Well good evening and welcome to the fourth Mississippi Board of Directors meeting.

We're gonna have a combination of a special meeting and a study session.

Um this March 31st of 2026.

Keep in mind these meetings are being televised live.

Um at this time uh we're gonna ask the clerk to please call the roll for the special meeting.

Directors Rego Good Kemp here George Kitsavis, Christina Kitsavis here, settled here, Martin Kemp, or I'm sorry, Rego.

Okay, thank you very much.

This time I'll ask that there's any presentation by a member of the board or directors of any item of business not already on the agenda for this meeting.

Yep.

You recognize thank you.

Um tonight I'm bringing forward something that I believe gets at the heart of what our responsibility is as leaders, and that is protecting the people we serve when it matters most.

Over the last several days, we've all seen first hand what happens when major health care decisions are made without notice.

Health care is as fundamental to community as water, public safety, or infrastructure, and when access to that care is suddenly taken away, the consequences are real and they are immediate.

What I'm introducing tonight is a letter that asks the Arkansas General Assembly to put in place a requirement that hospitals provide at least 180 days public notice before shutting down major service lines like labor and delivery, emergency services, or other critical care departments.

This does not tell hospitals what decisions they can or cannot make.

It simply ensures that when those decisions are made, communities are not blindsided.

If adopted, this would be some of the strongest legislation in the country on this issue.

120 days is what's typical right now in other states.

It would put Arkansas at the forefront of protecting patients, families, and local communities from sudden disruptions in care.

Because bringing a child into this world is hard enough.

Facing a medical emergency is hard enough.

We should not be making those moments harder by failing to plan, communicate, and prepare.

This is about giving people time, time for patients to adjust, time for providers to coordinate care, time for communities to respond responsibly instead of react in crisis.

And it's also about respect.

Respect for the people who rely on these services every single day.

I'm proud to bring this forward, and I hope we can stand together and sending a clear message that Fort Smith expects better and that our residents deserve better.

And I've included a copy for everyone.

If we need to um make any adjustments, add or subtract anything, I would certainly welcome your comments.

Um I'd love to have your signatures on it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mayor, I did have another point as well.

Point of order for business.

Thank you, sir.

Um I'd like to make a motion for consideration for an additional request for congressional spending.

When we talked about the 911 center uh with Dr.

Mylam, I mentioned is there any opportunity for congressional spending for the radios and the towers, uh, the microwaves, the antennas, the things that we're gonna we know we will have to buy.

Um that's not optional, like it's gonna be a a need, not a want.

Um and at the time we did indicate that there was, and if we don't take action to that this year, then we are looking at requesting in 27 for fiscal year 28, and I think it would be good and worthy to consider at least a discussion tonight of a third request for the 911 services radio towers.

I know Dr.

Mylan could speak more to that.

Perhaps maybe even Chris Hoover could come or things of that nature.

I'd like to see if we could place that on the T the item tonight.

Okay, thank you.

Any other item need to be added?

I think that requires a vote, Mayor.

Okay, they they both do uh on the first item.

We we do need uh a second and a vote to add that item onto the agenda requires all seven to concur.

Okay, on on the first item introduced by director Savis.

Do we get a second?

I'll second it.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, you want to call the roll?

Directors Rego.

Yes.

Good.

And this is just to add the item onto the agenda.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis, yes.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin.

Is that yes?

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed.

Therefore, the item will be added as item number three on the agenda.

Okay.

And the next item uh introduced by director um.

I'll second director Kemp's motion.

Thank you.

Madam Krug, please call the roll.

Director's good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis.

Christina Kitzavis.

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rico.

Yes.

Motion passes seven in favor and zero opposed be item number four.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

At this time we'll go uh to the first item on the agenda.

Thank you, Mayor.

Both items, well, the first two items for consideration at the special meeting are resolutions authorizing the city to submit application for fiscal year 27 congressional directed spending project funding from Senator John Bozeman's office.

Board approval of such applications are required per the city's grants policy.

The Senator's office has published a deadline of April 5th for receipt of applications.

Item one is a resolution approving application to fund phase 2A1.2 of the Lake Fort Smith water transmission line with 12 million dollars of fiscal year 27 CD CDS spending.

This is a continuation of the fiscal year 24 CDS project to fund phase 2A 1.1 of this project.

Item 2 is a resolution approving application to fund water and sewer utility infrastructure relocation ahead of the RDOT project to widen and improve the section of Rogers Avenue from Waldrin Avenue to 74th Street.

The proposed CDS request is for 20 million dollars to relocate the city's infrastructure.

Each resolution acknowledges that there will be local match funds required for these projects.

If both or either project are carried forward to award, there will be an award acceptance agreement for the board's consideration and approval at a later date.

The action this evening only authorizes application.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Gary Podgarski.

Okay, thank you.

If there are no further citizens' comments, we'll understand a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Second.

At this time we'll get board comments.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call direct from Neil Martin.

What's what's the total cost on 2A?

The total cost of 2A is approximately 25 million dollars.

Okay.

And we have 12 already for 2A.

Yeah, and we've actually got some great news that I don't want to take from Chris, but uh we've secured an extra three million for that.

Okay.

You want to share that, Chris?

I was just doing my homework.

Um we within the funding guidance that we got from the EPA that basically kind of lays out what um they want to see in order for us to actually apply for the money.

So let me take a step back.

So we we got the earmark through Senator Bozeman, 12 million dollars in FY24.

Um but each CDS or Congressional Directed Spending, Community Project Funding, um, you know, these earmarks they flow through grant programs that are within the federal agencies.

And so we have to do all this prerequisite work, um, the financial plan, the work plan, all that jazz, and then we take it to the EPA, uh and then they'll open up the application, and then we go through that process of applying for it.

Uh, and then that's when we'll come to a grant agreement, bring that grant agreement to the board.

Hopefully you'll approve it, and then we'll move forward.

Um so this project used to be under uh water utilities with uh um Lance and and since there is the reorganization it has come under engineering, so I just decided to do uh another kind of refresh relook, just uh you know make sure our T's were crossed and our I's were dotted, and um came across uh some waiver exemptions and uh basically found out that after diving into the data that we were I think it was like 1.6 percent uh over a um uh what they require in order to request exemption.

So uh double checked it, uh had drafted a letter and um we sent it off and here we are.

So we got uh three million waiver for uh the match that um we were required to have.

Very cool.

Um you know I think one of the things to to think about for the for the audience to be aware of.

Um you know I think one of the things to to think about for the for the audience to be aware of, you know, a lot of times we weigh um some of these positions that we we hire, grant administrator, auditor, and things like that in terms of you know how much money they can save us, and I think uh Mr.

Hoover significantly um paid for himself over and over and over with three million dollars.

So awesome work and so and and so as we as we move forward with this, I I hope everybody remembers that and um in two years people ask, oh well why we have a grants administrator for that reason right there.

So thank you, Chris.

Okay.

Would you like to make any further comments uh about the proposal?

No, sir.

I am here to ask answer any questions you might have specifically.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other comments from the board?

Okay, Madam Clerk, I'll roll.

Yes, George Kitsavis, yes.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled, yes, Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, point of inquiry.

I I know procedurally it's uh we did it in the order that they were submitted, but it would it be possible or would the board be amenable to um flip-flopping items three and four, since item four you know is in the same topic area as items one and two.

Just so we can do that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um other comments.

Uh Madam Clerk, do we have you're gonna you've introduced item two already?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh we need a motion to adopt a resolution.

Mayor.

Yes.

We do have Mr.

Poderski to uh address item number two as well.

Okay.

Yes, please.

I'm sorry.

Probably for Mr.

Todd, actually.

So you're looking at 40 million total item two is the road, correct?

20 million from 20 million from them plus 20 million from us.

No, just the 20 million from them to cover our unexpected costs from the RDOC project.

Okay, so are we adding lanes?

This was an RDOC project that's actually I don't know the scope of the case.

Could we use the mics just for those watching all the things?

They're adding they're adding two lanes, sidewalks, all that kind of stuff.

Okay.

My question comes down to is 20 million dollars going to cover redoing the bridge over I-540.

To add the lanes that you want to add.

This this project is just for utility relocation.

The street project, all of the infrastructure work is going to be done by R Dot.

Okay.

Our responsibility is just the walk moving the water and sewer utilities out of the right-of-way, out of the way of the new the new project.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any more any more public comments?

Madam Clerk.

With any other indicating?

Okay.

This time we'll entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So thank you this time, Director Neil Moore, and you recognize it.

Just one thing that I always ask when uh this project comes up.

Are they burying the electrical lines?

Do we know if that's a thing yet?

Yes.

They are?

Yes, we've come to uh verbal ongoing discussion with the power company to bury the electrical and put lighting there.

So if I post that out on social media, I won't be I won't look like an idiot.

You will not.

Very good.

And intend his uh 400,000 from state city roadway funds for the electric company to be able to bury those lines.

Very good.

That's awesome.

That'll make the that that drive that road will be so much prettier without all those electrical lines.

Thank you.

And I like to add on on the three million that that you discovered through uh looking at the rules and rigs.

Uh I think in this case is evidence of the relationship we built with EPA over the last couple of years uh for them to immediately uh take the request and then understand the importance of what we're trying to do.

And again, thank you for your hard work.

And and Mayor, I'd like to add uh just one really quickly.

Uh I think this also shows the importance of um relationships with our congressional delegation.

Uh their field staff.

Uh I I would be remiss if I didn't um uh give a shout out to Jesse Soley.

She's our local field representative here based in Fort Smith for the Senator.

She does fantastic work.

Uh but then also uh on their their appropriation staff, uh Cody Gardner, um Ben Campbell and Andrew Kelly, they've been instrumental in uh giving us guidance uh through this process, and and they've been huge.

So uh uh shout out to them.

Okay, thank you thank you very much.

Um Director Newman.

Also, with that, I know everybody's excited for Bass Pro to come in along with this uh Rogers Avenue um work that they're gonna do, they're gonna be redoing that entrance to the Bass Pro.

So I know everybody's been concerned about that that area um connecting Rogers Avenue.

So uh that's pretty exciting too.

Okay, thanks.

Uh since we've got sidetracked, did we understand a motion to adopt this resolution?

Okay.

And we've had the board comments, please call the roll.

Directors George Kitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kit Savis.

Yes.

Settle, yes, Martin, yes.

Rego, yes.

Good, yes.

Kim.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Okay.

This time we'll go to item number three, which will be item four.

The spending one.

Right.

I'll uh yield to uh director Kemp for introductory comments and call upon uh Dr.

Mylan to to uh join us.

Mylon is director of public safety communications.

Yep, thank you for that.

Um I I just appreciate you all allowing us to talk about this tonight.

I think one of the things that if we aren't careful, um we're going to have that cart before the horse situation again with our first responder expenses.

I mean, we need there are things we know we are talking about tonight in study session, things I know that he'll present to us, but he already has presented to us this need of radio equipment, and when we were talking about it, and we said, hey, is there any congressional opportunity to utilize these dollars for these expenses?

It would then bring greater relief to the general fund to take on maybe other items that we know we need to take care of for our first responding team all together, looking not just at the 911 center, but anything we would ever consider with the South Precinct, when you look at the whole picture, I I think if we can see and secure congressional spending, and I love the Rogers Avenue project, happy to be a yes.

I just have concerns on whether that really gets represented as a project that pushes through.

Whereas if we could resolve in its entirety the dispatch needs of equipment, then that allows us to pay our dollars towards a facility or whatever else we're gonna need to do to establish this new radio equipment somewhere.

Um so I I defer to them to bring any other introductory comments.

I mean, do you all see this as something that you would like to see considered?

Do you feel like it has any merit to bring up or is this wasted time?

And I'd love to hear your comments.

Well, understandably, Director Kemp has to use the microphone, please.

Understandably, Director Kemp, having any type of uh additional uh earmark funding for technology such as 911 communication equipment is preferred.

Uh in fact, um what I'm discussing tonight in the study session is going to meet this critical need for the radio communications equipment.

And I've been uh researching ways in which we can find grant funding and and things uh that we can use to reduce that workload on the general fund and still be able to uh replace the much needed radio communication equipment.

In fact, um on Tuesday of next week, the seventh, uh Congressman Womack is actually coming to tour the 911 facility, uh, and we're going to be meeting with them Tuesday morning, discuss options to discuss what else is available, things like that.

Um I believe that uh Congressman Bozeman uh may be able to as well, or or is I mean, we can talk about any.

I'm looking at anything, so any any recommendations that you can give me any allowances that I can get in order to replace this uh needed equipment is one other question then would be for Chris.

Chris, the Senator uh Congressman Wolmack has already moved past this threshold.

Um so it would be another year before we could really hop in unless there was a special circumstance to develop.

Could you speak to that timeline of of why this could be prudent to to seek it now through uh Senator Bozeman?

So it it really has to do with the request deadline for the appropriate appropriations committees that um both uh the House and the Senate have.

Um with Congressman Woolmack his was due uh earlier in March with Senator Bozeman, theirs is due April 5th.

Um and that's honestly one of the reasons why we have this special or having this special meeting is because originally uh the deadline was for April 12th, and so we thought we were gonna be able to bring these resolutions to the board uh at our next regular general meeting, but uh timing didn't work out, so that's where we're having it now.

Um but from uh the Senate's perspective, um you know I mentioned earlier how each grant program uh each request has to flow in through a grant program.

Now I will point out uh and just for clarity, uh number one, there's no guarantee that any request that we put in is going to be um granted and that uh the member is going to carry it forward.

Uh number two, there's no guarantee that it's going to make it through the appropriations process.

But then number three, uh it could uh get carried forward and it could go through the appropriations committee, and then Congress could end up doing a year-long continuing resolution, and then any and I see Director Regio shaking his hands because his head, because he knows this process all too well.

Um and then that those those earmarks that were uh secured get lost.

So to your point, um Director Kemp.

Yes, we could.

Um I believe that we could do it through one of the DOJ programs.

So I think it would be an eligible request.

Um I would have to look at the the numbers uh to see what I think an appropriate amount uh to ask for would be.

