disingenuous.

There doesn't need to be additional irresponsible transactions to occur or instances where due diligence wasn't performed for an ordinance like this to be necessary.

Once should be enough to warrant safeguards are put in place and to ensure that this does not happen again.

Vendors that take issue with these safeguards are vendors we should not do business with.

Honest and reputable businesses should not take issue with the party ensuring that their interests are protected.

City directors have an obligation to the citizens of the city, not to third party vendors or buddies where backroom deals are made with.

Next we have Dan Williams.

Good evening, board.

Um I agree with Ms.

Fodge.

I believe that uh this ordinance does need to be passed.

Um there was uh some discussion some time back about the sanitation uh department had raised some funds and they were gonna build a wash station.

I remember when that came before the board and was going to be voted on, and I believe it was discussed that for 1.5 million dollars that we're gonna build this um wash station, and it was discussed that it would be fully uh equipped and all that, and then through the conversation of the meeting that night uh come to find out it was not gonna be fully equipped, and y'all did vote that down.

Uh, there's several things like this that I believe have happened in the past, uh, just in the time that I've been here, things uh haven't been fully disclosed, and I believe we need full disclosure on those things.

So uh I believe the ounce of weight that hopefully some of you will gain after uh continuing to not own up to uh how to be responsible.

Hopefully, you will gain that tonight and you will pass that because it doesn't take much to admit that mistakes were made.

Everybody sees it.

Everybody sees it.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carl Nevin.

I'm Carl Nevin.

I live at 6107 Medalbrook Drive.

I've been coming to the meetings for four years, and I've seen the let me come back to my notes.

I've seen things that I've questioned.

If you follow the money, is what I was told, you will find out the true motive for every one of these men and women up here when they vote.

Okay.

Now, I want you to ask yourself why would we not have a chicken balance system?

Why would we not have a way of auditing our third party uh contractors?

The second question.

Does this benefit a preferred business that settles supports?

And is that why he was so adamant last week to not passing this proposal?

Thank you very much.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, board.

I fully support this ordinance.

Some directors up here are arguing that it just duplicates the recently placed ordinance for projects over a hundred thousand dollars.

However, this requirement is relatively new, and I've heard discussions already about how to bypass it.

Unfortunately, the majority of this board has demonstrated poor financial judgment, as evident in the Parrot Island slide fiasco.

The additional 2.5 million spent on installation could have funded 10,000 water meters.

And the total expenditure of the slides could have replaced 27,000 water meters, nearly three-quarters of the city's water meter.

A survey of the residents would have likely revealed a preference for eliminating leaks and ensuring accurate water bills.

Instead, we are investing in water slides.

While it's often claimed that the general fund is healthy, this does not reflect the overall financial state of the city.

We are just one break in the transmission line away from bankruptcy.

We are already talking about having to have issues with water this summer and not just watering our lawns, but to the point of what showering, flushing our toilets.

I mean, what what is why are we even having this discussion?

So I fully support this ordinance, and I hope the vote tonight will be yes.

Thank you.

Next we have Chris Cadelli.

As a disgruntled taxpayer and lifelong citizen of Fort Smith, I would like to express my support for this ordinance tonight.

Taking the initiative to address the numerous failures involving the Parrot Island Water Park slide edition.

So I was puzzled by the initial opposition from Director Settle and uh Pastor Kemp at last week's study session.

The taxpayers clearly need additional safeguards against wasteful spending and corruption.

I'm hopeful the lawsuit against the recent no-bid contract is successful, and the audit on the water park exposes any and all irregularities involving the water park.

Once again, I do hope this passes tonight.

Thank you.

And last we have Shane McKinney.

All right, everybody.

So uh when I'm handling something that's dangerous, it often has a warning label on it.

I was working with some fiberglass insulation.

I'm still itching from doing that today.

If I have asbestos in the house, there's a warning label.

It seems kind of common sense that if you guys are going to be handling millions of dollars in bills and agreements, that going through in advance and disclosing and figuring out all the things you might need to be warned about would be in all your best interests.

I think that would prevent a lot of the discussions that have dominated this room for the last three months that I'm sure you're as sick of hearing as I am about talking about it.

Um why would anybody here want to have a less safe political environment?

An environment where you aren't certain of what you're getting into.

Why would you not want that oversight?

What's in it for you to put yourself in a less safe situation?

I'd love for each of you to take the time before you vote on this to tell me why not having any disclosure, not having the information necessary to know the dangers of what you're getting into is better for you.

Please explain to all of us.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you very much.

At this time, we will entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance with suspension of the rule.

So I moved.

Second.

An ordinance establishing accountability and disclosure standards for third-party intermediaries and city transactions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just how we're going to take a comment from the board.

Okay.

Director Good.

Thank you, Mayor.

First of all, I'm going to go ahead and say that I support accountability, full disclosure, and transparency.

I do have a question though for our city attorney, Mr.

Rowe.

Is this ordinance, in your opinion, is it redundant with what we already have?

When you say what we already have, are you you refer to the case?

In referencing a specific policy of the in form of a policy, yes.

Yeah, I don't, not to my knowledge, because this ordinance, as drafted, uh, I think covers a very narrow circumstance where you have a third-party intermediary, as defined in this ordinance, that's not under a contractual relationship with the city, but who is otherwise involved in some city transaction and involved in the sense that they're giving pricing, negotiating, making some representation to the city.

And so to my knowledge, I don't think there's anything that covers that currently uh within city ordinances or policy.

Thank you.

Let me ask you another question.

So Director Cassavis, Christina Kosevis said that uh her intent was for standardizing the process across uh city business.

When we do contracts, say for example, with engineers, would this affect any of the workings we have going into a contractor or negotiations with engineers?

I don't think so, because as defined, third-party intermediary means it's an entity who's giving some sort of information.

We'll say it's pricing estimates to the city about a city project, but it's not under contract with the city.

So in your question, typically the city is engaged with engineers under contracts.

I mean, that's the city contractors and engineers all the time on project.

So if the city has a contract with an engineer or any other party, a construction company, those would not be third-party intermediaries under this ordinance because they're contracted with the city, and the city would look to its contractual obligations from that party instead of a a third-party intermarry certification under this ordinance.

So I'm fully aware we're discussing third-party intermediate intermediaries.

So I'm just thinking and I'm wondering if this issue with Parrot Island Water Park and bringing this before the board, is this in anyone else's opinion, is this a one-off?

How many times have we seen this happen?

I'm just curious.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll I'll just make I'll just make that statement that I just believe this is a one-off.

But again, I I have no problem with supporting this ordinance, particularly uh again when it comes to full disclosure and accountability.

Thank you.

Uh Director Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, prepared a few comments, and if we can actually have a good discussion around it, then perhaps I can change my opinion on this.

But I want to be clear, I support transparency and I support accountability and I support protecting taxpayers.

My concern is that this ordinance was an overcorrection that creates unintended consequences.

The language defines 30-party intermediaries extremely broadly, which I guess one thing I'll stop for a comment here, Colby, as you're talking about third-party intermediaries, it includes in the language consultants, operators, management companies, and advisors, even when they're not under contract with the city.

That seems to be a pretty wide net.

Well, it's those entities only when they're not under contract with the city.

Because again, if the city has a contractual relationship with a with a party, whether it's a broker, contractor, advisor, whatever that entity looks like.

If this if that entity is under contract with the city uh about the project, whatever it is, they're not a third-party intermediary.

I mean, they're they're directly involved in that point.

And you know, my my my legal opinion would be the city should always want a contractual relationship with the party it's dealing with.

You you don't want to I I wouldn't want to rely on a third-party intermediary certification.

I mean, which is it's fine if it's there, but the better, you know, the your better mechanism is to get a party under contract where you know what their obligations are, and if they fail to fulfill those obligations, you have contractual remedies, you know, civil suit for breach of contract or what have you.

So if this ordinance was previously enacted prior to discussion about anything about water slides, and we found ourselves where administration was bringing this proposal forward, and the board which did receive emails with things of that nature, where it said the word estimates and all that.

Had we had this ordinance in place, what could have been the city's potential action to take because this ordinance existed against ARM?

So if we went back in time and the ordinance is in place and an ARM operated under this ordinance, meaning it it gives the disclosure requirements under the ordinance.

Uh you know, there's a certification of accuracy that's provided and all and all those benchmarks are met, and and then still yet, you know, the the estimate isn't spot on and very good.

Uh you know, I I don't think it obligates any third party intermediary to be to be correct.

It obligates them to operate in in good faith and in fullness and you know essentially without bad faith and fraud.

I mean, so I think you know, if the third party gets it wrong, uh, you know, the city would be left with showing you didn't you know you weren't operating good faith and fair dealing, and we can look back to you, third party, for the losses the city incurred because you didn't meet your requirements under this disclosure under the third party ordinance.

So let's say our ARM for this discussion is simply saying I know where you can buy slides for X amount of dollars.

And that checks out that you did able to do that.

And then what drives this project way out is engineering cost.

Are we saying that we would go back to the company that knew where we could buy slides and hold them accountable on the engineering cost?

Uh only if, uh you know, in this third party intermediary ordinance is that you'd have to show me because what they're certifying is the information is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

The material no material facts have been omitted.

Uh the intermediary is not providing misleading information.

I mean, I think a third party could do all those things and still get it wrong, uh, you know, by by negligence or otherwise, but that doesn't mean they're misleading or that they've intentionally omitted something.

I mean, we could we could spin hypotheticals, but that's that's going to be the requirements that you the city would have to look to if if it's gonna look to a third party intermediary under some certification for for relief if something goes goes wrong.

Thank you.

I'm gonna continue my statement here.

I think this creates practical issues.

Um it may trigger legal actions around duties that currently uh don't currently exist under Arkansas law.

It could slow down procurement timelines because now every transaction requires, although I'm hearing it may not require, but it does require certification by the city attorney and procurement before approval.

It introduces potential liability exposure that increases insurance cost.

That is not property insurance, that is liability insurance that companies carry in a litigious world that we live in.

And it treats cost estimates which are inherently fluid in construction and capital projects as their fixed guarantees.

I mean, these are things that I could go on and clarify, and I'll save my other two pages of notes.

I guess I'm just not understanding if this was enacted prior to this discussion, what could the board do because of this ordinance?

