OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Fort Smith Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Summary – April 9, 2026

Meeting Portal — Thursday, April 9, 2026
BodyFort Smith, Arkansas
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, April 9, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:42:03

Transcript — Verbatim
0:05

Welcome everyone to the uh January Parks and Right Commission meeting.

0:12

Jump with our December 24 25 minutes.

0:19

Changes I'll then motion to approve those.

0:23

So move.

0:25

Motion.

0:26

Second.

0:27

All favor say aye.

0:29

Aye.

0:29

Aye.

0:30

Okay.

0:31

So those approved.

0:33

Okay.

0:34

Here we go.

0:35

Update on the planning process.

0:40

So we'll jump in on that one.

0:44

That is all Scott and I that are here.

0:50

There we go.

0:54

Sorry.

0:56

Oh, you guys are 100% on that.

1:02

It's hard.

1:04

Yeah.

1:05

Okay, we're here.

1:06

All right.

1:08

Take it out.

1:10

You want us to just jump right in, Sarah?

1:12

Yep.

1:13

Jump right in.

1:14

Yeah.

1:15

I think how many of them?

1:17

Maybe a benchmark or at least a baseline.

1:21

I think I've met most of you.

1:23

I'm Scott Crawford with RDG, and Brian Trusty with Rose Consulting.

1:28

And McClellan in uh consulting engineers was also very integral in everything that we've developed with the three entities.

1:36

Yep, I can speak up, you bet.

1:38

Um we presented to the board of directors last night, um, had a lot of uh good dialogue, uh informed questions from them that we were able to provide answers on most of the information.

1:51

Some of it were questions about things that are yet to come later.

1:54

And but it was good, it was a I think a really good update to the group.

1:59

Um the meeting was quite well attended by the public.

2:02

Um how many of you were a part of or at least participated in all or some of the meetings that we had in December.

2:13

Okay, so a good portion of you have probably um seen some of the information that's here.

2:18

Everything that's that we're gonna review today is available on the social pinpoint site online that the city has pushed out notifications on, and uh we presented some of the findings of that to the board last night, which we'll review today at least in some of the initial feedback that we've received.

2:35

That site will remain open likely for the next couple of weeks uh to continue to get feedback from the community before we um export the data again and then incorporate that into the part A deliverables.

2:47

But what we wanted to review review with you today is what we reviewed last night and have a dialogue with you all.

2:53

Please ask questions as we go through it.

2:55

Um the current master planning part A services that we're coming to the conclusion on, uh kind of recap the guiding principles that were established by the committees uh leading the project, review the preliminary concept alternatives.

3:09

Brian will share a couple of uh the precedent case studies of similar uh public open spaces and parks and other communities that are reclaimed and repurposed quarry projects, and then we want to review kind of the dialogue that we received back on the community engagement and feedback to date.

3:26

So as many of you know working with Sarah and the and the community and the committees on the project thus far.

3:35

These are the three kind of uh committees or or the structure that was put together at the beginning of the project, the core team, the technical committee, and then the uh steering committee representing a broader cross-section of the community, and we had really good participation throughout the entire uh part A planning process uh with people attending meetings and uh actively participating in the discussion, so it was great to have such a good representation from the community in that process.

4:05

The part A, or it's noted here that's as phase one of what we're coming to the conclusion on included that initial goal setting, establishing the guiding principles.

4:14

There was some benchmarking uh that we did of other uh potential projects that had a wide range of program and recreational opportunities, the inventory analysis, and kind of in between tasks two and three, we spent a fair amount of time coordinating with half associates that's actually designing the stormwater basins on the project to help mitigate flooding in order to arrive at what we think is a really good recommendation to leverage the flood mitigations uh basins with active recreational opportunities on the property, meaning water activities and activities that can occur at or near the water's edge.

4:53

Um then we've spent the fair amount of the last three months working through the concept alternatives that were shared uh with the public and with the stakeholder groups in December.

5:03

The next step would be, and we'll talk about this later in the presentation, would be to uh advance that through uh the planning refinement to get to a final concept plan for the entire property, start to identify uh cost magnitude and implementation strategy for that, and uh probably equally important to that is the long-term operational plan that Ryan will help put together once that concept is developed, so that the city will have a very clear understanding on how the how the park or how the public space would be operated, staffed, and um perhaps even a long-range look on the performer.