Um I I would also say I think it's uh if the board decides to submit direct city administrator to submit uh uh an application that we should just go ahead and submit for a higher amount.

Um and if the Congress the Senators decides to carry it forward, uh then it would it could get through out the higher amount, and if it gets cut, it gets cut, uh not down to lower amount.

Um I think really it's just you know there's a lot of variables, but uh yes, it would be an eligible.

One final question, I'll yield back my time to the colleagues.

Do we have an idea of how much we're talking about in radio equipment?

How much this amount of money you would need to establish this radio equipment?

Uh to replace the one-for-one for what we have now and to prepare for the future.

You're looking at a recommendation of 12, and that would be approximately three million.

Three million.

Okay, thank you.

And Director Kemp, I'll also add that, you know, there are there are a lot of um needs, obviously, that our our our great city has.

Um you know there are a lot of different things that we could put in requests for.

Um, but uh you know, I think it's important to know to always have a a roll index of these projects.

So year after year, um when this these opportunities come up, we can you know submit and we we're ready.

Um a lot of times, and this year is an example, uh, we got the funding notification very quickly, and the applications have to be due very quickly.

And so I think it's uh moving forward.

If I had any advice for the board, it would be to maybe have a little bit of that conversation maybe in the fall.

Uh just so we're not coming to the board at the last minute, we're able to do our homework, uh, make sure that the congressional staff, the appropriation staff specifically, um are able to really guide us and uh tell us yes, eligible or not eligible.

Here's what we recommend, here's what the congressman or senator are looking for, and then we we move from there.

Director Christie.

We don't have a location selected, correct?

Because we decided that Borough Road wasn't ideal.

That's correct.

What I'm talking about is replacing the equipment within the current Senate.

Right.

Well, Director Kent mentioned a tower.

We don't know that we need a tower if we don't know the location.

The radio equipment, I would be I would be fine with looking at that, but we're gonna look like a bunch of amateurs if we're asking for money for a tower when we don't know that we need a tower where our location is gonna be.

No, you're absolutely correct.

The equipment that we would be looking at that I uh the my map that I was thinking is simply just the radio equipment.

We really don't need to get into a tower and back all communications uh connections unless we have that location to talk about.

And that's for another discussion as we'll talk about later on because of the deadline uh within the systems that I have.

Um my priority is just replacing what I've got now in the center that I've got now.

Okay.

I I would be on board with that.

Would you be open to amending it to the tower?

I just want to satisfy the the three million dollar burden that I see brewing no matter what.

So absolutely.

You can remove any language.

And I would actually just advise to say that staff take in consideration or word it the best way properly to accurately describe what we're looking for to the tune of what you need to take care of the radios.

Yes, sir.

Right, we go.

So I should have a process question.

Uh hate to be that guy, but uh, you know, so the first two here, you know, we handled in a very particular way uh with a resolution that was drafted out that we could all look at and vote on.

Uh the deadline is Easter Sunday is is the hope that uh some a resolution is produced and we have another meeting uh is does it take very long if we want to just keep a similar form uh to the resolutions like we voted on already in items one and two.

Does it behoove us uh given that this is holy week and everyone's schedules are tight?

Does is it possible to take a uh 15-minute adjournment and we could have a resolution drafted up to consider or 20 minutes.

I just you know w I we have to handle these uh the same way.

I don't think we could just say, hey, also throw in some money for radio equipment.

I mean, so there's an actual procedural question that I think is outstanding.

I I think we could do it a couple of ways.

Number one, as you suggest, uh uh have someone fashion a resolution for for circulation and adoption, which I think is likely the best just because it's similar to the previous processes.

The only oh we can do we could do that.

And then uh similarly when as we've done in the past, we've memorialized motions into a written format where the mayor authorizes it it it memorializes it much as a resolution would.

Um but I think if uh I don't know who I can task with that at the moment.

Uh there we go.

Um anyways, we could we could task with someone to uh take one of these resolutions and modify it and Wes will be happy to my question.

I mean, we do require a vote.

Yes, and so you know, because it has to be, I would imagine, similarly structured to the action.

I mean it's really uh just approval just in terms of complying with our own grants policy.

I think the the motion itself and the authorization to move forward is the important piece, which we could memorialize either through a resolution or through a a written written account of the motion itself.

Or point of information would be we really are doing this in compliance of our own policies that we enact on ourselves, not so much that we have to do.

So we have to see the exact written document to be approved.

I don't want my name on something I haven't seen a document for.

That's fair.

But I guess my only comment would be are we not the legislative policy directing board?

And then we direct staff to do as we have decided in policy?

That's correct.

I'm good either way.

I'm just wanted to make those points.

Thank you.

What's the wish of the board?

Right, Savage, you recognize.

My my fear is, you know, our water infrastructure is so critical.

My fear is that we're going to look like we can't prioritize.

And you know, all the state law requires is consolidation.

It doesn't require new radio equipment.

I understand it yours is getting old and it needs replacement.

I'm wondering if this wouldn't be if we wouldn't be better served to prioritize the water infrastructure this year and look at this and be prepared for next year when it comes around.

Is the equipment is still operational?

At the moment, yes.

I'm I'm basing this on one of the agenda items that you have for next week's regular board agenda is the cost of moving uh the radio equipment from Sebastian County to the River Valley Peace App.

Uh and in working with Motorola, I've been trying to to find out how much these costs are going to be in order to do a one-for-one replacement in anticipation of of looking for grants.

Um Motorola is uh is uh very particular about doing all this.

So I've been working on this since about February.

Okay.

So I've got kind of an idea before this.

Okay, thank you.

I'll just point out just as a reminder, you know, a year ago when we were talking about submittal to Congressman Momak's uh office for um for this type of funding, uh we did submit for a I think a five million dollar request for uh equipment related to the consolidated dispatch center.

So it's not without precedence that we that we um that we look at this funding mechanism for these needs.

And that was to Senator Boseman.

Uh okay.

Sorry.

Real quick, when we we had like six items, I think that that we originally had five or six items.

Um we we narrowed it down to these two.

Was anything related to these uh these radios part of that list?

It was not part of that list.

We did discuss it early on as to whether it made sense to um make application for or recommend to the board to look at that.

And you know, this this discussion here is helpful.

Uh but our our thought process at that point was prioritization of water projects and also a little bit of the the state of limbo that the the 911 center is in because of it's look we're looking at a temporary location for a period of time.

Uh but but even then, even in a in its temporary location, it still has needs for radios as Wes has pointed out here, and uh whether those are items that need to be replaced in the temporary center or if we need to wait and do something when we identify something for on a more permanent basis.

I mean all of those things are gonna come into play and we'll be really working with the best options we have at the time.

And and I could add to that, if we replace the equipment in this center when we decide and find a place to go, it'll move.

Okay.

I just uh I just go back to that prioritization.

It wasn't in the list, and now we're we're potentially bumping up.

Not that that's a bad thing, but we're just potentially bumping something up and probably that wasn't there.

And Director Martin, I will uh um you know Director Savis, Christina Kasavis made the the point about you know um you know why this year and and you know uh if you're ever in our staff meetings, uh I'll tell their department heads, you know, let's get the congressional staff here, let's get the the members here, let's get their eyes and ears on the ground within our city.

And so I I think maybe it would be helpful to have um those conversations with them so that we are uh better educating them so that they can better advocate for us.

Uh if if it's decided that FY2 eight requests are um better suited for this.

Okay.

So it you you you basically you educate, you talk about those things and then you make the ask.

Yes, that's what you're advocating rather than and and we haven't necessarily had those conversations with them up to this point.

Correct.

So where are the state funds for this going?

What are those going towards?

What's if you wouldn't mind, speak more directly into the microphones?

So the state funds go directly into the operating uh to offset the operating costs.

Staffing.

For staff, yeah, personnel costs, um, fees, maintenance for all of the systems, including the 911 equipment, uh the the lines for 911, you've got all of the um you know the radio maintenance type situations, you've got tower maintenance, all of these things is that's what the state is is funded for.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So uh administrative, what do we need to do at Digital?

I'll defer to the board's just discretion.

We can certainly uh have someone fashion a resolution for the board's consideration.

And we can take whatever time we need to do that, we can do that at a later point.

Mayor, I uh I will say I did I did bring my computer that have both resolutions that ours before y'all.

So hypothetically we could draft those really quick, pop them up on the screen, um and do that.

But Chris, is it your recommendation professionally uh and with the experience that you have that given that if I understood you correctly, there was a request made for this equipment in the past that was unsuccessful.

Is that understood correctly?

And that we have not um refreshed our members uh in person about this equipment that you would recommend uh looking at the next funding cycle for the radio equipment with a particular focus on having our members of our delegation uh visit and talk specifically about it.

Yes, sir.

Um I think uh from a teaching standpoint, uh that that would be best.

Um I think it's always important just to get their eyes and ears on the ground, get them more educated on our projects, and I think ultimately from uh long-term perspective, that would help them better applicate for us.

So do I need to withdraw my motion?

That's why I was asking at the beginning here.

If we feel like we're on wasted breath, or do we feel like we should direct this to go to them or not?

I I would also say that it doesn't hurt to submit three requests.

Uh you know, that doesn't mean that we're gonna get all three by any means, but um, you know, I I would say that uh any elected official, uh especially at the congressional level, state level, obviously local level, uh public safety is always uh at the front of mind.

And so I I think any any requests relating to public safety would for sure be a strong candidate.

Director Christine.

Did we get feedback on why um it was rejected last time?

No, ma'am.

Uh if you want modern spinning, I think it's because the the request was a little a little bit too large.

Uh but then um but then also you have to remember that uh for FY25, um there was a continuing resolution, and so all the projects that were um so we let me take a step back.

So we requested um yes for FY26.

So FY25, all the projects were getting through, and then Congress couldn't come to funding agreement.

And so uh as part of the continuing resolution, all of the earmarks that got in uh were pulled.

And so for FY26, um it was very heavily competitive because you had basically two years worth of projects competing for one year of funding.

So uh I think essentially I think that's why we we didn't get it.

Because we we we've definitely had a uh strong funding um application.

I really feel like this may be better placed with Congressman Walmack's office for the the upcoming cycle, especially if he's coming to tour than submitting it to Bozeman as well as as the water infrastructure, because I just don't want to do anything that looks like we're not prioritizing that critical water infrastructure, and I know this is important too, but um with Congressman uh Walmatt coming to tour, I I could I could see this being something he might advocate for uh when his funding cycle opens again.

Thank you.

Okay, Director Settle.

Is is the both Senators have equal share, so and this is through John John Bozeman, why not uh Senator Cotton's office office?

Senator Cotton doesn't does uh not um he he does not take your mark request.

Thank you.

So that that's why we are uh just with Cardinals Woolmacker or Senator Brisbane.

Senator Bozeman's a Fort Smithian, so I understand the reason why, but I just didn't know if there was an option to do two paths there.

That's the reason I was asking.

Yeah, and it if Senator Cotton wise, you all know I would definitely uh be working that that level for you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Director Camp.

Yes, thank you.

And I appreciate the discussion.

I would say this may be a reason why to go back a second time.

I think if you were to pull it off and then you come back, I mean, did it was it important or not important?

You know, and it there if it probably would have been funded had we not got into the deadlock of federal politics and continue resolutions blow through those issues.

So I think to me it's either decided this is a project you want to bring up or don't bring up.

And uh if you skip it out, then you know, I and I echo as well and I agree that water structure infrastructure is very important, but so is saving lives, and I think we'll learn more about that.

So I just feel like it's uh it's uh the situation where I would trust that Senator Bozeman could make the decision of how he thinks he could best fund, and perhaps he funds all three, and then on the middle project for Rogers Avenue, he makes an adjustment of what he'll do.

Uh but to me, if you weren't awarded, bringing it back shows urgency.

But that's just me.

Director Good.

Thank you, Mayor.

Actually, I just want to just agree with what you just said, Director Kemp.

I was gonna say the same thing.

I I absolutely agree that we need to be strategic in our planning and in presentation.

We want to be smart about it.

But we can't second guess what they're gonna think.

So knowing that we can have more than one priority, public safety has to be right up there at the top.

Yes, our water issues are are at the top, but so is public safety.

So I think we should go ahead and file for both.

And Director Good, I I will say there there may come a question from uh the congressional staff as to what our priority project is.

And so I would want I would want the the board to water water.

Absolutely water.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we need a uh to move forward with creating a resolution.

Well, then I would make a motion that we go into a recess for such time as may be required to have a draft resolution for us to consider.

Second that.

Okay.

I don't know.

We got a good long study session we can do, so I imagine we'll have plenty of time.

Can we do that?

Can we go into the session while we're in recess?

We still talk about it.

We still got another item.

10 minutes.

Can we or I guess we could talk about the other item right on this agenda?

So I guess we just would move back.

Okay.

Let's go to the final item on the agenda.

So I I just had a couple questions because if I understand the request from earlier, it's that you want uh you know us to us to sign on as a as a board.

And so when I think about uh signing on to something, I I have a couple questions.

Uh the first being, and I think you touched on it earlier, but I just wanted to make sure I was clear why 180 days, why what's the significance of that uh number?

And did you mention that 120 is what they're at now?

What standard and I would be uh, you know, if that's what it takes to get this signed, I'd be willing to adjust down to that.

But I uh to me a hundred and eighty days is what's appropriate when someone's going to lose their job to give them notice.

It's um what's appropriate to get care shifted with providers aren't always available.

I've been speaking with health care providers every single day, multiple uh providers since this came out, and that was I I had a meeting last night, and this was what they felt like was appropriate for getting care shifted to other um other hospitals, uh getting their patients uh moved over and and settled.

You know, initially I wanted to do this as an ordinance, and then I looked into it and realized that we don't have the legal authority to do that.

Um so it has to be done at the state level.

Um that's why uh but you know, if 120 is what standard and that's what everyone feels more comfortable with, I'd be willing to certainly make that amendment.

This was just a jumping off point for the discussion.

The other question I had was again, it's kind of in that clarity realm at the end of that first paragraph where it says or other essential departments, what is the definition of essential department?