I mean, for me, I was a second um and was voting and voted yes on the hundred thousand dollar review on all CapEx because it does bring to question some of the uh people in the crowd that are regular tenders pointed out, we were able to catch some things and and talking about it.

What would this ordinance really capture?

That's what I guess I'm after.

It makes sure that the information brought to the table is correct.

I mean, that that's what it does.

If this is not an overcorrection, this is a correction.

So under if this, since we're doing hypotheticals, if this had been in place, ARM would have to disclose their financial incentive to sell us those slides.

And they do have a financial incentive.

Is this true administration?

I mean, did ARM get a commission?

I do not know if there is a relationship between ARM and Whitewater for some of the slides.

Director Christina, could you tell us?

I mean, because I'm not saying you're not, I'm just asking how do you have a knowledge of that?

Well, I I don't.

We have nothing in writing.

All we have is their word for it.

But we do have them on the first page of the Whitewater contract, and we do know that they get a percentage of the profits at the water park.

So they do have that financial incentive.

I believe they got a commission or some sort of compensation for the slides.

That's my belief.

But it would be if they didn't, it would be nice to have that in writing saying they did not.

All we have got now is their word for it, and that doesn't hold up in court.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh Director George Kasavits.

Yes, sir.

Let me ask you this hypothetical.

If IRM could buy the slides for million dollars.

Then they come to this is between IRM and Quitewater.

They come to the city and say, hey, I can get you some slides for 1.25 million.

With the way the way without this contract, they could get away with that, right?

Um I mean they're not obligated to say what the you know that what they're paying for, what we're they're charging us.

Well, okay.

But I think you're I think I agree with you.

But if if ARM was going to sell the city slides, and you had a contract if the city had a contract with ARM, had a contract with anybody, the person you're the entity you're buying them from doesn't have to tell you what they paid for them.

Uh I mean you'd never why would anybody tell you that.

Um did we have a contract with them to buy the slides?

With ARM?

Yeah.

Not to my knowledge.

We had a contract with Whitewater, Jeff, Whitewater West.

We did not have a contract with the only to my knowledge, the only contractual relationship between the city and ARM is with respect to, and even the counties involved, with respect to ARM's operation, being the manager of Parrot Island Water Park.

That's the real that's the contractual relationship between the city slash county and ARM.

There was no contractual relationship with respect to the Turing slides.

So do we have recourse?

Against ARM right now?

No, without this what is proposing, uh so if this was in place, you know, kind of in line with Director Kemp's questioning, if this had been in place, uh you know, the the ARM would have had to abide by this, uh you know, disclose disclose the things that are required under Section 3.

And then if its certification turned out to be wrong, if it if it provided information that that wasn't accurate to the best of its knowledge.

If it if it misled the city, if it knowingly uh omitted something, then I think then if those factors are met, yeah, then the city can look, you know, you'd you'd have recourse and saying, well, you violated your certification, your your disclosure requirements, and the city's got recourses, whether that's a you know fraud claim or whatever it is, but yes, if you meet if you know if those facts were the case, you'd have some sort of recourse because you would be saying you violated this certification that you submitted to the city.

See, I think uh I'm gonna vote for this, of course, but I think this protects the city and also protects the taxpayers because it's their money.

You know, I think they deserve I think they deserve that.

Okay, thank you, Coby.

Yes, sir.

Uh Director Christina Fasavage.

You know, it's important to remember that ARM was negotiating pricing.

And that came up on August 6 of 2024, 41-minute mark.

You can go back and watch it when Director Riga was talking about putting the deposit down or down payment, and Director Settle was in favor of that.

He said this gives us time to sharpen the pencils with Drew, who's the manager, uh the water park with American resort management, sharpen the pencils with Drew and the team.

Does the cost does the money come down?

Can we talk some things out?

They were absolutely functioning as a third-party intermediary in this deal.

I believe they had a financial incentive to sell us the slides.

And I think that we need transparency going forward.

Thank you.

Director Rego.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

And uh I wanted to say thank you to Director Kit Savis for putting this together and having it out here for us to consider.

I think very, very often we spend, you know, we're an executive and a legislative body, and there's not enough legislating and written ideas put forward from amongst ourselves for us to consider.

So however the vote goes, I'm very grateful for the work that you put in and the effort uh that you made to uh put an ordinance out there for us to consider.

Um my question is for Colby, uh, because I'm really trying to understand.

I I um believe very much that the way section three and section four um are written, that number one, uh any business, any serious entity, any serious third-party intermediary uh desiring to do business with the city uh or consult or any of the the uses uh or tasks described would abide by section three and by section four to the best of their ability, and to circle back on the hypothetical game.

I think ARM would have, if this was in place, um, abided by section three and section four.

My my question and my hangup I have, because I I don't just want to um add paperwork to the code of ordinances to sort of say we did something when it doesn't actually uh accomplish the thing that uh we're wishing for.

I I have real struggles and doubts as section six is written.

If we assume good faith uh of people's participation in section three and section four, how you would ever actually enforce section six, how would you how would you prove that someone's estimate was not um made in good faith, and then what would be the balance between the legal effort that would go into trying to prove a Section Six violation versus the actual outcome you would expect uh the success rate you would expect the outcome.

So can you speak a little bit to the your view of the enforceability uh pathway of Section Six?

Yeah, I think as to the latter part of your question, to me the path forward, if you if the city found itself in this scenario where it thought a third party intermediary did not abide by the certification, it's it's gonna result in civil litigation.

I mean, to me, no doubt about it.

Uh you can obviously say third party immediately, we think you did the city wrong and you owe us X amount of dollars.

Uh outside of that, whether you know if it doesn't pay, you're you're bound for civil litigation.

And then to the first part of your question, you know, how do you how do you prove it?

You know, how does how does that look like?

Well, that's the stuff of what civil litigation is always made of.

Uh discovery depositions, document document review.

You know, I don't know uh how that would play out, but but that's presumably how you do it.

You interview the parties, you figure out what they knew when they knew it, and what was told, if it was right, if it was wrong, and you know, does it prove the case or not?

Would you say that it's generally in your uh experience with the law that it's generally difficult to prove uh in a reasonable way in a court of law that someone um knowingly omitted uh material facts or knowingly was intentionally off base on an estimate in a malicious way?

I don't think I could say generally one way or the other.

It's always going to depend on the on the facts.

I mean you know the best case scenario for a plaintiff is there's some linchpin smoking gun document that helps prove your case.

You know, outside of that being there, it just depends on what the the testimony of the pertinent players involved.

So uh you know it would just depend on the facts whether you're gonna win that lawsuit or or or not.

Thank you.

Director Gassavis?

I think what this does is it inspires people that if they're quoting us figures, they have something to back that up.

Just like with an engineering estimate, you know, they know how much pipe costs, they know how much fitting costs, they know how much labor costs.

You would have to have something to to back up the pricing.

And on this, I don't believe that they had anything to accurately back up the pricing they gave us.

I think they said this is going to be a low price to get us to buy it, and they will gain from that financially.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Are there any other comments from the board?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Directors Rigo?

No.

Good.

Yes.

Kim?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Thank you.

Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Motion passes six in favor and one opposed.

Thank you.

It just time we will entertain a motion to adopt the emergency clause.

So move.

Second.

Please call the role.

Maybe before we go on a question of Kobe that.

Uh yes.

Go ahead.

Kobe, this does not allow us to go backwards, correct?

This is only going forward correctly.

I'm sorry I didn't hear the first part.

This ordinance only allows us to go forward, not backwards.

That's correct.

It's not effective retroactively.

Nor do I think it could be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion.

Second.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Git Savis.

Christina Git Savage.

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego.

No.

Motion passes six in favor and one opposed.

We'll go to item number two.

Item two is an ordinance amending the 2026 operating budget and authorizing the appropriation of 150,000 dollars of unobligated general funds to provide spay and neuter vouchers for 2026.

The spay and neuter vouchers the city offered in 2024 and 2025 were widely used.

Funds were not included in the adopted 2026 operating budget to continue this program.

The board asked that this item be revisited at last week's study session, and the board then asked that this item be included on tonight's agenda for consideration.

With that introduction, I'll defer to the board's discussion and either myself or uh Mr.

Bufink can address specific questions about the program to the board.

Thanks.

At this time we would ask for any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk.

Yes, we have nine individuals, the first being Joe Elskin.

And each one have two minutes.

Thank you for what you do.

I just for this ordinance.

I just wanted to remind you that it's it's really beautiful outside.

The cats and dogs are getting busy.

I would like therefore to suggest three things that you add an emergency clause and that you advertise widely and maybe possibly asking animal control for recommended um neighborhoods.

Just I mean, just really go after this.

Um thank you.

And I also wanted to thank the mayor for stating that personal attacks are not appropriate for a city board meeting.

Um doesn't allow them, other state other city groups do not allow them.

They personal attacks create anger, they do not create solutions or cooperation.

So thank you for your service, every single one of you.

Thank you.

Next we have Kim Fodge.

Um I do think we need to be mindful of spending.

Um and I do think the board needs to prioritize needs over wants.

And um as someone who had to spend uh their own personal funds to spay and neuter feral cats in our neighborhood, I think this is a great need for our city.

Um and I think the board needs to approve this.

Um if you can find a few million dollars for a water slide, you can find 150,000 to spay in neuter cats.

Thank you.

Next we have Gabe on Hoover.

Oh, thank you.

I'm the executive director of Kitties and Canines Pet Resource Center in Fort Smith.

We organized 15 years ago to open our clinic in response to the overpopulation of animals in this area, the River Valley and our city.

Umce that time, we have provided affordable spay needer uh surgeries, and uh now we offer affordable wellness to to our patients.

We have been part of a national animal welfare movement, and our city is part of it.

We see people and talk with people all the time who are concerned about animal welfare in our city.

They are upset about seeing animals as strays in this in the city, animals that have been hit by a car, animals that can't get into animal control.

Um we uh uh came to the board a few years ago and uh I think I explained then I'd been to Franklin, Tennessee to visit their brand new shelter.

They had a program like other organizations, other cities in our country have, where the cities had offered spay meter vouchers, and they explained to me that if you will start this in your town and really give as much as you can to for the first four to six years, you will see a marked uh decrease in the number of animals around your city.

We feel like our citizens are already seeing it just within two years.

Um after four to six years, you'll see another significant increase in year eight through ten.

Um we want to tell you how much this means to this to the citizens.

We get the privilege of serving our citizens who come into the clinic.