5:40

I think it's a good reminder here to remember this is this was not proposed by us as a planning team to be a two-phase project.

5:48

This was initially a one-phase project.

5:50

Yeah, but in the contracting process with the board of directors, it got broken into two phases.

5:57

Yeah.

5:57

So it's we're not trying to add more work for us at the on the back end here.

6:02

This was originally one big project to deliver a complete master plan.

6:06

Yeah, that's a good point.

6:08

I think that was maybe October of 2024 that we initially when we initially did it, and then to get over the hurdle to at least get pushing forward.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Parks and Recreation█████████████████████████████████████████████69%
Community Engagement██████████15%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████9%
Economic Development██3%
Animal Welfare██3%
Financial Oversight█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Fort Smith Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Summary – April 9, 2026

Note: The transcript indicates this meeting was originally held in January 2026, but the provided date for this summary is April 9, 2026. This summary uses the supplied date as instructed, but the discrepancy is noted.

The meeting covered approval of previous minutes, a detailed update on the ACME property master planning process (Part A), discussion of three concept alternatives, community engagement results, and other park department updates. Commissioners also discussed park inventory, funding strategies, and public comments.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of December 24, 2025 meeting minutes – motion, second, and unanimous voice vote (all ayes).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Steve Sherro, a resident of Fort Smith, spoke about the loss of the 40-acre dog park near the airport. He requested that a portion of the ACME property be set aside for a new dog park, noting that the downtown dog park is inadequate for large dogs. He suggested the dog park could be a low-cost, privately supported amenity. Commissioners acknowledged the request and noted that dog park options are on the list of potential amenities for future planning (Part B), but no final decision was made.

Discussion Items

  • ACME Property Master Plan Update – Scott Crawford (RDG) and Brian Trusty (Rose Consulting) presented the Part A planning status. Six guiding principles were established: flood mitigation, connecting people to nature, low maintenance, uniqueness of place, accessibility, and economic benefit. Three concept alternatives were developed:
    • Concept 1: Flood mitigation only – three dry detention basins, no public access, fenced and locked.
    • Concept 2: Flood mitigation plus public recreation – central basin converted to a 7-8 acre wet pond/lake, with trails, kayak/canoe launch, island adventure play, picnic areas, and a pump track. Public access from Old Greenwood Road and Country Club Avenue.
    • Concept 3: Same as Concept 2, plus private development on the east parcel (2 acres) and south end (14-18 acres) for mixed-use, hospitality, or multifamily.
    • All three concepts meet the same 100-year stormwater detention requirements.
  • Community Engagement Results: Over 50 people attended the December public open house. Online engagement (as of Jan 8) showed 53% preferred Concept 2, 28% Concept 3, 19% Concept 1. Strong support for passive recreation, walking/biking trails, and connecting to nature. 96% of online respondents opposed selling land for private development. Adjacent neighbors expressed interest in trail connections and concerns about stormwater impacts.
  • Discussion on Private Development: Commissioner Sam (a developer) cautioned that selling raw land before the park is built would not attract developers; the city would likely not recoup significant funds. Other commissioners agreed, suggesting only a small strip on the east parcel might be sellable. The board of directors expressed interest in grants from the Walton Family Foundation, state parks, and other sources.
  • Next Steps: The team will produce an interim Part A deliverable with benchmarking to counter the misconception that Fort Smith has too many parks (the city has 34 public parks vs. 50-70 average for similar-sized communities, and about one-third the park acres per capita). Part B planning (5-6 months) will refine the concept, add three public open houses, and develop cost estimates and an operational plan.
  • Other Park Updates: Sarah provided updates on:
    • Creekmore Park tennis courts – plans finalized, bidding early February.
    • Tills Park parking lot and Riley Farm Park improvements – engineering underway.
    • May Branch greenway – state ORLP/LWCF grant agreement drafting allowed, new state contact responsive.
    • Parrot Island Water Park funding – a motion proposed using $760,000 in earned interest (not CIP sales tax money) plus $655,000 already allocated but unspent, and the remainder from general fund balance. Commissioners felt this compromise likely avoids taking park CIP funds.
    • Department Facebook page consolidating into city’s main page.
    • Playground removals: Wood Lawn (old spring toys), MOK (25-year-old Little Tikes playground) due to parts unavailability. Tree maintenance and boardwalk repairs scheduled.
  • Commissioner Comments: Commissioner expressed concern about the official park count (34 listed, but some like Fondrum Park, Anniversary Rose Garden, Briar Cliff, Darby Community Center, and Mazard Prairie Battlefield are underutilized or not true parks). Suggested deeding back Fondrum Park. Noted that the Darby Community Center is historic and cannot be easily transferred. Commissioner also inquired about MLK soccer goal nets (removed by users) and requested Sarah’s Future Fort Smith presentation be shared.