Well, I think that would be for the state legislature to decide.

So I think um, you know, they would have to, you know, define that.

If they're if they're crafting a law, then that's something they would have to define in the law.

Um, I think I think that would be up to them.

I don't know.

Um, you know, I'm not I'm not a health care provider, so I don't know typically what is considered essential.

And when I spoke with some of the providers over this week, you know, some people feel like neurology, nephrology, um orthopedics, uh all of those would qualify.

But I think when you're looking at shutting down what they consider major service lines, those are those are all considered major service lines within the hospital realm when you're looking at shutting those down.

Um, a fair amount of notice, I think is what's appropriate because I I think what we're seeing now is with the labor and delivery, it's a bit of a mess.

It it's happening very quickly.

Um I I talked to provider that's you know they're very worried about their patients who are expecting babies.

Um so that that's where this comes from.

I I'm sure you all have been having the same conversations I've been having as well.

Well, thank you for the clarification.

And I did have one question for the mayor, and it uh sir, it just goes to your prior service in the General Assembly.

Is this and again I hate to be uh Mr.

Process, but is this the kind of action um that the General Assembly typically takes in a fiscal session?

Or is or is this the type of thing that would be during a regular session?

Generally speaking, something like this would be in a regular session, but uh just depends on urgency.

Uh sometimes legislation does come up in fiscal session.

Uh, they could call special session.

Is that a is that would that be accurate?

They could call special session?

Uh the governor.

The governor will call a special session, but those are rare.

Um and again, it just depends on what uh what the hospital, what their what the detail plan is on what they're gonna do and what they're not gonna do uh would dictate a lot of that.

Um thank you.

Those are the questions I had.

It's not likely they would call a special session uh to help us.

Uh Director Neil Barn.

Yeah, I had the same concern that you you had, and then I realized I was thinking at it, I put my legislator hat on in terms of you know how the language looks, but in reality, this is just a letter that's saying, hey, this is what we want you to do.

They can they would ultimately go in and I I major service lines, I wanted to know what that is, but really I I think the from a letter standpoint, what we're asking them to do, I think this is sufficient for that.

Um for that uh you know, to your point.

Um with labor and delivery shut down or being uh put down.

Mercy won't take anybody that's over 27 weeks.

And so if you have someone that's along that path that's a that's a Baptist health uh um expectant mother in that time frame, you're in a real difficult situation.

So I think this uh given given more time.

So I get what what I would understand is if the scenario was in place today and Baptist says we want to shut down labor delivery, they would have to make the announcement, and then you wouldn't you wouldn't be able to shut it down for 180 days.

And this would be, you know, this would be for the whole state.

And I know um Monticello had a similar issue also with the Baptist health system, and uh, you know, I think that there are uh a lot of uh representatives throughout the state who may be looking at what's going on here and thinking we don't want this to happen at home.

So some um major service lines just for some examples would be um uh cardiovascular, neurology, colorectal, urology, gastroenterology, anesthesiology, pediatric, uh radiology, clinical pathology, so uh and then OBGYN, umcology, radiation, infectious disease, nephrology, endocrinology, pulmonology.

So all of these are considered um major service lines in hospital.

Director Katzavis, uh I don't know in your conversation you've been having that it are are the same people that I've been having them with, but uh there have been physicians that have not been retained um for a period of time leading up to now.

We're just hearing about labor and delivery.

Would this would this affect those scenarios where maybe you've got a nephrologist or uh you know maybe two or three nephrologists and you terminate their contract or whatever, would that also be cons would that also be um uh accounted for here?

Does that make sense what I'm asking?

I think some of what we're seeing were contracts that just didn't get renewed.

This would be this would apply more towards the hospital removing that service altogether.

Okay.

So would it would it cover the scenario where there's three nephrologists and I don't renew any of their contracts, that in effect shuts down the that department, I would say, that may potentially major major service line.

Would that would that account for this as well?

And you might if you don't know the answer, that's fine.

I I don't know because I know the the contracts all come up at different times.

Right.

Um so I'm not sure.

This is just a letter asking our our General Assembly to look into this, let them know that this is a priority for us, and I think it should I think we talk about public safety.

I mean, to me, this is a public safety issue.

And uh, you know, a lot of this comes from the conversations I've had, it comes from watching this happen and feeling helpless.

Um I had a a nurse that called me the other day and and I she didn't know me.

She Googled me and found my phone number, and you know, as soon as I answered the phone, she just immediately started crying, and then she apologized for crying, and she was so worried, she wasn't even worried about her job, she was so worried about her patients, and she said my patients they're elderly and they're disabled and they're not especially mobile, they don't have reliable transportation, you know, another hospital may not be an option for them.

And that's that's what I that's what I'm hearing over and over.

And you know, that makes me feel helpless.

I feel like I'm an elected official, I I should be in a position to do something, and I really can't but use this platform to you know try to try to do some good.

Sure.

I just uh just through my conversation, it seems like some this has been going on for a while, and now we're we're we're just now maybe seeing the uh official announcement, but some of the stuff has been happening and uh kind of quietly.

I would say um I would say it's been happening so quietly the physicians don't even know about it because some of the physicians I've talked to, they have no idea uh what if they've got a job a month from now, a week from now, you know, they don't know.

Um to my the best of my understanding is that the contracts were always auto-renewed until about a month or two ago.

And then I I think there was a statement put out saying that auto-renewal is not um standard practice, but uh evidently it was up until just recently.

So um, you know, that's created a lot of uh panic and confusion.

Yeah, right.

I've I agree with you 100%.

Okay, I'm I'm getting do we know if there have been any do we know if there's been any communication or collaboration with uh mercy and Baptist on what they may be able to do to absorb or any communication.

I know they're very close.

They have even though they're competitors, they do have a good relationship.

So I'm just interested in things that may be happening behind the scenes.

Uh Director Rigo and then Director Kemp.

I was just gonna ask if you had had in these in your conversations any uh dialogue with any of uh our local members of the General Assembly taking any uh temperature on how they are feeling uh about something like this.

You know, I have I have had some conversations.

One of the things that um that comes up is um House Bill, I believe it was 1930 that was um it was sponsored by Senator Boyd.

Um I know um Representative Lee Johnson from Greenwood had signed on to it, and that was um uh not necessarily specific to this, but that said um because with Baptists, especially what you see is the reimbursements um are very low.

And that Arkansas is the lowest reimbursed state for Medicare and Medicaid.

And there was a House bill, I think it was 1930 that said Arkansas has to take an average of all the other states around it, and um and that becomes what the reimbursement is, and that didn't pass.

And so that from these conversations that I've had, that is what has led to a lot of the issues that Baptists is having.

Now, I would argue they're a nonprofit.

Um, when you look at their 2024 filings, uh they did over a trillion dollars in gross revenue.

Of course, the net was about 57 million uh system-wide.

They should be reinvesting some of that money back in here.

Um that's not my call.

It's it's not it's you know, we can't save a department, but I think that we can at least uh offer some encouragement to put some guardrails in place because it's it's not gonna be just Fort Smith.

We're gonna see this, I think, all across the state.

Mayor, is it?

Is I I see your name is you know put there on the bottom.

Is this something that you're inclined to be uh supportive of?

Not at this point.

Um I'm interested in uh uh in-depth uh information uh from Baptists.

I think we all are, but no one's received any.

Right.

Uh Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um to the spirit of Mayor McGill's comments.

I lament the situation that people are having to find places for their delivery, um, for the families that they're gonna have to make those decisions.

This letter still won't change their circumstances or the actions of Baptist Health, and I I as someone who's married to a lovely woman who's had eight pregnancies, I understand the difficulties that wrapped itself around that.

But the data also was that Baptist Health released out, and I now I'm having to paraphrase, but 40 births last year and only 12 so far this year.

I mean, people are choosing mercy or that's not accurate.

I've spoken with providers there, that's not accurate.

Did we talk to Baptists about it?

I've talked to a provider who's delivering there, and that is not accurate.

So well, and and the providers then versus now are different.

Well, and I not only that, I just think this is to me, we talk about the services of the elderly or the other things that we're talking about, but we we're making assumptions about what Baptist Health has intentions to do.

They mentioned that they're going to invest 20 million dollars that this plan was to sustain, and a lot of people are utilizing just illustratively like malls have shifted within retail.

People like specialized hospitals.

People like specialized care.

I know I talked to one person that said their doctor had left Baptist, but was was able to get services with Mercy, and Baptist sent him for that particular service.

So there's collaboration between the two hospitals.

I think we're moving fast, and this can create a tone towards investors.

You know, I mean, publicly calling out Baptist Health, even with a letter like this.

Do you think anyone wants to invest here?

We have no health care.

You guys talk about amenities to bring businesses in.

It's health care.

No one wants to put their business here when there's no health care.

I mean, your attitude has led to me, cake, people want specialized care.

These people have no incentives.

We were gonna vote here.

There's no vote yet.

I still have the floor.

Director Camp has the floor.

Yeah, and so I I think this could hurt future collaboration if we aren't careful.

Uh what happens if the hospitals argue in their own right?

Staffing shortages or for physician departures or state overreach.

I mean, these are things that their tensions that we manage more than their problems that we solve.

And I think kindness, collaboration, figuring out how we can see what their moves are going to be.

Is there an opportunity to build another specialized labor and delivery hospital with uh the Fort Chaffee redevelopment authority?

I mean, is there I actually also was on the phone today with uh an investor who was meeting with the coalition of doctors who are talking about pulling their money together for such a venture potentially.

I mean, does that happen?

Does it not happen?

I don't know, but when we get in the way as government, this is a private market thing.

I mean, we're comparing it to a public utility, but it's not.

It's not a public utility.

If it was, then tonight we could take action, we could solve the problem.

It's a tension to manage, not a problem to solve.

And the way we work with that is we speak across opposing views, and we find a way to get to compromise, but to list out demands on something that I just don't think is appropriate.

I mean, that's my personal position.

Thank you.

Health care is as critical as a public utility.

So we will build a hospital.

No, but it is as critical as a public utility.

They are a nonprofit.

They are not a corporation.

They owe us transparency, they owe us care.

They don't reinvest back into the community because they're not paying taxes, something you know a lot about.

Uh directors, directors.

All right, I said that out.

There's a point.

I'm stopping this.

Now look.

I understand what you're doing here, and I applaud what you're trying to do here.

My suggestion is is we take a step back, as the mayor's accluded to.

We ask Jay and and Justin to come and talk to us about it.

We we ask our submissive league to come and see what temperature they have for the state legislators, and we do this in a very methodical, organized way to see if there's any temperature in the state to do what you're asking to do.

That's what I think we should be doing tonight.

I applaud what you're trying to do, but I'm asking you to take a step back, go through the methodical way of doing this the right way, because this will go to a general assembly 2027.

This won't be a special session item.

If you really want to do it the right way, this bring Jay and Justin in place, it's bring Mark Hayes and John from Mr.

Lake here, and let's see what we can do.

Craft this in a language that makes sense.

That's what I'm asking you to do tonight.

We don't need to take pot shots at each other here.

None of us do.

We're all Fort Smithians trying to do what's best for Fort Smith.

Taking pot shots at each other is not going to help here at all.

So I'm asking everybody to take a step back.

I'm asking this to get tabled tonight.

Let's go through the methodical process here of getting municipality involved, our legislators involved, and see what the temperature taking is.

I don't like it either.

I do not like what's happening.

But there's nothing I can do about it.

We can try to put a state law, but all you're gonna do is upset more and more people.

Let's go through the process because there might have been already stuff that's already been done in the past that we don't know about that nobody's gonna sign off on.

So I think we should get the municipality involved, their legislators involved, and do this a methodical way of doing it the right way.

Uh Director Neil Martin, you recognize it it's just a letter.

Uh there's no there's no law.

Uh we're not we're not crafting any law resolution ordinance, anything like that.

Um I mean if the board doesn't wish to move forward, that that's fine, but we're not we're not setting policy here.

So just that one.

Okay.

It seems a little bit like overkill to have to bring in our state delegation to see if they want us to send them a letter.

I mean, it it's just a letter.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this item?

Yes.

Mr.

Podgyerski did sign in to speak on the item.

Okay, and uh why don't you come on up?

Was there any other any others, Madam Clark?

Sherry, were there were there others that signed up on item four?

I didn't I didn't hear you.

Yes, just one of the okay, thank you.

Okay, so my first comment is if you guys are going to add stuff to the agenda, you need to give the citizens a chance to talk about it.

You did not do that for the last one.

Okay.

So I recommend before you all vote on that, you ask everybody out here who wants to do that.

Okay, but I want to do that, but I'm gonna limit my comments to item four.

Okay.

Here's the deal.

That letter does nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Okay.

You cannot tell a nonprofit organization what they can and what they cannot do.

You cannot do it in the reverse.

You cannot tell them that yesterday you have to do this.

There is no reason for that letter to be pushed through tonight without citizen comment and without congressional comment.

Okay.

Period.

I mean that's that's just it.

You haven't read the letter, you don't know what's in it.

Oh, oh, and that's another thing, too, isn't it?

That's that's convenient.

The state regulates hospitals.

The state does regulate hospitals.

But you put the letter out, and I watched you.

You put the letter out to the seven, eight, nine of you.

The people that are in the city.

Have we?

So we don't have any comment on it.

You're welcome.

I'm not going to read it right now.

I'm limited to two minutes.

And that's wrong.

Okay.

So it's wrong for you and you to bring up items on the thing at the last minute.

Okay.

I got it.

You want to appeal to your base, okay, and say, hey, I'm doing something, but you're not doing anything.

It's it's it's an empty it's an empty thing.

It's not.

It is empty.

You cannot tell Baptists to stay open for 180 days today.

It's not retroactive.

Exactly.

It is not retro.

So that's not what I'm saying.

Baptist is still going to close, isn't it?

What we're going to do, we're going to request that any comments be made to the entire board.

Okay.

No mind.

Baptist is still going to close.

You your letter has no bearing.