Many of them are um on fixed income, many of them are elderly.

Um the greatest joy in their life is their animal.

Thank you.

Um am I over?

Yeah, two minutes up, but you're you'll if I go up here.

Mayor, can I make a motion to extend our time?

Okay, how much?

A couple minutes.

Thank you so much.

Okay, what's the wishes of the board?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, go ahead.

Um we see it in their reactions and in their gratefulness that what you've done as a board for them.

Uh, because the greatest joy in their life is that animal, and they are able to go home knowing that their animal is spay neutered, it's not going to reproduce, it has its rabies, it has a microchip.

So if it gets lost, it's coming back to them.

We see people come in that have found an animal on the side of the street.

A lot of times we see a mother and their children after school.

They're so excited.

They found an animal, they're going to take care of it.

If we can find the owner, they'll send it back to them.

If not, they're going to keep it.

So it doesn't have to be on the street, they don't want to get hurt.

They're grateful to be able to use the voucher to get that animal spay neutered, microchip, and rabies.

And now with the successful program that you've implemented in Fort Smith, we're seeing our surrounding cities doing the same thing that you that this board has done.

They're calling and saying, We're going to do some vouchers.

And they're stepping up and doing what what we've done here.

So with that said, I guess I would like to say to you that when I first came, we asked for 250,000 a year to get us through that first four to six years.

We spent all of that the first year, the second year we were given 150.

Last year, we only got to August, and I can tell you that we have a waiting list of people waiting for the money to be approved again.

So we hope that you will hear the voices out there in our community and know that everyone is a good here in our city.

We we see the good of people picking up animals and doing the right things, and they want our city to continue to be a good good place to be.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Next, we have Pam Weber, who has also provided some information that I'll distribute while she comes up.

Thank you.

I've been involved with animal welfare since I was in my early 20s, and I went to the Humane Society and they fired me in an hour after I was just volunteering because I was too tenderhearted.

Um I'd like to say that I've sat where you've sat.

I sat in Miss Cassavis' seat and I worked on this issue then.

At that time, we had approximately 10,000 animals go into the shelter every year.

And about 90% of those were euthanized.

I talked to the shelter today and asked for their numbers, and they get this last year they had 1,800 animals.

They adopted 239 dogs, 352 cats.

They returned 164 dogs to their owners through microchipping and other air other things.

They returned six cats.

Then they euthanized.

Now I asked the girl, I said, and she was very nice and very helpful.

I said, how many animals did you have to turn away at the shelter this year?

And she said more than I can count and more than we took in, probably by twice.

So we still have an issue here, and I've sent you a handout.

The little dots on there are where we, as kiddies and canines use your money last year.

And those are where people live that's paid and neutered a cat or dog.

And so you can look there by ward.

And yes, there's a lot of dots, but we still have a lot of work to do in this area.

And I ask you to fully fund this and really take this as a priority.

You spend a million six hundred thousand dollars on animal services and the shelter every year.

If I took 1,800 and I divided that into 1,600, you're spending about $889 for every animal picked up.

You're spending $556 by the time I take the shelters and divide it by $1,800, their budget.

You're spending $556 an animal for every animal that goes into that shelter by their budget.

So I think sometimes I remember that a wise professor in a class that I took told me one time.

Not everything on your balance sheet and your income sheet is an income or expense.

Some things are investments.

And what I'm what we're asking you to do is invest in the future.

Invest so that my children and grandchildren don't have to pay taxes to to take care of this problem that we should have taken care of years ago.

That's all we're asking you to do.

And we're so happy.

I am so happy that I get to be at Kitties and Canines to volunteer and meet the people that came on and talked about coming in.

And they always say, you know, this is really the best thing the city has ever done for me.

And the one thing that they have given me that has really made a difference in my life.

Now we all know that the standard things like utilities and those that you give are good, but this is something that really touches people's lives.

Thank you, Pam.

Thank you, ma'am.

It's good to see you.

It's good to see you and appreciate your service.

And I just want to I I want to say one more thing.

We live in divisive times, and I appreciate every one of you and for what you're doing because you're on the front lines.

Thank you for doing what you do.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Next we have Dr.

Ashley Smith.

Again, we're going to ask you to stay within the two minutes.

We've got a lot of people who want to speak.

So I am the veterinarian at Kitties and Canines.

I have been in animal welfare since I was a freshman in college.

That's when I first started volunteering at a high volume spay and neuter clinic.

And that's when I decided I was going to go to vet school, and I was going to do high volume spay and neuter.

And that's been my goal since then.

I have now spayed over, spayed and neutered over 16,000 animals.

And I hope to continue to do that for the rest of my career and well into my senior years.

And I really hope that this board will help me do that by providing these vouchers for our community.

It really does make an impact on these animals' health and well-being.

We see a huge decrease in roaming behavior, which is going to get these animals off of the streets.

We see obviously the intended effect of preventing unwanted litters, which is going to keep many animals off the streets and out of our shelter.

And then the added benefit of having our rabies vaccines and our microchipping to get these pets back into their homes.

And then with our rabies vaccine, you're not only making these animals safer for our community, but you're protecting the people in our community.

We've seen a drastic increase in rabies in the past six months with a human case from a dog bite in the U.S.

already this year.

So having that be available to our community is a you know very beneficial health incentive for our pets.

And I just want to thank y'all for even considering this and having this as an option for our community.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for choosing Fort Smith.

Madam Clerk.

Next we have Gary.

Oh my goodness, I do not want to tear up your name.

That would be me.

Yeah.

Hello, members of the board.

This is my first time addressing you.

So I know at least one of you has an issue with the funding on this.

Okay, so I'm going to ask that a member of the board uh put this matter to a table and take care of issue number three first.

Use the funds from last year to fund this particular event.

Next thing.

Baby was rescued by Artemis.

Okay, she was spayed and neutered as part of that program or spade, sorry.

And now she is a rescue dog.

Okay, I've invested a couple of thousand dollars in her to get her trained up.

And hopefully none of you have noticed that she's here because that's pretty much her job.

But I also think that this ordinance doesn't go far enough.

Okay.

I think that if we don't already, we need to have a mandatory licensing program in the city.

I think we need to have a mandatory chipping program in the city.

And I also think that there needs to be a city ordinance that anybody caught dumping animals gets hit with a fine somewhere between 1,000 and $2,500.

Now, in the last 30 seconds, I'm going to address Administrator Dingman.

I'm hard of hearing, sir.

And in an ADA request, I would like the city to approve.

You get the headphones that hook up to your microphones.

I believe that to be a reasonable accommodation as provided by the ADA.

In addition, I'm going to ask the Director Settle and Director George Costabis.

Refrain from talking with your hands in front of your mouth.

That limits the amount of volume that can go into the microphone.

And with that, Mr.

Mayor, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

Sir, I'll mention on your way back that we are already in progress of getting the loops to hook to for the I can't hear you.

We are we are in progress of getting those loops to connect the uh sound system for the heart of hearing.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Uh next we have Dan Williams.

Good evening again, board.

Um, just a few things.

I hope we do support this.

Um just uh a couple suggestions.

We now have roughly $38,000 a month that we're not paying for the city offices.

You could find money there.

I'm not sure what we're doing with that money now that you could get.

Uh also we have $250,000 that we're not paying the city administrator that we've we hadn't filled that position.

There's $250,000 there you could get.

Um if you wanted, you could contact the CBID and see if they would invest in it.

I heard they invested $34,000 here the other night.

Uh Lavon Morton, if he's on payroll, you could get some money from him.

Or you could ask Mayor McGill to pay back some of the money that he had given to things.

Yeah.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening again.

Although I would love to say yes, that we need to fund this.

Um I just think that we have too many other expenses that need to be focused on.

Um I love pets.

I have three dogs and a cat.

Um, but I also had to take the responsibility of a pet owner for spaying and neutering my pets.

Um neutering is the cheapest part of being a pet owner.

So if you can't afford to do that, then you probably shouldn't own one.

I really think that our animal ordinance needs to be enforced more, and pet owners need to be held accountable for allowing their pets to roam or dumping their pets.

Um, you know, we we said no to the Hamilton House.

Uh we heard that the senior citizen still has approximately 800 elderly people waiting on mills.

Um we have families that can't afford to pay their water bills, and their children are going to school without bathing.

Um, I just think that unfortunately this is bad timing, and that we need to use that 150,000 for something else, and hold our uh pet owners accountable.

Thank you so much.

And last we have Chris Scadelli.

I too would like to uh oppose this ordinance on the grounds it will result in deficit spending and enable irresponsible pet ownership.

Uh as my wife just mentioned, we do have three dogs and a cat.

Um that that comes with commitment responsibility.

Um pet ownership is a big responsibility that includes significant financial commitments, including the city's mandatory spay and neuter ordinance.

I've been a pet owner all my life.

Um I've had to have pay for numerous spay and neuter procedures.

This is an individual pet ownership responsibility.

I don't believe that uh the taxpayer should have to subsidize this.

Um I would like to echo the gentleman's response regarding pet dumping or animal dumping.

Uh this is a big problem, and it ought to come with a huge fine.

Um I think that is something that we need to try to address.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

This time would entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance.

So move.

Do we get a second, please?

Second.

Okay.

Change?

Yep.

Yes, go ahead.

Um, I thought we did address pet dumping in in the uh when we overhauled the animal ordinances, Jeff.

Can you speak to that, the fines on that?

Speak definitively to the fines, and no, not necessarily not necessarily, but um pet dumping, and I and I'll defer to the chief if he wants to, if he's here, can correct me if I'm wrong.

But I think that we also rely on the state statutes on animal cruelty and such, which also prevent dumping animals.

I mean we we do have a fine though associated with it.

I I thought it was a thousand dollars.

I can't remember.

Possibly I don't remember off the top of my head.

We did we did address animal dumping and we did address animal cruelty with that overall that we did a while back ago.

Director Stavas, I I hate to give a number, but I know there's a number in there.

I know there was a big debate.

I wanted something even higher than a thousand.

But I think I think we were told by the you can only go to certain limits because of state statute with misdemeanors and stuff like that.

I think it's a thousand, but maybe we think it's 750.

I can't remember exactly.

But we did do something in there.

I would encourage folks to go look at the animal ordinance that we did a few years ago, the changes that we made to it.

I mean, I think a lot of the things that we heard here have been addressed there.