Key Outcomes

  • Unanimous approval of December 2025 minutes.
  • No formal vote on concept alternatives, but consensus to move forward with Concept 2 (flood mitigation plus recreation) for detailed refinement in Part B planning. Commissioners emphasized that Concept 2 includes Concept 1’s stormwater goals.
  • Direction to include a park benchmarking analysis in the Part A interim deliverable to correct the “too many parks” misperception.
  • Dog park inclusion will be considered during Part B community engagement.
  • Parrot Island funding approach (using interest and general fund balance) appears to have board support; final decision at next week’s board meeting.
  • Staff directed to explore deeding back Fondrum Park and to prepare a status report on underutilized parks.
  • The meeting adjourned.

Meeting Transcript

Welcome everyone to the uh January Parks and Right Commission meeting. Jump with our December 24 25 minutes. Changes I'll then motion to approve those. So move. Motion. Second. All favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So those approved. Okay. Here we go. Update on the planning process. So we'll jump in on that one. That is all Scott and I that are here. There we go. Sorry. Oh, you guys are 100% on that. It's hard. Yeah. Okay, we're here. All right. Take it out. You want us to just jump right in, Sarah? Yep. Jump right in. Yeah. I think how many of them? Maybe a benchmark or at least a baseline. I think I've met most of you. I'm Scott Crawford with RDG, and Brian Trusty with Rose Consulting. And McClellan in uh consulting engineers was also very integral in everything that we've developed with the three entities. Yep, I can speak up, you bet. Um we presented to the board of directors last night, um, had a lot of uh good dialogue, uh informed questions from them that we were able to provide answers on most of the information. Some of it were questions about things that are yet to come later. And but it was good, it was a I think a really good update to the group. Um the meeting was quite well attended by the public. Um how many of you were a part of or at least participated in all or some of the meetings that we had in December. Okay, so a good portion of you have probably um seen some of the information that's here. Everything that's that we're gonna review today is available on the social pinpoint site online that the city has pushed out notifications on, and uh we presented some of the findings of that to the board last night, which we'll review today at least in some of the initial feedback that we've received. That site will remain open likely for the next couple of weeks uh to continue to get feedback from the community before we um export the data again and then incorporate that into the part A deliverables. But what we wanted to review review with you today is what we reviewed last night and have a dialogue with you all. Please ask questions as we go through it. Um the current master planning part A services that we're coming to the conclusion on, uh kind of recap the guiding principles that were established by the committees uh leading the project, review the preliminary concept alternatives. Brian will share a couple of uh the precedent case studies of similar uh public open spaces and parks and other communities that are reclaimed and repurposed quarry projects, and then we want to review kind of the dialogue that we received back on the community engagement and feedback to date. So as many of you know working with Sarah and the and the community and the committees on the project thus far. These are the three kind of uh committees or or the structure that was put together at the beginning of the project, the core team, the technical committee, and then the uh steering committee representing a broader cross-section of the community, and we had really good participation throughout the entire uh part A planning process uh with people attending meetings and uh actively participating in the discussion, so it was great to have such a good representation from the community in that process. The part A, or it's noted here that's as phase one of what we're coming to the conclusion on included that initial goal setting, establishing the guiding principles. There was some benchmarking uh that we did of other uh potential projects that had a wide range of program and recreational opportunities, the inventory analysis, and kind of in between tasks two and three, we spent a fair amount of time coordinating with half associates that's actually designing the stormwater basins on the project to help mitigate flooding in order to arrive at what we think is a really good recommendation to leverage the flood mitigations uh basins with active recreational opportunities on the property, meaning water activities and activities that can occur at or near the water's edge.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com