And and because it has no bearing, and because it's not going to get by by the discussion of the mayor, it definitely is not going to get a special session.

And because it's not going to be voted on until 2027, there's no reason to force us through tonight.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Maybe two minutes.

Okay.

Thank you.

He's finished.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

This is how it's get made.

You advocate for some good evening.

Sorry, I was not prepared.

Um I didn't know that this was an item that we could speak on, but I will say that I absolutely support the letter.

It's a letter.

It is being proactive, which we fell at miserably time and time again.

We are very reactive.

Um I've been hearing chatter for months.

Uh I have a doctor at Mercy, and he he and his staff have been completely overwhelmed with the amount of patients that are coming over there.

Um Baptist absolutely has known what their plan is and has not communicated and has put a huge strain on this city.

And as leadership, we should not be opposed to trying to be proactive to prevent it from happening again.

No, we can't retroact it.

No, we can't change the situation now, but we can keep it from happening in the future, potentially.

So I absolutely 100% think that we shouldn't be arguing over a letter and the potential to have the state um legislator make a ruling on it.

What what is wrong with that?

Why are we arguing about it?

Why wouldn't we want the best for our citizens?

Time and time again, I've actually had to take my uh relative to Washington Regional ER because we can't get the proper care at the ER in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

And the ER doc physicians have told us time and time again, they get more and more overwhelmed because more people from this area are visiting their ER.

How can we draw businesses to our city if we do not have the proper health care?

So I asked tonight to quit arguing over the letter and to give it a chance, send it.

If nothing happens about it, we actually tried.

Two minutes.

Can I just say something about this?

I didn't know again the agenda here.

Well, I would I would just like to take this uh moment from a parliamentary standpoint to let everybody know who's commented thus far that there is a procedure for us to add items to an agenda.

It's in when all seven of us agree.

When that happens, I would recommend in the future that people follow the existing procedure that they follow regularly, which is to turn in a uh form with the city clerk so she can keep track of the folks that are um signed up to speak.

And you know that we didn't do anything, I think we did something atypical tonight, which is that we added two items, but we followed the procedure, and it's just treated just like any other becomes like any other item on the agenda.

So when you hear about it, if you feel inclined to speak about it, just uh check in with the city clerk.

The form is supposed to be turned in.

Well, if uh if Mr.

McKinney would like to speak, I have a few comments I can make while he turns his form in.

Uh you know, typically I don't add things at the last minute.

This was inspired by the conversation I had yesterday evening um with a group of physicians.

I had not um I'm not in health care.

So understanding service lines, that was something that was explained to me.

Um I didn't I I didn't know that um other states require a mandatory notice period.

So that was something, and so they we were discussing that.

I immediately thought maybe I could write an ordinance.

Um I realized that that was not legal to do that because the hospitals are regulated at the state level.

Um so I wrote this letter.

Thank you very much, Christina.

I really appreciate that.

So hold on just one second.

Ready to recognize him?

Uh what's the wishes of that's fine.

Yeah, what he already says.

So uh when somebody talks to me about a relationship problem they have, communication, it's it's both ways.

If Baptists didn't feel comfortable talking to the city about what's going on, why is it that they didn't feel comfortable having a conversation?

What is it that the breakdown is there?

Are you guys so difficult to work with as a city, which is what I've been saying for years, that a hospital servicing our city doesn't even feel comfortable to have this conversation with you?

This is a communication breakdown.

You've already said almost everybody up here said it.

Why would somebody not want to talk unless it is difficult to talk to the city?

Unless the city has made it a challenge.

As far as the letter goes, I wouldn't support 180 days because anything we do to make it more difficult to invest in health care than other states would reduce the likelihood of a hospital expanding.

So I would say keep it in line with surrounding states just to keep investment on the same level so they don't use that as a qualification.

And I would say finally, we've been encouraging investment out east for years, and now we're shocked that a hospital on the side that we've been ignoring for years or barely addressing for years are making difficult for the businesses in that area and the home renovation in that area and making it difficult on all these things for years.

Suddenly the hospital on that side of town doesn't want to be there.

This shouldn't be that surprising.

I think this is a communication problem that shows a systemic problem with this city that if we don't address is going to continue to cause more of these things to happen with bigger and bigger things that are more and more key to our city, not just hospitals.

Thank you.

So if if amending to 120 days is what we need to do for anyone to be more comfortable, I um I'm in favor of that.

I was just thinking as far as someone who is losing their job, the more notice, the better.

But if a hundred and if we need to take 60 days off and put it in line with what other states are doing, that's fine.

I just want to give people a chance to shift their care.

I know it's not always easy um to get in as a new patient with a provider.

Um I have a family member who um needed uh audiology, and it it's taken three or four months um to get in there.

So that that was uh that was my reasoning behind it.

But um if 120 days is what we need, I'm certainly agreeable to amending that.

Okay.

Uh so what we need is uh a vote to put it on the regular agenda.

No, we I believe that we're on.

Yeah, and I believe there has not been a motion or a second made regarding the item.

We placed it on the item for uh on here for discussion.

Well since the public hasn't seen it, would you all like me to read it first?

Would anyone like to hear it?

Did you not read it?

I I haven't read it out loud.

I've handed it out to everyone, but what's the wishes of the board?

Doesn't matter to me, Mayor.

Well, is the floor open for motions?

Uh yes, the floor is open for motion.

Well, I would make a motion to table this item uh pending further uh discussion with leadership from our uh you know local uh general assembly members uh like uh director Settle mentioned conversations with them and like the mayor mentioned um perhaps additional information or conversations with the leadership folks at Baptist Health.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have a motion, second.

Um discussion?

Mayor, so this is a motion to table this.

Yes.

Until you get discussions with Baptist Health, which may be never because they've not been forthcoming.

Okay.

So we have a motion to say to table this.

You want to put a timetable on it?

Six thirty days.

What's uh Madam Clerk, what is the there's a standard practice when something is tabled, correct?

There's the next meeting there is.

Um it it can be taped if there's no specific time frame, it goes to the next regular meeting or the next meeting for consideration.

Or you can put a time frame on it, you can put that it is you said pending uh discussion with the legislative delegation.

So that would be it would be tabled until that occurs.

You want to see if we can get the legislators here at the second meeting of April?

So for clarification, are you willing to bring them in to discuss sending them a letter, or are you wanting to bring them in to discuss the content of what's in the letter?

I think we need to take their temperature as to how they feel about um because the letter is not just a letter, the letter suggests legislation to them, suggests that they should do something.

And so I would like to see what their uh pulse is, what their temperature is like on this suggested legislative approach.

And I think that's I I think it's wise because if if state representatives and state senators from an area where this is happening, you know, they need to weigh in.

I mean, I want to hear what they see, what what they see the legislative path looks like, what they see a process forward could be, what they um see, uh what they're hearing from their colleagues from other districts and areas in Arkansas.

I I just think it's would be um productive and worthwhile uh if we generally wish success and for a change to engage those folks uh in the process on the front end of the process rather than um uh uh trying to sort of bank shot catch their attention on the back of a of a news, an issue that's in the news.

And keep in mind they will be going into a fiscal session.

That's April 8th.

I just looked that up.

Very soon.

Yes.

Uh and the question is always the question I would always ask when we propose a new legislation.

Who's gonna support it?

Who who is it gonna benefit and who it may or uh so I would get a temperature uh and and be interested in further in-depth discussions with with Baptist Hospital You want to make it the to the second study session in April and then we see what happens at that point?

That's fine.

Okay, you okay with that?

I'll second that.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Did you have a comment, Director Good?

Uh I did just have a comment.

I wanted everyone to know when I was asking um uh Chris about he has a really good relationship with our uh delegation and he knows a lot of their schedules, and I would just want to get his pulse and input on it.

And personally, I didn't think that it would be a good idea to try to get them here, but like uh Chris alluded to, maybe we should wait till um there's an opportunity in Luterok to have that discussion possibility.

Okay.

So basically I was just saying I'm in no hurry.

Uh 30 days.

Well, right back to the second study session in April.

Start there.

That's the motion.

Okay.

Okay.

My second.

We have a second.

You want to do that?

Okay.

I'm not voting for that now.

Okay.

Well, uh do we need to we need to vote Madam Clerk with that?

Uh please call the roll.

Directors Christina Kit Savis.

No.

Settle?

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Git Savis.

No.

The motion uh passes five in favor and two opposed.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

We will go back to three.

Three of the puts up on the screen.

Okay.

So I would recommend, um, particularly now that it's up on the screen, and I know Chris was going to try to make it a little bigger, or Josh rather.

If folks wish to share any comments uh about item three, you know, please let the clerk know.

Okay.

Chris or Wes, you might just go through the highlights of the of the document.

I I do believe that for the for the board's information it has been emailed to you.

So if you have a screen in front of you, you can find it in your email, it should be in there.

You re you recognize?

Yes, board.

So primarily uh submitting this um uh funding request.

So this resolution is to authorize city administrator to submit uh congressional directed funding requests to the office of United States Senator John Bozeman for equipment related to the non-on public safety entering point.

Um it would update radio technology that is critical to ensuring adequate communications among public safety agencies within Sebastian County.

Um whereas the the board understands uh the a match amount in the in the amount of 25 percent may be required with respect to the FY27 CDS request, um and whereas the said matching funds if they're applicable uh will be paid from fund uh 1112, uh which is from the River Valley Communications Center.

I'm West can speak to more to that if he needs to.

Um, and that this uh SMIDL does not guarantee such requests will be selected or make it through the federal appropriations process.

Uh and then uh the two um be resolved that the city administrator submits a FY2027 CDS request to the Office of United States of Senator John Bozeman for three million dollars, and whereas uh there may be uh uh the board recognizes that there may be a 25 percent local match in the mount.

We don't know the amount, but there may be 25 uh percent local match.

Uh two, and I'll I would say up to 25 percent.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any public comments on this item?

None indicating.

Okay.

This time we entertain a motion to adopt the resolution.

So moved.

So we're talking about more than 100,000.

Gary Codsky, evidently he did uh wish to speak for item four as well, please.

Okay.

Well, first of all, to address uh the board.

Okay.

The paper says to fill it out before the meeting.

So if we're doing procedures, then it's before the meeting.

Well, I apologize.

Because during the meeting, sir, you do not get the chance to do it before the meeting.

Okay, the members of the the board audience should be allowed.

Okay.

Well, what I was gonna say was that it doesn't seem to ever stop anyone from getting added.

You you you asked about procedures.

I'm going with procedures.

That's okay.

Okay, so this is for the River Valley Communications Center.

So who does that include?

The River Valley Communications Center is an entity that was created through interlocal agreement between Sebastian County and the City of Fort Smith.

And the city of River County.

And the City of Fort Smith is charged through that agreement with operating the communications center, which we have done.

We have established that.

It is an operating fund within the the city's budget.

And so the River Valley Communications Center, directed by the Director of Public Safety Communications is essentially a city department.

So this also includes Sebastian County.

The consolidated center does include to the board is and this time I agree with Director Costavus, Christina Christavich, okay.

Is why not to get the bang for the buck?

First of all, I am very concerned, Mr.

Mayor.

Are you willing to get a entertain a phone call from Congressman Bozeman saying which one of these three do you want?

And I'd like to know which one of the three you're gonna pick.

Okay.

But I think that you all need to get in contact.

You work so well with the the narcomancy water park.

Um so I'd like to see you guys get together with Sebastian County and do a joint request from both the county and the city to Congressman Womack.

Thank you.

With any other Madam Clerk.

None indicating.

Okay.

This time we understand a motion to adopt the resolution.

I'm sorry, Director Savage.

Okay, we'll do that.

Let's get the motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

This time we're going to obtain nomination directly for Savage.

So this is looking at us putting in up to $750,000.

That's over the hundred thousand dollar threshold that should go to a study session before we approve this.

With a mandatory seven day waiting period.

Well, and I would say that this is an authorization to apply.

I mean we'll have opportunity for plenty of discussion before it comes time to approve any sort of grant agreement that actually commits the dollars to that to that expense.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Madam Clerk, call the role.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis.

No.

It's approved.

Six in favor and one opposed.

Thank you very much.

Is there anything else coming before the board?

Motion to adjourn the special meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

This time we'll go into the study session.

Item one.

The first study session item tonight is an update regarding the status of the 911 PSAP consolidation project.

Here to present as Director of Public Safety Communication, Dr.

West Milan.

And Wes, I will ask you to speak directly into that microphone and speak loudly.

I was just talking to Josh.

I'm not sure why this is not uh applicable to my voice, but I will lean way down and talk very loud, okay?

Uh thank you, Board and Mayor, for allowing me this opportunity to discuss the 911 consolidation plan for the River Valley Communications Center.

As you are aware, the passage of the Arkansas Public Safety Communications Act of 2019 led to the decision to consolidate the public safety answering points or PSAPs at Fort Smith Police Department and Sebastian County Sheriff Off Sheriff's Office into one unified 911 PSAP.

The interlocal agreement between Fort Smith and Sebastian County created the River Valley Communications Center in December of 2024.

The intent as stated in the legislation is that it is in the public's interest to shorten the time and simplify the method required for a citizen to request and receive emergency aid.

The State of Arkansas recognized that 911 emergency communications has grown beyond simply clerks answering phones.

Rather, 911 communications is a critical link between citizens' calls for help and the response of emergency services.

We have two examples locally that I can give you to illustrate the problems created by having two separate PSAPs, which will be alleviated by having a unified PSAP.

In June 2025, a person entered Mazarin Creek in a kayak.

He lost his paddle, and the current began taking him downriver.

He was able to grab a tree limb and dial 911.

The cell location showed that he was at the edge of Edgewater Drive, and he even said so on the call.

Edgewater Drive, as you know, is within the City of Fort Smith response area, and he and it was answered by the Fort Smith PSAP.

Fire department was dispatched to the rescue the person.

However, when they arrived on Edgewater, they found the person was on the downriver side of Mazard Creek at Spring Hill Park.

The fire department then had to drive all the way down Meandering Way out to Rogers Avenue through Barling and into Spring Hill Park.