So I'd encourage folks to look at that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Mayor, I have one.

Director George, just happy.

Yes, sir.

Um Crystal, I understand your concern.

But this will save us money in the long run by spending out neutering these animals.

It's gonna be less less animals we have to pay for it to shelter every month.

What do we pay a month?

We paid over a million dollars last year to the shelter.

I want to say it was like a million uh sixty-six thousand or something to that.

Yeah, I mean it's gonna take a I think it's gonna take a few years, but I think we're gonna it's it's gonna be worth it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Director Regal, and then Director Good.

Uh a few things.

Uh just a quick Google on the animal ordinance that we passed in March of 2023, does uh have a fine uh associated for dumping uh and that there's also uh microchip uh requirements uh in that legislation and so uh enforcement is always something uh you know that's enforcement is always a goal of any ordinance uh on the books, and so just wanted to um put those two things out there that those items were featured in the action we took in 2023.

I'm thankful for everyone's engagement on this issue.

Um just incidentally, uh the feedback that I personally received uh on this topic uh exceeded the feedback received on the water slides by a ratio of about 50 to one.

So I appreciate the engagement um from folks.

And I just had a quick question uh or an opportunity for uh Andy to clarify um about the financial picture uh around this restoration of funding.

Uh would this restoration of 150,000 uh to continue a program we had underway?

Would this represent uh deficit spending?

Can you tell us a little bit uh vocalize some of the stuff again that you shared with us about the current um financial picture uh here in the city?

Um I mean if you by our fundamentals the way we talked about during the budget hearing, you know, the 150,000 dollars, this is an ongoing program that we intend to do.

Sounds like we need to at least invest at least four years, what we're talking about to make it uh worthwhile.

So that's an ongoing expense.

So it'd be part of our operating budget.

So it would, it would impact our our balance and the operating budget there.

You know, there's there's other I think there's other potential savings uh along the way that could offset that.

Um course, you know, what you know the budget versus what the actual results are gonna are also gonna heavily depend on, you know, we're talking about a hundred and fifty thousand dollar deficit or whatever.

That's a that is a small margin for the fifty-five million dollar budget for the general fund.

So uh the sales tax revenues, the performance there, the actual whether we balance out uh the actual results, you know, that there's gonna be a uh a big you know difference.

You know, 150,000 plus or minus on the sales tax, that could happen in any single month, or um you know, we could triple that throughout the year, you know, if we have some growth.

So there's that's a big end, you know, that's a big indicator whether you know if we're talking about whether the whether our projected revenues and projected expenditures balance, well, I think the 150,000 would say no they don't, but the revenues are a projection.

So we'll have to see how that turns out.

I think there's other other budgetary savings that we could manage to realize along the way as the year goes on as well.

Sure, and I guess to follow up on the fiscal impact of the proposed items, the document dated February the 13th, uh that you shared a version with us last week and then an additional emailed version since then.

You know, yeah to your point that you just made.

You know, the budget savings ultimately uh were indicated for 2025 versus what was originally planned to be spent or projected to be spent was over 10 million dollars.

Is that correct?

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, let me just you know clarify that.

Uh yeah, I did update the fiscal impact statement that I think we we presented at the study session last week um to include the the spay and neuter program and also the update on the carryover and carry forwards.

So uh, you know, we still end the our projected fund balances for 26 with these carryover items and the 150,000 for the voucher program.

Uh we end at 19.6 projected fund balance for general fund, which represents 32 percent reserve.

Um street maintenance.

Well, you know, the that's 7.3 at 62, 30.1 million for water sewer, that's 42 percent reserve, and 10 million dollars solid waste, uh, which is a 38% reserve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'll start with saying Mr.

Gary, I don't think we got at your last name.

Uh Gary and his dog is a baby.

Yep, made the statement that our current ordinance does not go far enough.

And I have to agree with you.

Um since I've been on the board, we started out decades ago with Pam Weber and Philip Mary on the board, and the issue then was tethering.

We started out going through the whole process of animal service, animal welfare, and it includes licensing, TNR, microchipping, spay neuter, tethering, uh, transporting, uh, and not to mention a host of animal rescues groups and individuals.

Um, you know, we talk a lot about irresponsible pet ownership, but be that as it may, the problem lies, and I think that we are gonna deal with this problem for much more than four years.

Again, we've been on working with this uh issue since I've been on the board.

Um, so yeah, it's an ongoing problem, and we need to do whatever it we can to address the issue since we can't you know make people do right by their animals.

You know, I work with a lady right now who took in nine dogs and four cats, and she relied very heavily on those vouchers just to see that these animals are cared for.

And the majority of people, that's what we do.

We genuinely care for these animals.

So again, this is just not an issue about animal care, animal welfare.

This is also a public safety issue.

I've had too many calls, particularly on the north side with people being chased by hit dogs, uh, dogs that are just loose, uh, dog bites.

It's it's bad.

So we need to do whatever we can to address the problem.

And again, I'll say we we should fully fund this.

Thank you.

Um as I've thought through this process, you know, we're looking at the balance budget and things of that nature.

When you look back at the budget hearing, the budget document, you know, there was items up at the top to consider whether we would put them in the budget or not, and he put a no or yes by it.

At the time, I saw that as no.

And my understanding was I I saw that for what it was.

Uh but after obviously, as Director Rigo's pointed out, uh, the amount of sub of communication the board has received on this is you know exponential beyond anything that we've considered so far and my time of being on the board.

Obviously, the community has given us feedback of what they are asking us to consider.

Um I see it as an investment as a non-reoccurring investment.

I'd like to see it evaluated every year.

And in that regard, it's not necessarily an operational budget item because it's addressing a cause as long as there's one-time non-reoccurring dollars available to be used for the such things.

That's sort of how I see this.

Instead of seeing this as a at least a yes forevermore, it's obviously there's a great need right now.

Uh when you look at the numbers of the shelter, you look at the numbers that were reported.

Um I see this as a non-reoccurring investment.

Um I do have a thought on when stray animals are taken in, you know, from the street and taken to you know Animal Haven if there's not a capacity at Animal Haven because of their limitations, but that that animal has not been spayed or neutered, and you're going to release.

I think that my understanding is the process you'd take that animal back to where it was found and release it.

Is that where we what we would do?

I mean, what do we do with an animal that we don't have room for?

We don't pick them up.

Right.

Well, no, they do.

They pick them up, they go to the shelter, and in the shelter says whether they're gonna have room or not.

Sometimes we don't pick a lot of them.

Yeah, sometimes we don't run it.

I'd like to talk about this because my question is as we're coming up, uh C Bigger coming up.

Perhaps obviously these animals, if they're going to be released back or something, and they haven't been spayed or neutered, perhaps these are the ones we should be addressing with these vouchers so that we're not just releasing this animal back out there.

Uh what's the process you picked?

We first of all, we wouldn't do that.

I hope that there's not been any instance of that because technically we would be breaking the law by doing so.

Okay.

There's usually a communication that occurs between the animal wardens and the shelter before they actually impound the animal if the shelter is full, the warden just doesn't impound the animal.

So what is he if say this dog is on 12th street, they just leave it?

There's nothing else for us to do with it.

So my next question then would be what if that animal has not been spayed or neutered?

Could we in qu incorporate a uh practice to that that animal at least would be treated by a veterinarian under the if we pick the animal up, we have to we have to do something with it.

The shelter would have to take it.

Uh I mean, we can't we can't just take the animal spare neuter and then turn it loose.

Yeah, uh, you know, obviously there's a tension there.

And I just I hear stories, you know, like we're hearing tonight with Ms.

Faj, and you know, people have very caring hearts putting personal dollars on the table and wishing this was available.

Uh and I guess I'm sitting here thinking through the shelter has a limitation.

And if is there a way that these animals that aren't through poor ownership are out there roaming and they haven't been spayed or neutered.

Is it requiring that a resident picks up that stray animal and then they would have to go through the process?

Well, it's not required, but we certainly have a number of citizens out of the goodness of their heart that are doing that.

They're sharing the sharing the load of sheltering these animals.

Uh it's I mean it's a it puts us in an untenable situation.

And and I mean the public sees sometimes, you know, they call about a stray animal and and no action is taken, and it's not because we don't want to, we can't.

Um you know, so we we bear the brunt of that many, many times.

Has the board in previous years ever explored and discussed the mandatory licenses?

That was something that that was brought to my attention by a resident, and that if you do that, that could also offset the you know million plus dollars for spending on animal care.

Uh I'm a firm believer that uh ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And I belie I believe that the the uh voucher program is is showing success.

I've I share the same sentiments that we're seeing a reduction in the number of stray animals in Fort Smith.

Uh now whether I can attribute that to this specifically the the Spay and Newter voucher program, no, but uh I uh I feel as others do that it is having an impact.

I guess I'm I appreciate your comments and I I share your sentiments.

I guess I'm asking though a different question.

When we talk about it seems like this is not enough, has the board ever explored a mandatory licensing fee for animal ownership?

I'll say that I'll say yes.

And we actually did we did adopt such before the current version of the existing animal ordinance, and we we adopted a licensing requirement.

We never got to the point of implementing that before we change changed courses and went uh to mandatory stay and neuter uh function and instead of that and we removed the animal licensing requirement at that time.

And something that I just looking at us up because we didn't say a number, is a it appears off what I've looked at is a six hundred dollar fine uh and a misdemeanor charge for dumping of animals.

So uh you know, is that enough or not?

But for me, uh I hold this as obviously there's work to still be done here.

Uh people are safety of our citizens are at risk.

I see it as a non-reoccurring investment.

Thank you, Mayor.

Well, there thank you.

There is a breeder license requirement in the ordinance that's a thousand dollar uh annual fee.

That's that's correct.

The the the licensing was put in, it never got taken off because we were trying to do it automated, it just never got taken off.

Just never took off.

We took that out of the ordinance.

Uh the mandatory spate and neuter is only for dogs or dogs that are roaming.

If your animal is confined to a house or to a gated uh fence or on leash, did it have to it did not have to be spayed and neutered only for dogs that if you allow it to roam.

That was what we all negotiated and got to that point.

Uh suggests that's history.

But we did have a licensee back there.

You know, that I did I did think about that.

Do we do we put in there if you take a voucher, does that does that trigger license, and maybe that's a further discussion down the road we might consider is do we say the voucher starts a licensing pro thought process.

Just thinking through it.

I I I the logistics is hard for me to consider.

Um so mayor interrupt, uh I'll go on it's my turn, sorry.

Director Neil Martin and then Director Settle.

Yeah, Jeff, so um 150,000 is what we're we're requesting to be allocated, which would take us negative for the year uh from an operating perspective.

Um I emailed you guys earlier today to ask are the is there a hundred and fifty thousand dollars offsetting that we have that could keep us at a flat budget.

Well, I think I think there's a couple of different ways to answer that question.

I think ultimately yes.

Um there are uh ways to manage a budget and the budget the board has requested and what we will do quarterly budget review meetings and where we'll uh examine revenues and expenses through that period of time and see how we are managing the budget to that uh to that balanced uh that balanced point.

Um but specifically, I mean, going you know, jumping back through the line items and identifying specific items where we could cut the existing appropriations to allocate those dollars instead to a spay and neuter program.

I think that we could do that, yes, sir.

Well, I I I think we should.

I mean, we've we've already had a couple items that have that have come before the board after the budget was passed.

Um and I was I was a no on those items as well.

Um or I was a no on those items.

I I just I just have a difficulty uh with us agreeing to a balanced budget and then making a decision that that takes us under.

So I've uh you know, I I hear I hear a lot of what's going on.

I'm I'm I'm just really I'm I'm torn.

I understand the long-term impact of this, but man, I really want to stay balanced on our budget, and I want to be able to to make sure that we make uh whatever decisions we need to make in order to be able to stay balanced and stay in in line with the budget that we passed at the end of the year.

So that's kind of where I'm sitting right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Director Settle.

I think you uh director Savis just asked me, I'll answer Christina for everybody.

What does a licensee do?

I I think the city of Greenwood has a licensing program they passed, and they get funds on a yearly basis that put back into the coffers to help with animal control.

I think that's what they do with it.

Uh so some cities do that.

Some cities have a licensing program where they you got the ten dollars a year for every animal you have in your house or whatever the number is, some some cities are higher, and then that that turns around and they use that to uh put back in the coffers to help pay for vouchers or animal control.

Uh Jeff, my only thing is this um Josh is doing a good job as communications director, but I don't think it should be the voucher person.

So if this does get approved, I'd like uh administration to come back with the plan to us, and if it means we gotta uh you know potentially add a uh some some help or a part-time person or something to to do this program, let's do it right.

But but Josh focused on communications, let's do let's put the animal voucher program where it belongs to the CERT department.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Director Rigo.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just uh want to say as a point of clarification for for the audience.

The ordinance, as it's written before us, appropriates the hundred fifty thousand dollars out of the general fund reserve balance, so it's not taking something and saying this should be on the um operations side that we've had balanced.

So I you know that's a just sort of a different um perspective to look at it.

And my question would be uh operationally speaking, is this something that we're looking to you know, sort of have parceled out equally across the remaining 10 months, or or is there a sense of how we want to um uh you know manage the allocation not for us to decide necessarily but want you know to be mindful uh so that we make sure that this amount of money uh is what takes us through the year, you know.

You wouldn't want to necessarily have a situation if it's at all possible to avoid where you know six or seven months from now you've ran out, if you will.

So just keep that in mind.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments on the remote?

Maybe I have a quick one.

Director.

The little veterinarian lady.

Okay, I need to ask you a question.

Or doctor or surgeon, I don't know.

Doctor, doctor Dr.

Ashley, Dr.

Ashley?

Is that your name?

I'm sorry.

Good.

I didn't know I should have known.

In your professional opinion, how long will we see results from the spite and how long will it take to see a reduction?

So I've read a couple of studies on it.

Uh you studied other towns that had the had spite neuter, correct?

Yeah, so there are a couple of pretty good um research articles out there that are about programs like this.

Um a few that are successful and a few that were unsuccessful.

Um funding being the biggest factor in whether they were successful or not.

And majority of them, it is around year five to six that is when you can see a signific when the community saw a significant difference.

Now, obviously, before that, we can look at numbers and start to see a difference.

So around year four, if you start looking at your intake numbers or even just the use of the voucher program, you'll see that start to decrease.

And then around year five, six is when the community will start to see a difference.

And then around year eight or nine is when you start to be able to reduce how much you're putting into that financially because you've reduced the amount of unwanted litters in the community.

Yeah, we pay how much a day at the shelter, Jeff.

You do you remember anybody now?

Just like $35 a day or something.

I think it's more than that.

Per animal that we pay every day.

Yes, sir.

Up to five or seven days, isn't it?

Five days, I believe.

So five times thirty-five is 150.

150 for five days per animal.

That adds up.

To a lot.

Okay, we'll keep spiding neutering.

I plan on it.

Thank you.

Director of Christian Cassavers.

Well, I would I would just add quickly, I think it's important to frame this.

Is this something for the community?

These vouchers go to individual people, and then they're able to take them and use them at vet clinics that participate or kiddies and canines.

This isn't something we're doing specifically for an entity like we do with the shelter.

So it I think it's important not to conflate those things.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Please call the role, madam clerk.

Director Kemp?

Yes.

George Kit Savis.

Yes.

Christina Kit Savis, yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number three.

Item three is an ordinance amending the 2026 operating budget and appropriating funds for 2025 encumbrances and carryovers.

The details of this item are presented at the board, presented to the board at the February 10th study session.

And the board move the item forward for consideration on tonight's agenda.

Chief Financial Officer Andy Richards adjusted the carryover request on attachment A, which is on page 18 of your packet.

At the board's request, reflect items under contract versus not under contract.

The carry forwards on attachment B represent items encumbered by 2025 purchase orders.

Mr.

Richards will offer his comments and stand for questions from the board.

Thank you.

So the amount of the carryovers was 1.6.

1,678,865.

That was an attachment A.

At the study session, there was a request to identify the carryovers which were under contract and those that were not.

So I think you see that on the attachment A.

Just a couple of items are actually under current contract, and the rest of the items there were requested as carryover funds to continue to tell you 25 initiatives for those budget line items.

So we so we took that off, and and so we've actually lowered them out so uh I did email talked about this on the last item.

I did email the board uh the estimated fiscal impact of item two and this item three here to the budget.

Hopefully that you guys found that helpful.

Um if you want changes made to that, we'll we'll do that.

But we can we intend to continue to send that to you to inform you on the financial status and the impact of these uh potential budget adjustments that we have during the year we'll have on the on the budget and the fund balance.

I'll stand for questions.

Okay, thank you, Andy.

Uh are there any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

Yes, one Gary Podgerski, is that correct?

There we go.

So uh first of all, I I concur.

I think you guys should go ahead and do this.

I also thought you should have done this before you did the last thing.

Um thank you.

I mean, like incredible, really.

You know, thanks, Josh.

All right.

Uh this year is is it's it's a no-brainer.

I mean, uh you know, this this just should happen.

Just I just wanted to put that out there.

Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any other citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

No, that's it.

Okay, this time we've entertained a motion to adopt the ordinance.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you, please.

Uh citizen uh I'm sorry, board comments.

Okay, the right settled.

Uh thank you, thank you, mayor.

Andy, I I like the uh fund balance that we got, the physical impact.

Um I think it shows where we're at.

I'd like to you know if we get that monthly, that's really good.

You know, having almost 20 million dollars in the general fund, 7.3 million in the street fund, 30 million in the water fund, and 10 million in the solid waste fund is very good.

I appreciate that.

That the laws keeps us checking balance to the year, so thank you very much.

Yep.

Any other comments?

Quick question.

Andy, what what was what did the police department turn back from last year?

Do you know?

What were their budget savings?

No, what would they turn back?

Um I'm not sure what you're what you're referring to.

Where's Danny?

Yeah, what does that mean?

Turn back.

That they turn back to the city every year.

Mean they didn't spend all their budget.

Yeah, and the turns per turns back to the city.

How much do you have to do?

The budget savings, I think it was about a million six is what I remember.

That was after the budget code.

The 10% hold was 2.5 million.

Yeah.

That's that's more how much 2.5 million was the 10%.

That's what the police department turned back to the general fund.

We didn't turn it back because we wanted to.

We added uh 10% hold on the budget through the year, and that's I mean 2.5.

When did that take place?

Huh?

When did the 10% hold take place?

It was early in 2025.

I don't remember that.

That was that was in place for the whole budget all year long, pretty much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Please call the roll.

Directors George Kitzavis?

No.

Christina Kitsavis.

No.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

Motion passes five in favor and two opposed.

Item number four.

Item four is a resolution accepting the project as complete and authorizing final payment to brothers construction related to a consent decree, remedial measures and capacity improvements related to project number 2319-C1.

Todd Mitkey, the Director of Engineering will speak to the details of this item.

Thank you.

This project has been completed and came in approximately 22% under budget for the work.

Some of the work was value engineered as we do continuously through our projects and engineering methods from our in-house project engineers, in-house inspectors, and sometimes consulting engineers.

Ultimately provide opportunities for the contract to use improved construction methods, which happened on this project.

So one of one key note is this project included emergency sewer repair on a sewer line located at the 02-20 runway at the Fort Smith Airport.

So that was included in the budget savings.

And normally those types of emergency repairs are very expensive, so we were lucky the contractor was able to handle them and they were able to work those into the project.

So the final project cost was $6.189 million dollars.

And I'd love to answer any questions you might have.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Citizens' comments, Madam Clerk.

None indicating.

Okay, we need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Are the any other comments from the board?

Director Neil Mark.

Yeah, this is this is awesome to see 1.8 million under budget.

Uh 23% of the of the contract amount.

So great job to the team and the folks that were doing the work.

This this is awesome.

This is what we want to see as we are doing consent decree related projects.

So awesome, awesome job.

Thanks, everybody.

Okay, thank you.

With that, please call the roll.

Directors Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rico?

Yes.

Good?

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kit Savis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item five.

This item is a resolution accepting a project as completed and authorizing final payment to Humbard contracting related to consent decree remedial measures and capacity improvements related to project number 23-15-C1.

Mr.

Mickey.

This project was originally awarded for $3.5 million.

And we brought it in at $1.5 or $1.951 million.

So 44% under budget.

Approximately 1.5 million.

Mind you, this a lot of this work for deep repairs that were identified during construction are going to be deferred to a future consent degree project.

So not all of that is raw savings.

It's just going to be needed to put into another project now that we have better data to allow effective bidding from a future contractor.