I was told there was a Sebastian County deputy in Spring Hill Park at that time, but Sebastian County PSAP was not aware of the incident and didn't notify the deputy.

Barling Fire could have also been called to respond had Sebastian County known in the incident and probably would have reached the man quicker.

On March 21st, just a few weeks ago, we had a similar situation where the Fort Smith PSAP and the Sebastian County PSAP could not determine who to dispatch to an address on North Ninth Street.

That line is just to the right of that star.

The caller said they were in barling.

However, the address is actually in Fort Smith.

As before, the fire department had to drive through barling in order to get to that location.

As a result of this, we've had to augment that address to include mutual aid for barling so that they could respond as well to get to that situation.

Time was lost during these incidents due to the existence of two PSAPs in two build or PSAP in two buildings.

These incidents demonstrate the need for a unified 911 PSAP that has full access to every resource within Sebastian County and can dispatch whatever unit is closest and best able to respond to a citizen's cry for help.

The current PSAP located at Fort Smith Police Department will be the temporary site for the consolidated operations with a planned beginning date of July 6th of 2026.

From that point forward, all 911 and non-emergency calls will be received by the River Valley Communications Center, processed, and the nearest emergency response units will be dispatched.

We have eight console stations within the PSAP.

That's what you're seeing there.

There's three in that corner.

With plans, we have eight dispatch console situations, and we are planning to add a ninth one.

There will be six radio communications channels that must be monitored by telecommunicator 24-7 serving all the listed agencies.

Additionally, we require space for additional telecommunicators to be call takers only, responsible for answering calls and entering CAD information while the other telecommunicators monitor radio communications and dispatch.

The plan is to divide the room so that Fort Smith will have three telecommunicators and a call taker on one side, while three telecommunicators and a call taker will be responsible for all Sebastian County dispatch on the other side.

While this will be an effective in the short term, we will not be able to make incorporate additional telecommunicators dedicated to emergency medical dispatch until there is sufficient space to do so.

The interlocal agreement outlined that costs in the amount over what revenue we receive from the state will be split between Fort Smith at 69.7% and Sebastian County at 30.3% based upon population.

Well, why are they paying 33% we're paying 69%?

Because that was the split of the population.

Yes, sir.

Have I been asked about the possibility of utilizing call load as a basis for equitable cost sharing?

As this table illustrates, the differences between call load and population split are somewhat similar.

Utilizing a population basis rather than call load basis is still preferred due to the amount of change experienced from year over year, along with safety concerns for a call load basis for cost sharing.

This slide highlights the differences in the number of emergency and non-emergency phone calls received between the Fort Smith and PSAP and Sebastian County PSAP.

This metric can only be determined because of the existence of two PSAPs.

Once we are fully consolidated this summer, the ability to see the differences will no longer be available as they will all be received in one PSAP.

I also wanted to highlight the number of 911 calls for emergency medical assistance that were transferred to Fort Smith EMS.

Each of these calls could be handled by much quicker when the person who answers the 911 call can process and dispatch emergency assistance without transferring the caller to another person.

When life is on the line, we need every second.

Since starting as a director of RVCC in June of last year, there have many have talked about the legislation to consolidate all 911 services in Sebastian County as inadequately funded.

As you can see, upon enactment of the Arkansas Public Safety Act in 2019, funding to Sebastian County was greatly increased.

This was a result of 911 wireless fees being increased in Arkansas to aid with consolidation among the counties.

Additionally, statewide improvements to 911 addressing via collaboration between the Arkansas GIS office and ATT, which provides 911 telephone circuits for all PSAPs in Arkansas, improved the ability of a 911 telecommunicator to accurately detect the location of a caller and provide the proper emergency response.

Improvements to the statewide public safety radio communication system, the Arkansas Wireless Information Network, or AWIN, were funded by this legislation, as was the creation of the Arkansas 911 board to oversee all PSAP operations within the state.

The revenue amounts shown here are reflective only of the amount for 911 wireless fees collected by the state and distributed to all the counties by population basis.

Sebastian County also collects fees on 911 wirelines accounts, but as you can understand, these are significantly lower amounts since the landline usage has declined rapidly over the years.

Now I can show you the budget considerations for the River Valley Communications Center and how it differs from when with the 911 Communications was a part of the police department.

The budget amounts for 2023 through 2025 reflect personnel and operating cost for only 911 telecommunicators, less the amount that was reimbursed by the Sebastian County 911 Fund, which results in a net cost to the Fort Smith General Fund.

I would also note that there were additional budget expenditures for 911 communications found in other police departments' areas, such as administration and support services.

Such costs as cell phone fees, office supplies, small equipment, and others were all part of the overall police department budget, which housed the 911 budget.

Further, software fees for such things as the CAD and RMS service fees, cell phone usage fees, excuse me, and radio maintenance fees were found within the IT services budget.

The 2026 River Valley Communications Center budget is the first that incorporates all 911 related costs for the entirety of Sebastian County.

Since this is a transition year, budget expenses were somewhat higher because I'm basically funding two PSAPs for the first half of the year.

Also, the operation of a consolidated 911 PSAP has never been utilized in Sebastian County.

Thus some estimates were high until I have a better picture of budget expenses over the year.

In July, the Sebastian County telecommunicator positions will be absorbed by the R VCC.

Employees have the choice of becoming a Fort Smith employee or remaining a Sebastian County employee, which will have an effect on personnel cost as well.

The 911 governing board opted to utilize accumulated 911 funds to cover all operating costs for 2026.

So neither the general fund of Fort Smith nor Sebastian County needed to contribute per the agreement.

The decision will allow me to form a better understanding of budgetary needs of a consolidated PSAP in 2027, leveling off the operating expenses to become more predictable.

However, should the agreement cost split have occurred in 2026, as you can see, the required general fund re contribution, reflective of Fort Smith's 69.7% is a little more than $216,000 more than the 2025 general fund contribution by the police department.

Where am I seeing that?

Uh if you look in does this work here.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's right here.

So that's 697 versus the general fund amount at 2025 for the police department.

Okay.

Finally, we can see the predicted fund balance at the end of 2026.

The interlocal agreement required that all accumulated accumulated Sebastian County 911 funds be transferred to the RVCC.

The first amount of 1.9 million was transferred in the fall of 2025.

The remainder of the 911 fund in the amount of 2.54 million was transferred to RVCC just this March.

After the 2026 operating budget expense, the RVCC 911 fund should have a balance of just under 3 million.

To be prepared for consolidation, I am preparing our PSAP to handle increased 911 and non-emergency call load, as well as the need to dispatch and monitor an additional 13 agencies.

As mentioned earlier, full consolidation is unintenable within the PSAP at the police department.

To become a fully consolidated resilient 911 PSAP, two areas must be addressed.

The first is of critical importance as reliable radio communications within a PSAP linking every public safety agency at all times is a necessity that cannot be ignored.

We have steadily approved upon our emergency radio communications network in Fort Smith and Sebastian County since we first became members of A-Win in 2008.

Radio communications within Sebastian County Simulcast Network have been vastly improved upon most recently when two A-Win sites became operational in South Sebastian County late last fall.

Portable radios were completely replaced for police officers in 2018, and many were replaced for fire department radios as well.

Mobile radios are purchased new for each new police car and fire apparatus.

Despite this, the radio consoles in the 911 PSAP and the background equipment have only received a few updates that have never been replaced.

What you see here are the six backup consolettes that are the foundation of our radio communication backup between dispatch police and the fire department.

One of these is no longer operational.

This one right here is doesn't work.

These systems not only provide radio communication but also tornado siren activation and fire station paging.

These systems have a seven to ten year operational life, and we've been very and extremely lucky to utilize them for nearly 19 years.

At the end of 2030, these systems will no longer be serviced, and in the 2031, they will no longer be operational on the A-WIN system.

Therefore, replacement of this equipment before that deadline has become my first priority.

When we spoke in last when we last spoke in November, the proposal that I brought before you was radio systems for a new facility, updating our equipment amount for the go ahead and reconvene.

We are live on the website, but all other streaming services are still down, and they're working on that, but at least we do have a source that's open to the public.

So with that, we're going to go ahead and continue.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

As I was saying, uh the replacement of this equipment before that deadline is now my my priority.

When we spoke to uh in November, uh if until a uh of new facility can construct it, I'm concerned with replacing the current equipment that we are using in this system right now before uh we start considering a before we start considering a new facility, the radio consulates and the replacement of the uh radio equipment in the current PSAP is my priority.

To say that in for next week's board regular meeting, I'm going to have a resolution before you uh to take the first step in moving uh in preparation for the consolidated PSAP.

We're going to move three consoles from Sebastian County to our PSAP.

Um the purchase will move these consoles to increase our operational console number from six to nine.

Now I've got eight of the consoles out on the floor, and the ninth one is I'm going to place in an office to be kind of a backup console or you know, if there's a special event or something that we can dedicate a telecommunicator there.

It will reprogram all the console radios to reflect multi-agency operations, and will replace two consolettes to facilitate fire department paging and tornado siren activation for Sebastian County within RVC PSAP.

Finally, this proposal will replace four of the aging consolates.

Those ones that you saw here, I'll replace four of those.

The cost for this project will come from budgeted 911 funding representing money that was earmarked for PSAP consolidation by the Arkansas State 911 board.

You see the total cost for this for next week.

Um as I explained to the 911 governing board last week, the replacement of these systems will prepare us for the July consolidation, uh improving our background radio communications abilities, and to lower the amount of equipment that must be released due to end of life.

By using this funding that I have now to replace some of this, it's going to be less equipment that we have to replace later on down the road.

All right.

Now, secondary only to the radio communications, locating a feasible site in which to house the RVCC with sufficient space to operate as a fully consolidated PSAP is next on the to-do list.

The previously approved plan to build at 4501 Borough Road is only presented here tonight as a reference point for any new facility discussion.

Okay.

As uh Director Christina Kitsavis said that we went away from that, so I'm only presenting this as a reference point.

The wo what we had planned is in uh January of last year, the 911 governing board approved this for 4501.

Um the center was going to be utilized for 16 telecommunicator consoles with room to expand.

The floor itself was going to be housed within a stamped concrete structure, not unlike tornado shelters you see at our schools.

As you can see, the estimate I received in July of 2025 for the construction of the facility was approximately 4.3 million.

But this didn't encounter with all the furniture, the consoles, the equipment, and specifically not the radios.

All right.

So using that information as a starting point, I can begin to research funding opportunities and grants to help us accomplish the goal of a new facility in the next two years.

Any new facility will require enough floor space to house a minimum of 12 console positions to effectively handle all emergency service dispatch.

In times of crisis, those need the those in need first call 911 for help.

And the telecommunicator must also dispatch emergency services to those in need.

Thus, the PSAP must be operational at all times in any environment.

Therefore, consideration must be given for planning upon the resiliency of the PSAP for any possible eventuality.

Next, the location of the building must be a factor in locating a new PSAP.

Radio connectivity, as we talked about earlier, was dependent upon that tower.

And it will ensure it ensured two maintaining two modes of communication connection to our A-Wind simulcast loop.

There are two AWIN sites in Fort Smith, one at Crow Hill and one on the ridge off Mazar Road just north of Station 11.

Locating the new PSAP closer to these sites or at an elevation to ensure microwave line of sight with either the Fort Smith sites or any one of the southern southern county sites could reduce infrastructure costs for such things such as tower construction.

Finally, I believe we could locate some grant funding to incorporate kind of a crisis command component to any 911 PSAP.

While we do have an EOC maintained by Sebastian County, I think a designated facility that could house backup radio communications for transit sanitation utilities could be beneficial as possible data services back up or data backup for IT services.

A classroom or meeting room could be utilized as a central meeting area for this board in a crisis.

Admin, department heads during an emergency.

Perhaps there's funding that could be found to assist in building a facility such as this, and this is what I'm trying to do once we get to that consolidation.

What about the Carnell facility over here?

Did y'all look into that?

We uh we have looked into it.

We're that we haven't got to that point yet.

I'm just saying that in the future, these are the considerations that I'm looking at, and that's one of those considerations.

So with that, I thank you for your time and uh would love to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh Director Newmark.

Just real quick, you made a mention of uh tower and location north of station station.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

So if you look at uh director, if you look at Mazard, and just go north a little bit of which station of Station 11.

Oh, the new one, okay.

The new fire station.

If you go just north, there's a water tower right there.

And if you zoom in close just to the west of that, there's a a radio tower.

That is the Mazard site for one of our four A Wind sites.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Kim.

Uh thank you, Dr.

Modern, for your presentation.

Have you all looked at it in any considerations of just what it would look like to erect a facility right by that tower?

Would that save money on equipment?

I mean, that's a possibility.

We uh any any facility that you were going to to do, you have to take into consideration the communications connection.

Okay.

You're going to need to be able to hook up to one of those four AWIN sites.

Uh depending on the elevation, depending on the distance will require uh a tower.

For instance, the 4501 borough location was a was not ideal because it's kind of down in that bowl, and we needed a hundred and eighty foot communications tower in order to get above that southern ridge.

Okay.

So if we look at elevated positions within the city, uh that would possibly reduce that amount of need.

We could even possibly put something on the roof of a building.

It's it's not a requirement to have a tower.

The only requirement is that the microwave connection has to be as close to the building as possible.

So depending on elevation, distance, strength of the microwave, that's what it drives our uh connectivity for the radio systems.

Okay.

Uh so I thank you.

Is every county consolidated 911 or is there still some out there lingering?

There's two left.

Which two?

Us and North La Rock.

So when I if so my question really, that's what I wanted to find out.

So, how did Benton and Washington County do theirs?

I mean, do they are they similar to the same size budget we are?

Did they add more dispatches?

How can any way you can get that information and give it to the board of how Washington's in and bent and maybe Pulaski County did theirs?

Okay.

So this first came down in 2022 in order to become uh consolidated.

During that time between well, you had to have a plan before the state board by January of 2023.

If uh there was a need to maintain uh separate PSAPs, you could submit to that, and those two counties submitted to that.