But I'm proud of our in-house inspectors and engineers for working with contractors and many of our contractors are always on board for value engineering.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comment, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

Motion to adopt a resolution.

It's on the second.

Thank you.

Any board comments?

Please call the roll.

Director Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good?

Yes.

Kim?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item six.

This item is a resolution authorizing acquisition of sewer utility and permanent access easements associated with consent decree capacity improvement project number 23-15-C1.

Mr.

Mickey.

These easements total approximately $22,000 and are for six properties.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments?

None indicating.

We need a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any board comments.

Director Neil Martin.

I I did have a citizen reach out to me.

Um it's on this item.

Um questioning the the value of what was being offered to the city.

I I don't know.

I I don't know how that necessarily works, but what's that?

I believe it's a survey that we did.

Is is can somebody I mean we go out, we survey the I think we've got surveys in the middle.

The city got an appraisal on these.

Okay.

Independent independent state certified appraiser.

Are you Mr.

Are you Mr.

Yancey?

Yes, sir.

Oh, okay, there we go.

That's there.

And I think Miss Sellers as well.

Okay.

Um I guess they're they have concerns about this.

I did y'all sign up to speak at all?

We didn't.

Okay.

Um I I just I know that they they reached out to me and I wanted to at least acknowledge them and I don't know the specifics around it, but that's that's gonna work.

A normal part of that process as we do obtain the independent appraisal of the properties that we're seeking to make a purchase on.

Any other board comments?

Drew, yeah.

I mean, to the spirit of Director Martin, should we not invite uh residents that have concerns to come share?

I'm cool with that.

Yeah.

I'd I'd like to ask them to give them two minutes.

Mr.

Mr.

Yancey, you got and Miss Sellers, you got two minutes?

Or y'all want to tag team it and we can four minutes or five minutes?

How much do you get?

Who is this?

Two minutes.

Matthew Matt Matthew Yancey, right?

And Lisa Sellers.

Yes, sir.

Well, I know Lisa.

And um I I just think that the north side of town property is undervalued anyway.

Because as you know, when you have the most land and the biggest house on the block, your appraisal values are not as much.

I think it would be good to have maybe three appraisals.

Maybe a second opinion.

You know, did you make a counter offer at all to to this or kind of how's that going?

I I mean, I just think uh, you know, whatever y'all do, I'm gonna I'm gonna go with it, but uh I I think that the value of the land is probably twice of what you've offered everybody, including Miss Sellers.

Okay.

And I also have some other concerns.

I don't know whether that's to be addressed here or outside of this meeting, but there's two sewer lines that come in on the right side that have no easement and doesn't show up that they have an easement.

And I don't even know how they even ever got there.

Maybe that should be something we talk about with our engineer.

Yeah, and then uh another question is I've got one driveway, and so I don't know if I'm gonna be able at a certain point to get back and forth to my house while it's under construction.

So is there a loss of use provision there?

Is there funds allocated for that?

What are we looking at?

You know, I don't know, I'm just asking.

Sure.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Did you have some you had some other issues?

Yeah, I didn't know if you wanted to ask me something.

If you would our engineering department will work with you on that and hopefully answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

That gentleman Robert.

That gentleman right behind you.

Okay.

All right, sir.

Okay, thank you very much.

Go ahead.

Oh, and uh my concern was it was quite a difference between the two properties.

Um mine is fifty-nine and I believe his is 12, 125, maybe.

Um I spoke with Josh Mickle uh about that and also Chad Bethel, and they tried to explain some of it.

It was just pretty, you know, such a striking difference.

Um also uh I'm concerned about the safety of the area and uh opening up the the um part of my property.

It's already I call the police department probably every other week, and that is no lie every other week, especially on the weekends, and a lot of times I've noticed on Wednesdays, Wednesday mornings, there is uh shooting.

Uh I've called so much, I guess they've caught a few of them, and now I can hear their shooting with like a silencer, trying to muffle the sound.

I count the sounds, it's like automatic.

I wake up automatically, I have the police report police number on my phone in my contacts.

And um there, I guess it's deer poaching, but uh and then driving up and down Riverfront Drive, and it's like it's a standard conversation I have when I call in.

It's like, well, what's the address of the shooting?

And I'm like, well, there is no address, it's between Williams Lane and Gerber Lane.

And they're so what can you describe?

And I said, Well, it's on the a quarry, the rock quarry, and then it's like, well, what's a quarry?

They've had the police department has asked me, and I'm like, well, it's a body of water.

But uh it's just kind of uh it's a different area.

It's nothing like e you know, I don't guess anything else.

I grew up on Matthew Yancey's property.

That's where I grew up.

So if that easement's not there, my dad probably had something to do with that back in the day with the city directors then.

Um so I mean I've I've been connected to this area forever.

The but the shooting has never been like it is now.

And and I can't explain it.

I'll hear five consecutive shots, like you know, I'm starting to try to learn to identify my rifles now.

Is it a pistol?

Is it a rifle?

So my concern is my safety because one stray bullet, and this is opening up from Riverfront Drive all the way around to Newland Road.

It is just gonna be a pathway of trouble.

Okay, thank you.

Any consideration I wouldn't and protection, I would appreciate.

Thank you very much.

Can I say one more thing?

Do you care?

Okay.

Um one thing I forgot to mention is I've got a gate on my property because she was talking about safety concerns, and I've got two white pillars.

When they widen my road for the easement, they're gonna have to take out those two front pillars.

And I would just ask that they put me back a sufficient gate so that uh of course the city would have access to that gate as well.

Uh, but I would like to be able to open and close that gate so that you know only I and the city could go in and come on and off our property.

If if that's acceptable.

Yes, sir, and and thank you for mentioning me.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item seven.

Item seven is a resolution authorizing acquisition of sewer utility easements in connection with consent decree remedial measures project number 17-12-C1.

Mr.

Midke.

This this ordinance involves $2,600 in offers for easements and seven tracts.

Okay, thank you.

None indicating.

Motion to adopt the resolution.

Some of them.

Second.

Thank you.

Board comments.

Seeing none, call the wrong.

Directors Rigo?

Yes.

Good?

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Getzabis.

Christina Gassavis.

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero up.

Just time we'll go to our consent agenda.

Thank you, Mayor.

There are five items on tonight's consent agenda, including a resolution authorizing renewal of city automobile and property insurance for 2026 and 27.

A resolution authorizing a bid on 2024 street overlay reconstruction phase B, project 24-3-B.

A resolution accepting as complete and authorizing final pay to Crawford construction on project number 24-12-C1.

A resolution authorizing change order number one for the I-540 and Highway 255 utility relocation project number 23-10-C1.

And a resolution accepting bids for the purchase of vehicles and equipment for the public works department from equipment replacement funds and budgeted operating funds.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Larry Yancey is here to answer questions.

Okay, thank you for being here, Larry.

Okay.

Would any board member like to put any item for separate consideration?

Okay.

Seeing none.

We'll entertain a motion to adopt the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

A comments at all from the board.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Getzabis?

Yes.

Christina Get Savis.

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

Just I will go to the officials forum.

I don't have anything at the moment.

We'll go to Director Regal.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just uh real quick would like to uh make a motion uh two separate motions to have an item items considered on the uh uh March the 10th uh study session.

Uh the first one is I'd like to uh have a slot in the study session for uh presentation um from the bakery district around the engineering proposal and project uh at sixth and wheeler, uh some street and roadway safety stuff.

Uh it's been kind of with uh proposed to the city.

I think the engineering department's looked at it, or I know Stan did in the past, uh, and I would just like the opportunity for that to be considered uh publicly and let us all hear about it and and ask any questions we might have.

So good idea.

Okay, thank you.

And then um also an item uh where we could discuss um broadly speaking uh safety options around uh alleyway lighting.

Absolutely.

Okay.

I second that.

Thank you.

But both items for the 10th, if possible.

Okay.

Thank you.

Correct.

Good.

Nothing, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh Kim.

Thank you, Mayor.

Given the pending litigation um against the City of Fort Smith in regards to the Parrot Island water park slides, and so as not to further hamper or and even strengthen the city's position, um, I'd like to ask administration to resend the offer to Royal Ridge the contract of services that was offered up and reissue a revised RFB and request for bid.

Um this I think is the cleanest way to demonstrate how the process of separating aquatic work from structural work is where savings is, and to further strengthen the fact that we need to save time and money and not tie projects like this up into a litigation and seeking to continue to show that we have sought the lowest cost possible, which I think should be our goal.

Um technically, administration could do this without the board, but I know as I've spoken with administration, it would prefer that this would come as a direction from the board.

And I would like to offer this up uh to to administration to do this process.

Uh you know, we where this got tied into was exceptional situation and that this is not feasible.

And that was the also the complaint that was filed was addressing that that was not valid.

Um instead of tying this up, I think if they can initiate this process by February 22nd by publishing that, then the board could have review of those um bids on March 10th, and then could be if the board so moves, could bring it back to a regular meeting on March 17th.

So all this is doing is setting us back 30 days, and I think it further can demonstrate and shrink our position of transparency, and that we are seeking the lowest possible bid for the project.

So I don't know what administration needs from me or from us.

Obviously, I've made that statement.

I don't know if that requires a second, and maybe administration could weigh in on that.

And it certainly needs a second.

I mean I would appreciate uh consensus from the board on that on that matter, just because there is a there is a an active resolution that was adopted by the majority of the board that directs to the the awards of a contract to a contractor.

Um so in order to undo that, I think that we can we can we can certainly start the process of uh advertising for bids and doing that process, but I think there may be a technical requirement that we need to address at some point regarding rescinding the offer for a contract.

And I appreciate that.

And before our colleagues say anything, I will say to I did talk to uh Mr.

Rowe, and um he did convey what you just conveyed, and um from my understanding that all parties included in this are open to rescinding and will would not formally uh take any action, they would receive the city's request.

Yes, uh Mr.

Dingman, yeah, I'd echo what you said.

I think if the if the board were inclined to go down that path, there needs to be a resolution rescinding and terminating, or well, one rescinding the resolution the board passed, which approved the proposal by Royal Ridge, and two uh terminating the agreement approved thereunder, uh which would need to be memorialized in some form with Royal Ridge so that both of those parties agree that that agreement approved is is rescinded and terminated, and and the city thereafter can go through or are contemporaneously with that can go through the competitive bid process if it's so inclined to do that.

Okay, what are do we need a second?

We just need two to place it on a future book meeting.

We we need one of ask it for an action.

I mean we're yeah, we're definitely I don't want to put it on a meeting, then talk about it.

I'm requesting that we do it starting February 22nd.

If there's a second I'll second.

Okay, thank you.

Jeff, is that I mean, I I think what I don't want to do is get this in litigation.

Let's just was time to get this thing going and moving on.

And the cleanest way to do that is what I'm interested in.

I don't think we did anything wrong.

I think we've done this many, many times with providing us exceptional uh thing, but uh but I'm I'm willing to go with this, and if it's if it's gonna vacate the litigation, we move on and this thing start going because it's time to move on.

And furthermore, uh these companies are have that it did step forward in the process.

We're just trying to help, and they can come back, and so can other companies as well.

And so it just continues to echo the sentiment of the city is to get these things done at the lowest cost.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dingman and Ms.

Carr can correct me.

I uh there needs to be an action by the board to affirmatively resend that resolution and and terminate the contract approved by it.

Now, Miss Guard can correct me on procedurally, whether that can be done tonight.

I don't I don't know, I doubt it.

Uh but that that needs to be done by the board at some point.

So we put that on the we'll put that on the next meeting in March to do that.

At the same time, we have asked city administrator to go ahead and start the procedures of RFP and the process.

Yeah, RFB, yep.

And if I may, I'm sorry, I didn't catch who seconded that.

Correct.

Good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Director George Gossavage.

Yeah, and Josh, Matt, and then Joe come up here, please.

This is a two this is a two-part deal, so just bear with me.

At the last meeting, board meeting, I stated there were eight eight hundred shutoffs a month, and I was wrong, it's more like a thousand now.

We average around 900.

Um, especially in the middle of the year, uh about 900 a month.

Shutoffs.

Yes, sir.

And I also learned this is shocked me.

If there's children living in the house, if there's no running water for three days, they can be removed by services.

But is that true?

Uh I'd have to check that.

I've heard something of that, yes.

They could be forcibly removed from the home with no running water.

I think that's true.

But uh child child services or whatever.

Well, let me ask you this, Josh.

I hate I hate to see water cut off with kids in the house.

That you know, because now the schools are taking over, washing their hair, toothbrush, whatever.

Uh what and it's why don't we look at placing a lien on the property, say for give them six months, if they don't pay, then put a lien on the property.

We're gonna get our money one way or the other.

Is that possibility?

It's in our code that we're able to.

We don't exercise that just because we have a major around probably 50 or more percent of our customers are renters, and those renters are the account holders, uh-huh.

And then you'd be putting a lien on the property that doesn't belong to the actual account holder.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes a lot of sense.

Yeah.

And so then that's why we just continue with the disconnection of service as a way to um get that bill paid and not have more unpaid bills continue.

What other options do we have?

Those are the two that we do have in our code.

Uh uh.

I don't I I mean, I'm just I'm just uh I do these kids just can't let me know no child should live like that without water.

I mean, I just I mean imagine going home at night and no water.

And I know people have to pay their bill.

I'm not saying they're not supposed to pay their bill, but it's some other thing we can work out and move a payment.

See, that's and evidently there isn't.

No, there's nothing established.

If anybody does have a high bill through the investigation of that, we will postpone any kind of uh disconnection of service and fees until we get that figured out.

But just in general, with just a unpaid bill, there's it's by ordinance we are to send a disconnect notice and then uh after 30 days of the bill being issued, uh disconnection is done if the bill is not paid.

Yeah.

Well, answer me this question.

This uh she was on channel five.

Heather Adams got a thousand dollar water bill.

And she got an adjustment.

But the adjustment didn't show up till the next month.

So she didn't pay the thousand dollars.

Well, they shut her water off, even though she had an adjustment.

Why wasn't that noted by the person who logged us in that do not shut off the the adjustment made?

But then they just paid a reconnect fee to $50, correct?

Yeah, and that's not necessarily.

I mean, I I can't speak on individual customer account situations in public.

I mean, that's something I cannot.

That's correct.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, that information should not be disclosed publicly.

You know, I I think you discuss it generally as to procedures and and what should be handled in that situation instead of a referencing a specific account.

Yeah.

And so whenever we do get high bills that register on a reread, and the read comes back is verified.

We do outbound calls.

We did over 600 outbound calls last week.

Excuse me.

And the majority of those are calling customers to let them know they have a high bill if they have contact information on their account.

And we work through that process with the customer.

Um if we do not have any kind of um contact information for the customers, no, we can't make contact.

Um the bill, they will get the bill, and if they feel like it's incorrect, they will call us and we'll work through that process.

Okay, what percentage of what percentage would have to be considered high for normal use?

Uh for it to register a reread, it's 300% more than the uh previous read.

Well, a few months ago, Andre made the comment, which I thought made a lot of sense.

Why don't you look at their six-month average history and see, and then I mean, is that possibility and to see?

In regards to what?

I mean, looking at the six-month average.

Well, if their bills were in 35, 40 months of dollars a month for six months, and they get a 400 water bill.

That should that should tell you something.

Yes, and then in the instance, I mean we have the parameters set up that if it's 300 percent more than than the previous bill, then that will put up a high bill because again, I mean, we're looking at fluctuation throughout the year too, with using water at different times.

I know they're gonna fluctuate.

I don't understand.

Yeah, so we like to look at the previous read, and if the next one is 300 percent more, that generates a a high read for uh Matt's team to go out and make sure that the read is verified.

Okay, tell me this.

The lady that got the three thousand dollar water bill, how many gallons of water is that?

One CF 748 gallons, how much lead how many gallons, how many thousands of gallons would that be?

I'd have to sit down and actually figure that out to see.

I mean, I can I could send that to you to tell you what that would that bill and how much.

Well, Kevin, can you figure that out?

You're the in chemical.

If I remember seeing what I saw, it's a hundred, it was 11 tier because you gotta remember it's water and sewer, so 1001 tier uh at 7 foot and 50,000.

750, it's about 84,000.

84,000 gallons of water.

Yeah, that's at 111 tier.

You know, Jones, a bill like that shouldn't be sent out.

They should they should that they should raise that raise the red flag and say, hey, there's something wrong here.

If that number is correct, I don't I never I saw something.

Yeah, there could be a major leak.

I give I mean that's a possibility, but the people are I mean, this is bankrupting people.

You know, the one lady had three thousand on a bill selling her personal belongings to pay the bill.

I mean okay, let's talk, let's go to the meters.

Uh you're in charge of the meters.

Yes.

These meters are a piece of crap, Matt.

They're the cheapest meters you could buy.

I I agree.

I know.

I'm not I'm not getting on here to believe me.

I I know you two, you're good people.

Tracy, the former author went out to California to the plant, and she was appalled at the way these meters were being made.

Like they were just being thrown together.

There was no checks on them, there was no calibration.

The manufacturer says when we ship these, the cities that buy them have to test every meter before they're installed.

That wasn't done here.

So how how in the world can you say we didn't test every meter?

There's no way.

Well, we do we test every meter before it's installed.

Uh we don't need to do we have a test bench.

Well, we we test every meter before it's installed.

I'm talking about back years ago when we bought these.

Oh, back years ago.

Well, uh, I and I don't remember how long ago it's uh it was.

We got it hadn't been that many years ago when we got the test bench, but uh I can't speak to the Yeah, with the I know Lance Land they did they weren't tested, so how do we know these meters are accurate?

Well, I mean, any time we hit come up, uh I mean, most of these in the last several years have been tested, and so uh, you know and when we have questions come up, we come back and we test them.

You know, we'll pull the meter, we'll swap it out with one that's already tested, and then we uh and we'll test the one that we pull out.

I mean, a lot of times when we're coming up with these issues uh with with uh the majority of the time when we have concerns about the bills and we pull a meter uh and we test it, they pass the test.

They they pass with within the specified limits.

The the calibration.

So we're not seeing you know uh uh we're not seeing that many meters fail.

This meters are they'll read air, won't they?

I'm sorry, what?

They'll read air.

Want the air going through the line, they'll read it, won't they?

I can't I can't understand what you're doing.

The meters will read air.

Air that goes through the line, it'll read the air too, won't it?

Uh they shouldn't read air, they should be reading.

I think they do.

But it no, I mean it should be it should be fluid.

I mean water, when I say fluid, I should say water, not not fluid, but what haven't we looked at legal action against this company?

The other cities other cities are doing it.

Uh you know, I'm not the one to ask about legal action against the company.

Colby can you file a lawsuit against these people?

I need a little more context uh and direction.

Uh, I mean if the city contract with this uh some company to get meters and the meters are substandard, they failed some warranty, they failed contractual obligations, then yes, presuming we're within a statute of limitations period, the city could have a claim.

We'll file one tomorrow.

Okay.

That's the way I feel about it.

So Matt, the only so the the real solution here is new meters, isn't it?

Yes.

Um and then that's uh 2.6 million dollars per ten meters for a thousand ten thousand meters.

Yes.

Good meters.

Yes, yeah.

Yes, those were the cost for it for for badger meters.

Matt, I'm not blaming you or I mean you're the you know, you're the best street department plant we ever had.

I mean, he had.

I've always said that.

And you and you did what you did on the water leaks was amazing.

That's it's it's matter of opinion, but I appreciate it.

But I feel I got confidence if you can figure out something for this for this to stop.

People feel helpless.

So what could I mean can you all figure out something?

I mean Josh, especially the billing part is just what's bothering me.

I mean, we're doing the best I can we can on this.

I mean, uh when we have an issue that comes up on the on the as far as uh our part on the billing concern, I mean that first thing we do is go pull that meter and replace it with one that's tested on the bench, and then we then we retest that meter to verify whether there's an issue with the meter.

Yeah.

Um and so uh I mean that that's uh that's the first thing we'll do.

I mean, well, and also we'll be out on the rereads when those are triggered and and uh course those will be read in the field, so but 84,000 gallons of water for residents is just I mean that's just the buzz logic, deposit common sense.

And I want these people to know that that that that they're they're gonna be taken care of.

I mean you you can't just you can't do that.

And uh and the only thing I'll say, and I can't speak with specificity to to uh any particular bill, but I will say some of the stuff that's been going on out there and everything, some of the information is being passed around, the whole story isn't being relayed, and we're getting you know issues with people they haven't paid their bill for months, and that's why it's high.