Now Benton County uh end up having a couple of uh PSAPs in there, and some of them didn't, and they're not receiving the these funds.

So you say Benton and Washington are still separated from the cities?

They are Washington is consolidated.

Fayetteville is not.

What about Pulaski County?

Pulaski County, I believe.

You know, I wouldn't I wouldn't be able to tell you.

I can find out so an email.

I think so.

Absolutely.

And then what a the area around Jones World too.

Look at that one too.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So coming to the board next week is a request for what?

The resolution to approve the purchase, that 272,000 purchase for the moving of the radios.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm doing it now because to this point we can get the equipment in, we can program them.

We can start wiring because they're going to have to get under the floor and dispatch to set up the wiring.

We will then consolidate on July 6th.

We wanted to wait until after the Fourth of July holiday.

Fun fact the busiest times in public safety, 4th of July New Year's.

So we wanted to wait until after the new 4th of July holiday.

We will then consolidate.

We will change all the 911 trunks to point to Fort Smith.

We'll reprogram all the radios, and then we're going to run lean on radios because that week Motorola will then come in and move all of that equipment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Mayor, do we need to take action to put this on the agenda or is it already going to be on?

It's already on already.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

We'll go to uh second item.

This this next discussion is related to the status of city-owned property at 8200 Highway 71 South, known as the Cranquia property that the city purchased in April of 2024 for use as a second police precinct and home for the city's police training center.

Chief of Police Danny Baker is here with a guest to uh further introduce this item.

All right.

Well, good evening, Mayor and Board.

I'm gonna apologize in advance.

This is a uh it's gonna be a pretty lengthy uh detailed presentation, and that's intentional.

My goal is to give you a full picture tonight so that you can make an informed decision about what we need to do.

I would ask that you jot down any questions that you might have as we go.

There's a strong likelihood uh that many of them will be addressed during the presentation, and we will take time at the end to answer anything remaining.

So the the establishment of a second police precinct in the southern and or eastern portion of Fort Smith has long been an identified public safety need for addressing the expected population growth and geographical expansion of our city.

Secondary two, but I believe to be an equally important goal is the desire to implement a dedicated public safety training facility capable of supporting and hosting quality training to the entire region while removing our current operation from the limited space that we utilize at the Sebastian County Emergency Management Center.

The need for these projects to strategically prepare for the changing public safety landscape in Fort Smith has been presented annually in a variety of reports and funding requests for at least the last eight to ten years.

These have included future Fort Smith annual reports, goals and objectives, and police department capital improvement plans.

Prior to my time as the chief of police locations were being actively sought with plans to have these projects completed within 10 years, and we are at or near that 10-year goal.

At the request of the previous city administrator, you voted unanimously on March the 26th, 2024 to purchase property located at 8200 Highway 71 South, to be used in part as both a second police precinct and a dedicated training facility.

This property consists of three existing structures sitting on approximately 4.4 acres of real estate, and it's known as formerly as the Crane Kia dealership.

This is what the property looks like today.

The property is ideally situated for a police precinct and large enough to accommodate a regional training facility.

At the time the purchase was being considered, the police department was only interested in the two structures, the two existing structures which consisted of the former main showroom and an attached service center, which you're looking at now.

Administration intended to utilize the third structure, an auto-body repair shop, uh which is located to the south.

I don't think we have any pictures of that.

Um as a uh maintenance uh fleet maintenance facility for the uh the entire city for all the departments.

All purchase negotiation and identification of funding was done by administration with the police department ultimately contributing one million dollars of then budgeted funds to the purchase of the property.

At the direction of administration, the police department utilized MH MAHG architecture incorporated to begin drafting plans for the precinct and training facility.

We currently have three conceptual designs of varying sizes and expense to consider.

Funding to begin construction has been requested each year since the property was purchased, and each year it's been eliminated at some point from the police department's budget.

There's been some public discussion and concern about the need to continue with the project, as well as some mixed opinions from current board members.

The police department is seeking clear guidance from you on how you wish to for us to proceed.

Before we get to that, I'd like to share some thoughts on why I think that both of these ventures, a second police precinct and a dedicated training facility, are important to our current and future public safety needs of our city, and why the location on Highway 71 South was selected instead of somewhere at Chaffee Crossing, as some have suggested.

What you see in front of you now is the current footprint of the Fort Smith City limits.

As you can see, the city is essentially blocked from any real expansion and three compass points by Oklahoma to the west, the Arkansas River to the north, and Barling and Fort Chaffee to the east.

The south-southeast portion of the city is the only direction any geographical expansion can take place and is in fact where additional real estate has been annexed in the last few years.

Even now, the planning department is considering annexing another island of unincorporated land on Highway 71 South near Old Sody One and Rye Hill Road.

I expect that proposal will be coming to you for consideration soon.

Another recent notable annexation, which I will talk more about in a little bit, was an island along the Oklahoma border and just east of the Choctaw Casino and Resort.

If current trends continue and as Interstate 49 is completed, I fully expect the geographical boundaries of Fort Smith and thus the area of responsibility for the police department to extend even further along Highway 71 South.

Even as the boundaries exist today, the demands for police services along 71 South are continually increasing.

Traffic in and out of the city from the south has risen exponentially over the last few years, and we're beginning to see more and more serious accidents in the extreme southern areas of the city.

These accidents often tie up a substantial amount of police resources that are needed to safely investigate and mitigate them.

Officer response times are also impacted by the distances that they must travel to reach the southern extremes of the city.

Under normal driving conditions, it takes approximately 20 minutes to drive from our current police headquarters to the southern edge of the city and longer from other points in the city.

While ideally some officers would be responding from the field, the reality is that there's always a higher concentration of police resources near a police station, and officers need a convenient place to complete their reports and store their equipment.

A second precinct somewhere along Highway 71 would significantly improve our coverage and response to this portion of the city.

The next slide shows where our where police resources currently exist in Fort Smith.

Now these are not all Fort Smith Police Department, and they do not all respond to routine police matters in the city, but they are agencies and resources that often help out with serious incidents and add to the visible police presence in our city.

The FSPD has memorandums of understanding with many of them so that we can call them when when they're needed.

When I first became involved in the conversations about a second precinct over seven years ago, the first thing I did was take a strategic look at where it made the most sense to put it.

Mapping out the existing locations of police resources at that time was crucial to the analysis, and it was not based on any political pressure or influence.

The number of locations has only grown since then as the Fort Smith Public Schools Police, private schools, and other organizations have implemented their own institutional police departments that were made possible by changes to Arkansas law.

So the next thing I considered was the volume of police calls for service in the areas being considered for a second precinct.

In front of you now is a graphic representation of all the calls for police service to beat 16, which covers the Chaffee Crossing area entirely.

Within the last six months, there were a total of 543 calls for service out of 36,846 citywide, or about 1.5%.

During the same six-month period, there were 6,513 calls or 17.68% to beat 7 and 13, which cover the southern portion of the city.

And here's the location of the Crane Kia property located at eight at 8200 Highway 71 South.

So as you can see, and I hope agree, the location chosen is optimal to service both our current and future needs of the city and places more police resources where they are needed most.

Another selling point for this particular property is that it is large enough to include a dedicated public safety training facility with enough classroom space to host quality training courses and seminars for the entire region and from across the nation.

Our current arrangement with Sebastian County costs us about $35,000 a year to use the emergency management center at 8400 zero.

And while it's minim minimally acceptable for our existing needs, it simply isn't suitable for hosting the larger class sizes that are typically associated with premium courses and the ones that draw attendees from all over the country.

Because of the volume of traffic at Mazarden Zero, say safe ingress and egress by students is becoming more and more difficult.

We often must send our officers and supervisors to other jurisdictions to receive the specialized and leadership training that they need.

Over the last five years, we've spent half a million dollars or about 110,000 a year sending officers to other cities for training.

Imagine if being able to save some of those travel expenses while at the same time bringing in tax dollars from other government agencies as their officers travel to Fort Smith to get quality training, and while they're here, spend their per diem and their lodging funds at our hotels instead.

The potential for a positive economic impact for Fort Smith is certainly possible with this project.

I believe property values will also likely increase around it.

And let's not overlook the fact that we've taken substantial steps to greatly improve our departmental firing range, which is located a very short distance from the Crane Kia property.

Located at the entrance of the landfill, FSPD officers finally have a nice suitable firing range within the city limits to call our own that will nicely complement a nearby training facility.

So with those thoughts in mind, I would like to introduce uh Travis Bartlett with MAHG to present some of the design options for a combined precinct and training facility with cost estimates and phase construction options, after which I will provide some final thoughts for you to consider.

Travis.

Thank you, Chief.

Good evening, everyone.

So the first option that's up is what we're calling option number one.

Um after some time that we spent with Chief and Command staff touring the existing facilities at the EOC and headquarters here at downtown, we began to ask the question what is needed.

And from that question, we began to compile a list of spaces, uh staff members that would need to be in those spaces and the square footages that would be allocated to those spaces.

And we began to lay out uh that program of spaces uh onto the two buildings that are at the Crane Kia facility.

Uh one looking at initially uh the training center, knowing that hearing from chief and command staff that that was a very important piece of the puzzle.

Um, and then looking and then taking it further and looking at uh the second precinct spaces.

Um as you can see here, I don't know if you can point with this or not, but there's a red line that that in the middle of those two buildings there, phase one, phase two, along with the site plan up in the upper upper corner there, that essentially allocates a phase one and a phase two approach.

Phase one being the training center and then phase two being the second precinct.

And then what we've done is taking that option and looking at the phase one, phase two, and uh begin to put budgets to it, uh, knowing that we have existing spaces there that we need to renovate and then connecting those spaces with new construction and then along with site development numbers that would be allocated to each phase.

Uh we didn't want to look at this just from a construction standpoint.

So as we went through and designed these spaces, we began to uh look at the furniture fixtures and equipment and signage that would be needed for each one of these spaces, uh, along with technology, and then knowing that we weren't going to construction right away, we've included contingency dollars, and then taking it a little bit further, looking at all the fees, reimbursables and geotechnical aspects of the project that would be required.

So as you can see there with phase one, we've come up with a total of 5.4 million, and then phase two, the PD precinct at 7.6.

And feel free to ask any questions along the way.

And these are just some renderings of that full build out for option number one.

This is a view looking at that training center entrance.

And then we come around to the other side where this is the PD entrance.

Yes, go ahead.

So are you proposing to build a second story off the coverage?

No, so right now, currently in the building where the training center would be housed, there is a second floor that we feel like is usable.

I didn't know there was a second floor.

And that's a that's a great question because there is a small second floor space in the other building, however, the construction of it we did not feel like it was usable for what we need to do.

So then jump into option number two.

What we did here was we began to ask the question.

We know what's needed.

What could we live with if we need to reduce the cost and reduce the square footage?

So again, uh we have phase one being the training facility, and then phase two, the second precinct for PD.

And I realize these on the screen are very small to look at what the various spaces are, but just to go through the training center a little bit more in detail is the first floor would house an entry space, reception along with most all of the classroom spaces, and then the second floor is where we would house the office space and uh uh medium size conference room for staff members there.

But the good thing about this the training center is we really could have chief mentioned having meetings and training there.

We could accommodate uh groups from 10 all the way up to 72 for training or meeting space within that training center.

And yes, sir.

Was there any I'm trying to look at this?

Is there any spaces big enough to have to hold the uh graduation ceremonies?

Because those are the standard years.

The size of that classroom that would come close to accommodating.

I mean, I think we usually draw a bigger crowd than 72, but it would be it would still be tied.

Yeah, that the one in the middle there, um, and you can see kind of the white space that would be over the second floor.

That's currently one of those auto bays where they were doing work on had lifts and all that in.

So it works out well that we can have a double height space there that we can have a that tiered classroom.

So that worked out well.

The one good thing is when we started looking at the training center first, it really placed itself within that existing building very well.

Um, there's very little addition that we have to do to accommodate the training center.

It's the connection back so that we can connect those two buildings together.

If you noticed in the pictures previously, those two buildings are separated, uh, but they're close enough that the set that it just makes sense to to connect them up so that we can have uh shared spaces.

We have shared spaces for the gym and a few other spaces that uh we can look at strategically that both training and PD can utilize together so that we're not having to build two separate gyms or two separate um uh locker room spaces uh between the two.

And then here's our budget recap of that option number two.

Um as you can see here, the cost for both of those come down a little bit, uh, especially with the PD, that's where we reduce the square footage the most.

Uh the training center remains at 5.4, and then PD at 3.6 and some change.

And then the final option was uh option number three was really looking at trying to stay within the existing square footage of the two existing buildings and only having the small additions so that we can connect those two buildings up on the ground floor.

Um the square footage allotted to the training center basically stayed the same between all three options.

Uh what happened here in terms of square footage reduction was with the police department's second precinct.

And we really just got down to what do we absolutely need there right now, uh, knowing that if we do what we need right now, that we could design this that we continue that we could add on in the future and bring those other components of the other two options into play here in the future as funds were available.

Uh knowing that if we do what we need right now that we could design this that we continue that we could add on in the future and bring those other components of the other two options into play here in the future as funds were available.

The one thing that we would do as a part of that is from a site planning standpoint is keep the parking and ingress egress basically the same from the option one design all the way to option three so that we are not tearing up parking or not tearing up drives at any time in the future that the additions come on come on board.

And then looking at the option three budget recap, um we did a full we didn't do this phased, um, but it would be easy to kind of come through and look at this in terms of basically uh it's about a half the cost between the two because the square footages are essentially identical between training and PD with this option.

So 7.7 total and assume that would be basically about 3.8 or so uh between the per police precinct and the training center.

So just to clarity then.

So this this option three, how much savings is it between this and option two?

About a million?

Yeah, I think if you look at so between option two, if it was the full build out for both, it's essentially uh nine million all in, and then looking at option three, we're at seven point seven.

Okay.

Any more questions for Travis?

I have questions, but I think you have final comments.

I do.

I did a question for Travis.

Yes, sir.

When you looked at this, is there any option that gave you an option say we went could you could you start with option three, but eventually mitigate to option one over the over the time?

Yes.

So the the one thing that we looked at this throughout was when we began with the full build-out option one, as we began to pair back, we wanted to keep some of the same components in there and some of the conceptual aspects of how it would come together so that at any point that whether it's a year from now, five years, ten years from now, we came back and we needed to add those components where whether it's the real-time crime center or the CID component of it that we could add that on and it could plug and play back in in place and not having to tear out a bunch of of construction that's answered my question.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Chief.

One other question, I guess on the construction piece would be then if there was a consensus to move on action here, and option three is where we go into it knowing that we cannot we can still switch to other things in the future.

How long does option three take to activate or bring if we how long would it take to make it functional?

Do we have a timeline of how long that would take?

So I'm gonna not put words in your mouth, but I'm gonna ask a question back.

Do you mean by like how long it would take to finish the design, get bid and get under construction?

And then not only that for Chief Baker and the police department start utilizing it for the operation of what they have for it.

So I think if we were doing the full option three, we're looking at probably around six months to finish up the design that gets all the engineering involved and all the final architectural details and everything and get it bid and then get under construction.

I would look at probably about a 14-month construction timeline.

So we're all in 20 months from today to get the doors open.

Okay, 20 months.

Okay.

All right, so where do we go from here?

When Carl initially considered purchasing this property for a consolidated 911 center in a city maintenance facility, my senior staff at the police department expressed the desire for the crane property as a precinct and a training facility instead of the whole hog on borough road.

I presented Carl with the same information that I've given you tonight, and he agreed that the crane location was a better fit for us.

As I said earlier, this project was a priority long before I became the chief.

But I've had to balance the immediate operational needs of the department and the city against our long-term strategic goals.

Investing in capital projects like this must be weighed against hiring training and retaining quality police officers, paying them competitive wages, and providing them with the equipment they need to safely do their jobs.

You've had to do the same thing.

So I understand the desire by some to abandon this property, but there's some things that you need to consider.

Since purchasing the property in mid-2024, we have spent uh $21,500 to MAHG for the design options.

As I said, I've requested $1.25 million each year to begin construction, and each year that's had to be removed from our budget that was presented to you before it reached you.

The police department has already invested a million dollars of allocated funds to purchase the property that could have been spent on other equipment and personnel needs.

We've likely turned back enough funds at the end of the last three budget years to have almost fully funded option three and be well on our way to opening the doors.

The original purchase price for the property was $3.5 million.

The Crane family discounted the purchase amount to $2.85 million for naming rights.

I asked Bob Cooper, who brokered the purchase originally how much we could reasonably expect to sell the property for today.

He said the market has not gained much strength since closing, but he believed that he could sell the property as is for $2.85 million and could have an interested buyer very soon.

However, we can't forget about the $650,000 discount the seller provided for the naming rights.

I asked Colby Rowe if the city would be responsible for reimbursing that to the Crane family under the purchase agreement should the city sell the property and he opined, and I was going to read it to you, but for the sake of time, I'm not going to do that.

The bottom line, I can pass it around if you'd like to see it.

The bottom line is we could sell the property and probably get our money back quickly, but we could also face a lawsuit from the Crane family in the amount of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

And neither I nor Kobe can tell you with any confidence that they will or that they would be successful.

Now remember that annexed island of property on the Oklahoma border that I mentioned earlier.

With that annexation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma has tribal land not only in the state of Arkansas now, but also within the city limits of Fort Smith.

This has significant implications for the police department and how we interact with members of the Choctaw tribe on tribal land.

Their judicial process is completely sovereign, and none of our officers or judicial officials have the experience of dealing with tribal law the way that our counterparts in Oklahoma do.

Right now, those interactions are relatively few and minor, as the only property in Fort Smith is a parking lot.

However, neither I nor anyone who has any eye for speculation believes that the Choctaw Nation intends to leave that as just a parking lot.

In my opinion, too many legal hurdles were overcome to make the effort worthwhile for simply a parking lot.

I believe they intend to either expand their resort into Arkansas, develop housing for employees, or launch some other major development project in Fort Smith.

And this has been at least hinted at in my conversations with them, if not quietly but unofficially confirmed.

When or if that happens, the impact on the Fort Smith Police Department will not be a small thing.

We will need a close working relationship with their light horse police and their judicial process.

Our officers will need to cross-train and know each other on first name basis.

The Choctaw Nation Light Horse Police will be another police agency within Fort Smith, and they'll need a place to work and train.

The Crane Kia property is just a couple of minutes along the interstate from the Choctaw Casino and Resort in Pacola, Oklahoma.

Because of this, I have been in numerous discussions with high-ranking members of the Choctaw Nation, including Chief Gary Batten, about the possibility of helping us out financially with the construction of a second precinct and training facility.

The discussions have been very favorable thus far, and I think Chris Hoover and the mayor can confirm that as they've been involved in some of them as well.

After hearing my presentation, which included providing the light horse police with space at the precinct and access to our training facility and firing range, I was told this was something that they could get behind and was quote just the kind of project that we could invest in Fort Smith.

No dollar amount was agreed upon, but I was told similar investments in other locations have been in the seven-figure range.

They also made it clear that they were not willing to invest without local financial support.

Senator Bozeman agreed the precinct and the training facility is a needed and worthwhile investment in the safety of Fort Smith and was particularly interested in the potential partnership with the Choctaw Nation.

Such a collaboration opens even more doors for alternative funding.

The proximity of the Crane property to the airport, and in support of the foreign military sales mission was a favorable aspect that he mentioned as well.

He told me that it would be nearly impossible to get either grants or CDS funds for construction of the facility, but that investments in technology and equipment for the facility were certainly options that he would support, and that will be vitally important to protecting our civilian and military assets.

But as with the Choctaw Nation, he emphasized that local financing and support would be crucial.

So as I wind this lengthy but important discussion and presentation up, I'm not one to present a problem without some possible solutions.

I fully appreciate the fact that the biggest identifiable challenge that we face as a city today is the federal consent degree on our sewer system, the need for a water transmission line from Lake Fort Smith, and improvements to our water system, and money does not grow on trees.

I realize our precinct and training facility project does not fall into the four alarm fire category that some of these other issues have developed into, but public safety needs that I've articulated tonight will only continue to grow as the city expands.

In the words of our new director of engineering, Todd Mitge at the February 10th, 2026 study session quote, Arkansas is growing.

Northwest Arkansas is getting hit now, it's coming for us.

I wrote his words down then because that same urgency that exists for the water transmission line also applies to public safety.

So what are the potential paths forward?

I think we have three options, or you we have three options.

Option A, tell us tonight that the project was too much too soon and let us cut bait.

We can call Bob Cooper tomorrow and tell him to put the property up for sale and hope that we get most of our all most or all of our money back and hope that the Crane family doesn't sue us.

Well, it's not my favorite option, we would at least know that this is the direction that the board that this is a direction that the board no longer wishes to go, and we can focus our time, money, and energy on other areas.

The one thing that I would respectfully ask, if this is the route that you choose to take, is to make sure a million dollars from the sale of the property is allocated specifically to the police department for use on other needs.

Option B, commit to fully or partially funding plan option two or three at roughly nine million or option three at 7.7 million right now or in the immediate future.

If 7.7 million dollars is too much, tell me how much you're willing to contribute, and I will then at least have a number that I could give to potential investors like the Choctaw Nation.

I recognize this might be too much to ask at this point, but it is an option.

Option C and the one I think is the most reasonable.

Allow us to work with finance to create a capital improvement fund specifically for this project with a completion timeline of no more than three years.

Commit by resolution to add surplus unobligated general fund money at the end of each year beginning in 2026 in an amount that you agree is appropriate and does not unduly take away from the other needs of the city, including funding police officer positions, improving salaries, and maintaining vehicles and equipment.

Our officers recognize the need for this facility, but they do not want to sacrifice positions and competitive salaries to get it.

I will commit to adding any unobligated sales and use tax funds at the end of the year.

I will also commit with your blessing to continuing conversations with the Choctaw Nation about a partnership on this project.

I would further ask that you give me permission by resolution or other appropriate means to launch a capital campaign and seek private donors within our community to help grow this fund.

With your commitment and that of the community, I believe we can raise enough funds to begin construction of option three in phases within the next two to three years.

With the first priority being completion of the training facility.

By going with plan option three of MAHG's designs, we will already have the plans available to expand to option two and option one down the road.

This re approach reduces immediate burden, builds momentum, and positions us for outside funding.

It allows us to start small, build smart and grow into a full vision.

As I see it, those are your options regarding this property.

And in closing, I would like to read it reiterate some final thoughts.

Growth is not coming, it's already here.

While the population of the city may only be slightly increasing, the police department does not just serve the 90,000 residents of Fort Smith.

Our services are directly impacted by the estimated 150 to 200,000 people who are moving about this city on any given day.

This is not just a cost.

It is an investment in safety and economic opportunity.

Waiting will not eliminate the need.

It will only increase the cost, and partnership funding depends on local commitment.

Thank you for hearing me out.

I know it's a lot to take in this late in the evening, but this is the first chance that I've had to present the full scope of this project to you.

And my goal tonight has been simple, provide you with the facts, the risks, and the opportunities, so you can give us clear direction on how to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

We'll start with Director Rego.

Chief, thank you for the uh thoroughness of your presentation and the depth of your passion about this topic.

Thank you for your consistent work uh to move the ball down the field on it, uh, especially the conversations you've had with uh, you know, people in the federal government and the tribal nations, nation.

Um, you know, I my position has not changed uh since I unanimously you know was one of the unanimous votes to purchase the property as a as a need and a benefit uh that you so clearly illustrated for public safety in our community.

Uh I you know I'm in favor of uh personally anyway, or my vote, you know, starting as soon as possible on option three uh presented um by uh the architecture firm uh and I would even be uh uh amenable to option, and I think that means option B that you articulated um in your uh set of options.

So I'm fully in favor of this, and I think it will be a real benefit to the law enforcement needs of our community and uh partner uh agencies uh and entities in the River Valley and and our county.

So thank you.

Okay, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh I want to say great job to you both for this presentation.

It's been very good.

Seeing the drawings, uh the options that are laid out.

Uh I appreciate you bringing solutions of you know, the A, the letters and the things that are there.

Um the first choice that you mentioned that I just want to clarify.

What was the first choice of the department when you said this wasn't our first choice?

Was there something out there that was preferred?

The grand savings bank at the corner of 71 and borough road was for sale for 1.5 million dollars.

And I mean, it would have required virtually no renovation for a precinct.

It wasn't large enough to uh take on both the precinct and a training facility, but I mean it was pretty much ready to be.

So which one would you have gone to that point?

If you had bought that property, would you have done more of a training center or would you have done more of a precinct?

Probably more of a precinct.

Okay.

Do you feel like the precinct is the priority?

Now I would think we're thinking training center, but this option three idea.

I so with prioritizing the training facility that is going to accomplish the goal of getting police officers on the ground.

I mean, they they will be uniform officers using that facility as a training facility.

So I mean, we it will give us the opportunity to begin moving ahead with those hosting those classes and and you know, and building up our training function and at the same time put police presence uh in the area.

Do you feel like the training center also maybe garners the support of others?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

What's the concern among your officers if if you know you've already spoke to this tension of this plan, we don't want to do this plan to the detriment of giving pay raises or adding police officers back to the force or things of that nature?

Obviously, there's a tension that's an operational question too.

But also we have this capital that we can invest in one-time non-reoccurring expenses.

So, but if is the consensus among them that they would like option three, and then that we could then focus on these other issues of salaries or additional police officers before entertaining option two being built out.

Is that sort of the consensus among the force?

I think the consensus among the command staff that are involved in in this project and planning of the project is to start with option three or option two.

Um because of the amount of money, the fund that's gonna funding that's going to be available.

That first option was, I mean, the big kahuna.

I mean, that was everything uh fully functional second police department on the south side of town.

Um with recent developments and reduction in personnel sizes and and department.

Um that's not nearly as pressing of a need now.

Um so I think the smaller options would be more palatable.

They're gonna they're gonna love and use whatever uh we build for them.

But um Did the police cars take care of the are we still short on on proper vehicles?

Uh we're getting we're getting there.

I mean, that's the the the you talking about the recent purchase, the 17 vehicles.

That took a huge step forward in us fully implementing the take-home program.

Um we've got uh for next year a similar amount on our capital improvement plan, and that will get our fleet to the point where we need it, and hopefully by that time we'll be able to bring back the leasing option to you.

There's been some new developments in that that might be a possibility again.

Uh so I think the other question I have is for the just administration.

The whole hog property, it seems as if there seems to be a consensus that you know that's not a applicable use for 911 services because of the hardening of it, the tower and everything in nature.

Uh we do we have that property listed on the sale list?

That property is currently listed for sale, yes.

How much is it listed for?

Uh I believe for the amount that we purchased it for, 575.

Oh, 545.

And then the uh Mazard property is still listed too, correct?

Correct.

And how much is it listed for?

$2 million, the same amount that we purchase it for.

Um, for me, uh I'm I'm I'm in on I think that there's a need to think about the future growth.

Um I would not take option A as a personal preference for me.

Um I would love to see us take some of this property that we have sold, and if we if we're at market value or if we're not, I feel like you know, looking at that, bringing that forward, is that an option?

And then ultimately it seems like this project would almost hit within two fiscal years, not really one tight fiscal year.

Is that a fair assumption?

Yes.

I I mean I don't think we have the surplus funds, the general fund to be able to just write a check for the $7.7 million.

Um I wouldn't ask that.

Uh so and that's why I suggested let us create a sinking fund, a capital improvement fund, and commit to putting money when we have it into that fund.

And I mean, I expect that will take a couple of fiscal years to build up.

I I favor your approach on that.

Um I think also, and then I'm gonna be done with my talking on this.

I would love another study session where we've heard this data letting us get you know feedback from people, which I think is gonna be positive.

Uh coming back to this as another study session hearing the data y'all talked about, and I uh to me almost a con bond board here.