They've been like I can understand that.

Well, you know, fence out the meter, lock us out of the yard, uh uh putting uh objects over the over the meter box so we can't get it open and can't get to it.

And so there's a lot of that going on a lot of these complaints, and we can't just come out here and you know, say the specificity, that's what's happening in this particular case right here.

I understand.

Does this billing system need to be revamped?

I'm sorry, what the billing system does it need to be revamped?

No, I I don't I don't think so.

You don't see any flaws in it at all.

I think I think Josh was doing an excellent job on it actually.

Josh does good work, I gave him credit.

Yeah, he does.

You know.

Uh you know, we're you know, they I believe they're continually meeting their goals and stuff on accurate bills, billing and everything.

So within an acceptable error the acceptable, what's considered acceptable amount of error on utility billing.

So uh as far as for statistical standpoint, I think I think yes, they're they're doing fine.

That's about all I got.

Okay, thank you.

Well, I have a a question related to that.

If it's not the meters, could it be the software that's doing the reading?

Okay, so there there are there are said limited errors, okay, is like the the Earth errors, the ERT errors and everything, there's there's a limited amount of errors where we're getting a wrong read in the transmission.

Uh or something's not being transmitted, and then all of a sudden one month it you know it picks up and then we get a a huge bill like that.

Uh but those are those are pretty limited.

I was looking at numbers Josh was showing me earlier from recent numbers and and on our our reread errors on our our actual errors.

I mean it was this on the last set of numbers I saw, there was only like 12% of them that were of the errors that were due to that.

Most of the errors, 88% were actually on manual reads, and just errors on the manual reads getting the wrong number essentially entered.

Because I I had a gentleman that contacted me and he had a $2,700 bill on his irrigation line that's been winterized.

And he said, you know, I could have filled my swimming pool twice.

And so I'm wondering with the software we have, is there any way we can put some safeguards in it where it's triggering uh a manual review when we have a situation like that.

Yes, and we did take the high reads off of irrigation because irrigation will fluctuate more than anything.

I mean, down to zero to we can put some more safeguards, especially on the irrigation side.

Okay, thank you.

I I got something I wanted to share with you.

Turn your mic, turn your mic.

I'm sorry.

Um, you know, one of the things that that obvious obviously folks getting a high bill, that's that's a that's a shock to them.

But it seems like I find out about it on social media.

Yeah, and people I and I get bombarded by it.

And I it would I would like to see some of this data that these 300 percent increase.

I'd like to see what those numbers are because a it would help prepare me, but also I think it might allow me to ask some additional questions.

I want to see how many of these are are out there on a billing cycle uh basis.

I don't I don't know.

I don't know if we need one every every cycle, but like one cycle, one run through.

How many are we getting that are hitting 300 percent higher than uh than the previous read?

And we did you had an email and you asked for some similar information.

So we were looking at making sure to get that end of month.

Okay.

So the first of March, we should have some reread information, see if usage did increase in February.

Um I will say before um we leave this subject is that this week customers will start getting bills with the three and a half percent sewer increase this week that was affected January 1st.

And so that usage um in January is now starting to be billed to customers.

So I do feel that the inquiries our phone calls will still continue to be higher than average because again, uh customers are being charged water usage for their sewer portion, and now their sewer rate is going up three and a half percent along with the base charge.

Well, I was always go back to that time where the one guy got a hundred plus thousand dollar bill.

And to me, to me, that should have never been.

I mean, yeah, that should have never gone out.

No.

And some of these I I question should it have ever gone out.

Now, I know there's some extenuating circumstances that we we're aware of on some of these, but you know 4300 or whatever on it on a water bill, it to me I think we need to pause and and do something.

Now, if we don't have contact information, we don't have contact information, but man, I I tell you, we've got a we've that's a shock to people.

It's a shock to me, but it's a shock to people, and I figure there's a way that we can mitigate that as much as possible.

I think that would be helpful.

Okay.

Matt and I have worked really well together and we'll continue to do that to make more improvements.

Okay, thank you.

I had one more thing.

Um in speaking with residents, they feel like the project concern uh paperwork can be kind of cumbersome.

So when we have a situation like Director George Kit Savis was talking about where people are looking at shut-offs and we're um letting them know about the program, do we have the ability to walk them through that through all the forms because I hear it can be quite lengthy?

Yes, we do have a dedicated employee that works at City Hall in the collections area that uh does all the project concern applications and she is there to uh speak with any customer that comes in and inquires about it and walk them through uh the paperwork.

Because I I had someone that reached out to me and I I told them about project concern and they said the the paperwork is overwhelming.

Um so we have someone that we can direct them to specifically for that purpose.

Yes, they're at City Hall in the collections area.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh director Costa, do you have any other items?

Okay, direct settled.

No.

Okay, director Neilmar.

Nothing for me, Mayor.

Mayor, could I say something?

Yes.

Let me tell you would you all be interested in having a water advisory board that does nothing but look into these high water bills and let that let them be an advocate for the for the owner or the person?

I I would like to see what this data shows us.

What I'd like to see what the data shows us that Josh uh just mentioned, yeah, and see what that looks like before maybe doing something.

Well give them the power to negotiate with the city.

I mean, you know, again, common sense 84,000 gallons.

Well, I I yeah, I I I agree.

I don't I don't know if I'm there yet, George.

I'll just say I don't think the city, I don't think they understand.

Maybe not.

I mean, they're saying what a what a uh defective meter rig is what you owe.

Yeah.

If you go to the gas station put paper ten dollars of gas and it's two dollars a gallon, you get three gallons.

Right.

Oh, that's that's all you get.

I mean, I I guess I I look at it and say, how many of these are happening?

Because that's that's really what I know, want to know how many of these are happening.

I could I could factor in, we've got maybe uh margin for error at a certain percentage, you know, yeah, single digit one, two percent.

But if we're seeing this like in the hundreds and the thousands, and and there's just some folks that are just paying it.

There, you know, they're like, I got this large bill, I'm just paying it.

Well, I want to I kind of want to know what that looks like before before we maybe initiate something more.

Well, you know, you know what I mean?

Yeah, I understand.

But I don't know.

Well, so let's see what happens.

Uh let's take a look at it.

Let's see.

How quickly can we get that data?

He said end of the month.

Okay.

End of this month.

So Josh said anything over 300% is considered high.

That's that's considered marked for a reread, which is what I'm asking to see.

You is that right, Josh?

Okay, yep.

Okay, does that include a leak check too?

Not just not just to re-read, does that include checking for leaks?

Well, on these high bills, we do inspections on the meter, and if we see movement, we'll notify the customer.

Um, if there's a leak on their side, that's their responsibility to find that.

We did 165 leak adjustments in January.

And so with all the adjustments we did that even Matt spoke about with the read errors, we were at a 99.35% billing accuracy.

How do we how do we get the adjustments posted so these people's water don't get turned off?

Again, we work with the customer, but they have to work through the process to see if they have a leak if we can do an inspection and see movement.

Um we check to make sure even Matt's team on the meter maintenance will make sure the meters working properly and we go through the process.

Um, why can't they just punch in so they do not shut off the adjustments being made and not and cost them $50 reconnect fee?

If we're working with the customer, we do post.

You can do that.

We do.

We do postpone it while we're doing an investigation through that process.

We had a few uh that we're working on even this month.

I'll I'll just add to that.

I mean, it is uh incumbent upon the customer then to be working with customer service when they have a high bill before they get shut off.

I mean, a lot of times they don't the the customer doesn't come in to work with customer service until the water has been shut off.

And so if they're if they are responsive to the notices and such and make contact with customer service representatives, then they can do the things that you're talking about, Director Catabas.

But if they wait until the shutoff happens, well, I I understand that that happens, I agree.

I don't know that that's fair because I talked to a lot of people that have they've called in and they have issues, they don't get anywhere when they call in.

Yeah.

Well that's what I hear all the time.

What one of the the one that was $4300, that was the one thing that that threw me off about that is that call in came the month after the high bill.

And so uh you I I encourage people once you get it, call.

But you're right.

I mean, if there's a customer service issue, we obviously we've got to deal with that.

We gotta get that right.

Yeah, that's why we need an advisory committee to deal with that.

Somebody unbiased and that'll do that'll you know, take care of the people.

Yeah, I'm just gonna jump on in there, Mary.

Everyone else is doing the same.

I know you're getting ready to call on me, but I I just wanted to put in some comments as well.

You know, all these situations are different.

You know, Director Martin is talking about a 4300 dollar bill.

Um, you know, I actually just had a lady with over $3,000 water bill, and working with Matt and Josh both.

I mean, they go through the process, you know, we we get the air, we get the averaging, what they do what they do.

But the fact of the matter is with this one particular high bill, which was over three thousand dollars, the lady had um uh a leak up in our house, and she didn't realize that her water bill had gotten so much, she seen on social media that people's water bills were going up.

So she just thought that this was part of the problem uh was a billing.

So and she didn't question anything until she you know messaged me.

But again, I mean, each of these situations are different, but I do want to say, and this is the only reason why I'm interrupting right now, is that these guys are doing what they're doing, and they do it well.

Matt, I appreciate you and your team, Josh, you and your team as well.

You know, we've got you know, meter problems that we've talked about for years, and and and I want to recall a meeting that we were at on cabin, I think it was Cavanaugh, the senior citizens we were talking about meters, and we were all talking about the expense and cost of meters and making sure that people paid what they owed.

You know, it's a tough conversation.

You know, if we start looking for reasons to not have people pay, I mean the the reasons are out there, but there also are a lot of reasons why people aren't paying.

Some of these, some of these bills that that I've even advocated for, and I didn't realize that they're only paying partial payments, or they're not paying bills at all.

Or instead of paying the water bill, they're doing something else.

I have just as much feeling as you do for kids being at home without water.

But it's the same without food, it's the same without both parents, it's the same without you know utilities, it's the same without medication, it's the same with our pets.

We all have all these things that we care about, but we also have to provide a service, and we have to rely on our teams that are doing this service to do what they do, and us as legislators to perform whatever duties we need to do to make sure that our processes and mechanics in these processes are functioning right.

Okay, thank you.

Um Director Neil Martin, you didn't have anything for the right?

No, sir.

Okay.

We'll go to the administrator.

Okay.

If there's nothing else, motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

I thank you.