There's things that I know we need to move through the process, and there are things that we're all gonna be frustrated if we have uh hope deferred makes the heart sick, and if we're wanting to move salaries or we're wanting to move uh increase in personnel or we know we want to move option maybe three across some we're gonna have to have those hops ready, and I think for me I need to see that full picture.

So then I go, okay, we really have thought about this is the one that needs to hop this way.

Uh let's create a sinking fund approach, or no, we have an ability to do more than we thought we could.

You know, the sales tax did go up, you know, not tons, but we expect positive trends there.

So that's my comments.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Mayor.

Uh just a minute directly settled directly good.

Yeah.

Okay, you go.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Chief.

Very, very, very good.

Uh I'm not in favor of selling the property, so just say that straight up.

Uh, how much did you say we spend yearly on training again?

About 110,000.

Uh, is that for our guys to go off to?

So 110,000?

Okay.

Um, did you do any cost analysis of what we would save?

I'm reasonable.

Um this is more the operational side.

What we save by having the safe second precinct on gas, uh car, you know, people are not driving as far, car link we'd have you're not driving all the way downtown.

Did you do an analysis on the I have not done a cost analysis, but that certainly was a consideration.

There could be cost savings.

Okay, the last one is have we thought about floating a note?

Talking to Sam at uh first national bank and I have.

And what would it be what would it like a 20-year note cost for option two for the nine million dollar?

Oh, I did I haven't gotten that that deep into it.

But if that's if that is an option, I to me I think that's an option because then it's palpable.

It's it's a yearly, you know, trying to save money and then paying cash.

What's what's the option of a I I use Sam at First National and or whatever bank we can talk to, but you know, um what's what's the option of a ten million dollar note at at one of the banks over a 15-year option and come back to us as that's it would cost you X amount per year because you do have a dedicated sales tax that goes to police and you could say you could use some of that funding on a yearly basis.

I know it wasn't voted that way.

I understand that I know where you're gonna go with that.

But I'm trying to think through what other options we could have to do this.

I mean, you try to save money and ours always something else, but if you know that you've got a $750,000 note for 10 years or 15 years, whatever the number is, then that's part of your budget, and you go forward like that.

I'm just trying to come up with different ideas to to do this.

Um because then at that point, you're not waiting two or three years, you can start construction in six months, it was said, and then and then you could go just uh if we throw an options out, we're just having discussions.

That's all I'm trying to get to is what would those options be.

Thank you, Mayor.

If I if I might just jump in on that, I think that you know the the option C that the chief talked about in terms of analyzing some financial uh opportunities and and potential methods forward.

I think I I I have some ideas, I think you know, not discounting the ones that you mentioned also, uh but it's some things that we've talked about in the past on uh on other potential projects.

I think that you know involving Andy and and the rest of the staff and involved in and uh setting out some financial parameters and some options that are a good idea in terms of what we present uh in the future.

Director Good Thanks, Mayor.

A few questions, uh comments, great presentation.

Thank you very much, Travis and Chief.

Um first I want to say that I'm I'm really excited to hear about uh the work going behind the scenes.

Um you guys working with the Choctaw Nation.

You know, I'm I'm really enthusiastic about uh any type of partnership cost sharing that we might have in either option that we choose.

Um like my previous two um board members, you know, I'm not in favor of um of cutting bait and selling.

You know, I I'm more in favor of if I understood it right, you know, your option your option three, your final option that included the sinking fund, and uh and I wrote down his notes uh uh fundraising campaign, was that part of that, or was that capital campaign?

Capital campaign.

Is this a capital campaign uh um that the police department would do uh or is it something that you're looking for?

Because I remember in in in the past when we did the the the fire and the parks, uh and it's the you know we had those departments actually spearhead those and get out and breaking the.

I think we could successfully do it without hiring anyone to run the campaign.

I mean, I I uh I mean I've I have several donor possibilities in mind that I would like to approach, but I did I didn't want to do that until I had uh blessing from the board to proceed with that.

Well, I want to speak to that just for just for a moment.

Um in that option C, you know, you talk about a commitment uh by resolution uh to to fund the project and to stay in line with uh competitive uh salaries and updated equipment.

I mean, all that sounds great, and and I wish I could say yes, I'm all behind it, but we know how money issues are.

You know, I I I can't make that commitment, but what I can make is a statement saying that I totally support uh your decision on what you think is best and what I've seen in the past when we have our police officers, our firefighters uh get in the public and do these fundraising campaigns, they're more uh receptive to uh our staff being out and seeing that, hey, look, this is what this this is what the money is for.

It's not the bureaucrats making the decisions, you know, we're doing this fundraising.

So I absolutely like that idea.

So even though I can't say I commit to it without other board members agreeing with me on that, I'm definitely in support of your option um B for uh the bill two or three.

Okay.

Oh on oh also could you clarify what when you say B, that's that's uh phase one of 5.4 million, phase two of 3.6 million.

This is the Chief's options he gave A, B or C.

Oh, okay.

And in his option B, it was a seven million or the nine million dollar uh projects.

Okay.

Uh and also it w it was stated about uh you know the north side, you know, there's a lot of expansion going on on the south side.

You know, I know that there's a need, but can you speak to Chief why the investment in the south side of town uh for this precinct, how that might benefit my constituents in War II?

How does that benefit how does this investment that far south benefit the rest of the city?

Um I mean, any time that we can improve the safety anywhere in the city, we're all impacted.

Uh the economic impact that it could have uh could certainly impact the north side of town.

Um I mean any additional funding that we you know are able to generate um that all go will go into the general fund for use over the entire city.

Uh was there uh uh it's something uh specific that you had in mind or no, nothing specific.

Just um the fact that I wanted it set on record that investment anywhere in the city basically has potential to benefit the overall city.

Thank you.

Uh Director George Gossavits.

I think you're on the right track there.

Really do.

How how much how many more months do you think we need to give this before we can see some results?

Um another year, do you think?

Well, I mean, into 26 we should have a pretty good idea of what the sales taxes are going to do.

I I mean if we continue on the current trend, we're gonna hopefully exceed our um projected budget there.

And uh, you know, if I mean if of course our our department budget was pretty bare bones.

I mean, I I don't anticipate us being able to give or turn back as much as we have in the past, but you know, if if at the end of the year we do have accruals, um, you know, consider some or all of that being contributed to the the can't the capital.

Is there an ordinance that says they have to turn back its money to the to the city?

And they couldn't they just can't keep it for the police department use?

It is general fund money, George.

I mean, and and when it's when it's budgeted, it is anticipated that the budget request meets a hundred percent of that to operate the department throughout the year.

If they end up through the year and only spend ninety percent of that, uh then the other ten percent is turn back, but it's turned back to the general fund and essentially reallocated as part of the next year's budget.

I mean, I understand the concept of a turn back, but I also understand that that is part of what we start with and when we build the next year's budget.

Yeah, I understand.

But but and but it is certainly a a concept to consider um all of or a portion of whatever that number is from unspent operation operating funds.

Uh and it it it typically is left as a general reserve, and if we decide to allocate a portion of that or all of it that might be unspent from the police department operations into a capital fund for this particular purpose, I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

You know, uh Chief, you said uh the cream came crib or what's it called?

Cranky crane key, uh they have naming rights that that they do.

Can we sell other naming rights?

Um I mean, I guess you rooms and whatever something's in the building.

Sure.

I mean, that would rise raise money.

Yeah.

Or do a brick campaign.

I mean, that seems to be pretty popular.

Well, you know, but we support the police.

No, I want I want to see this work, but uh I just uh uh I think I think we can get it done.

I really do.

I I think if we just really cut, you know, get uh watch our budgets, not spend money unnecessarily.

I think we can get figure something out.

Thank you.

What what go ahead?

No, I was just gonna say that I mean the the property is gonna need work.

It's gonna need to be built in with the location, the size of the property.

And one thing that I didn't mention, and it's probably I mean it uh fate or by design that the Dr.

Mylam had his presentation before I did, but you know, there's still that third building on that property, and I don't know that the administration still intends to have a uh city maintenance facility out there.

So I mean there's plenty of room uh for other structures or you won't be able to do that.

Can we charge other agencies for training at that charge them to train there?

We in Arkansas we cannot charge for the training.

Um but getting them here is where the benefit comes from.

Um spending it on the hotels and and lunch and that kind of thing.

Okay, thanks.

So for if we had such a thing as a sinking fund, that's ultimately general fund dollars that would have to be set aside for the year.

Some, yeah.

Yeah.

Would it would it come from would it be other dollars besides well these sales tax funds that that we have at the end of the year that we can contribute or any donation the one eighth cent that you guys have?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Is there any thoughts to could we come back?

I you know, I appreciate the idea of sinking fund, let's see how the year ends and those nature.

But do you have an idea of a timeline if we wanted to be a little bit more aggressive?

How you know I and I'm talking about, hey, let's bring another study session, bring a plan that you guys have looked at financially that could bring forth, setting out maybe we think we could fundraise this, we think we could get this.

There's obviously an investment we're going to have to buy into to allow those things to have the fruit bearing that they would have.

Any thoughts about having a study session at a time at a timely manner before the end of the year?

I mean, I don't want to rush the process, but I don't want to just wish the process well but not hold it to a date.

You know, if you aim at nothing, you hit it every time.

So you you mean a date for like having seed money?

A date for a another session where we have we have gotten feedback from the community, you all went to work on the financial thing, and we come back in here together and we actually have something that we can take action on.

Because right now we're in we're in theory, and I think that's what you're after tonight is tell me if I'm theorizing the wrong thing and I'll let it go.

But if there is a consensus to continue on, then is there a date?

I mean, 30, 60, 90 days where we could come back before the end of the year just to reconvene on, yeah, this is the trend line we think we could go for and hit fourth quarter.

Some measurable goals.

Fourth quarter of 26.

Is that you think that's reasonable then?

You don't think you don't think you bring it to any sooner than that?

Do you don't think we could come any sooner than that?

Like could we do in the third quarter?

Sure.

So you that would include various funding mechanisms.

Uh yeah.

Potential dollar when we when we talk about donations.

I'm just interested in what that would actually look like.

Is it a million dollars?

So kind of, yeah, some some goals and you know we talk about fundraising.

I mean, usually there's a there's people that do this professionally, such as Director Rigo and others that are in the in the community as well.

There are percentages that you know we're gonna have to pony up, and then we think we could do this, we think we could do this.

And I think it would be prudent if we're really gonna take this serious, then we could have that conversation even before the budget for the next fiscal year.

I think I think it's important to know what do we think we could do uh in reality to take action instead of just being in theory.

Well, and director set like Director Settle's idea about um potential note that that could all these things come in and we can see what the full impact would be.

Yeah, I would just love a warm-up study session so I don't get at the end of the year and go vote.

Yeah, I and I go, whoa, that's the right.

I'd like to have this sometime in I don't think in July.

So could we start looking at budgets in August, September?

I'd like to know some of this.

Sometime in July, first of August, so that way directive from this board can give the administration what we want to do in the budget process, and we're not making decisions in November, and we should have done something.

Especially when we talk about salaries of policemen, the number of police force.

I mean, I'm serious about the Combine thing.

I mean, we have to move these things through.

I agree.

So this idea, it's hard for me to conceptualize without seeing that, and then also seeing how fruitful we think we could be going at this financial plan.

But I I mean I'm all in.

I'm just saying let's come back at a better time with some better data and look at it yet again instead of waiting to the end of the year.

Well, can I make a motion that we come back uh and have another session uh in uh either late uh July, late July or early August uh to include some of the financial uh requests and options uh that you've that you know we've asked for tonight.

Well can I make a motion that we come back uh and have another session uh in uh either late uh July late July or early August uh to include some of the financial uh requests and options uh that you've that you know we've asked for tonight that's all second that so uh and just I mean I I think I'm clear on I mean you don't want to sell the property correct and you are willing to commit or you're willing to um support it financially to some degree yes so I mean anybody who's going to be investing in this is going to want to know those two things and probably the third thing how much which I know I can't we can't do that tonight yeah but um have having those two questions answered will help me tremendously and a projection from you as a chief of how many police positions you're going to need for the next year potentially or a a projection of what you're even thinking about doing with police force so that we can see that and understand because we may be able to be aggressive you know maybe that we're in a strong position and we take an aggressive approach or maybe we do a more mild approach you know I sure it's hard to see it without the better metrics thank you chief so what I'm hearing is that we all for the new precinct and training facility um put together your best options and bring the cost and all the details to us and we'll and and again let us know what you would like to do.

You put a lot of work into this work's been ongoing for some years now and my recommendation is that we don't kick it down and kick the can down the road and trust the leadership we put in place to deal with these things.

Okay anything else motion to adjourn you reviewed preliminary agenda for April 7th for the regular meeting if there are no questions on that yeah I would say uh a couple of things uh just as a as a reminder the city offices are closed on Friday April 3rd for the Good Friday um we do have uh a couple of things and it's relevant a little bit to what we just discussed um on our proposed meeting schedule for 2026 we did propose a June uh 12th it's on that big sheet that we we talked about when we set the meeting schedule June 12th uh strategic workshop because that that does lean into doing some budget discussion ahead of the uh I think we did it in August last time and we then led into the proposed resolutions for strategic priorities which we never ultimately adopted and still isn't on our pending list but I think we need to have go away for the time being when and when we start looking at the the new ones did you say June 12th?

June 12th I think it's a Friday.

Yeah I know I'm I'm out of town I have a a work conference that weekend.

Okay but the but the idea the idea being and we we can look at an alternate date but the uh the idea being we do it in the June ish or or much at least before before July so we can start getting the the board's priorities worked into budget uh budget discussions including including this one for instance so anything else just would if I get four directors to remove that strategic priorities thing from our pending list because it's been sitting there for we need four hands quite to remove it yes please you're not picking that date though correct because not not June not removing that we're just removing the old one that still lingers on our pending list so we can't get rid of thank you I found you I counted you again two of you have to get our approval yes because it was formally placed on a on an on the to be considered at an agenda.

Actually we had it on a we had it on an agenda and then it was tabled for further consideration.

We did have a motion and a second to adjourn all right I agree thank you