Good evening, and welcome to the Ford Miss Cedar Board of Register session on this April 14th of 2026.

At this time, we will go right to the first item on the agenda.

Yes, sir.

The first item is amendment number one with Half Associates and Mr.

Todd Mickey, the Director of Engineering will discuss the Acme Brick stormwater mitigation ponds.

This was tabled from last week's regular meeting.

Myself and Alan Beaver from Half Associates are here to present on this design amendment and answer any questions you may have.

I don't know if this laser pointer works, but you want to be able to see it anyway, is a consent decree portion of the sewer main that has to be upsized for additional flow capacity anyway.

So in this process, we are hiring them to design this as uh kill two birds with one stone type of project for something we already would have to design on the east side near the additional pond.

There is a sewer line relocation that is not an upsize in the consent decree, but is a NASCO-rated four or five pipe, so it needs to be addressed.

So we're also asking them to uh relocate that so that the pond can be there to maximize flood storage.

This drainage area map in is presented in three locations.

The East Pond is a basin of 194 acres, which will take floodwaters from this entire section of the town up to the old ACME brick administration building area, which has been demolished, of course, but we will dig that out to maximize its its usage.

But all 194 acres of this area of town will drain there and be able to be stored there in the event of a flood, and is going to be the most amount of area that's treated.

The greenish area there is approximately 89 acres for the pond basin in the quarry itself, and then an additional 54 acres that's rerouted from uh uphill to come into this location.

So that would go into the most visible of the three ponds.

The pink area is approximately 66 acres, and that is the area that will not be normally seen.

You'll have to walk back there to see it, but it can hold approximately 66 acres worth, and this will maximize as much flood control as we can downstream.

So I'm gonna hand this off to Alan Deaver, and he's gonna kind of go through the uh project from kickoff to where we are at today.

Hi there, good evening.

Um yeah, just to start, I feel like I'm really loud.

Just to start, uh I'd like to go through where we started from and uh and and how we got here.

Um like Todd said, in January of 2025, we were executed to do the stormwater mitigation design, um, and then within the first quarter of the year, uh, moved through all of our uh data gathering phases for you know survey environmental and geotechnical investigations and then quickly realized after receiving that geotechnical information that there was a very large hard layer of uh sandstone a little bit higher and and would be requiring us to remove it in order to do that two-pond scenario.

So we quickly pivoted and came up with an alternative scenario that uh was presented to staff and the design team in April of 2025 as a cost-saving measure ultimately, and we can get into those uh specifics here in a bit.

And then we um adopted that, moved forward with 30 percent plans delivery in May, and then um at that time a decision needed to be made on pursuing all dry pond scenarios, or if we were going to consider the quarry pond in a wet design.

And uh at the time we were directed to pursue full dry detention basins.

So we moved forward with that and delivered 60 percent plans in August.

And since then we've been in somewhat of a holding pattern awaiting RDG master plan concepts, or we were in a holding pattern, awaiting RDG master plan concepts and working with the city on their internal discussions, decision making, uh supporting the master planning efforts, and conducting site visits with uh with stakeholders.

Um and at this time we're ready to proceed forward with staff direction and your approval of our amendment.

Uh the next slide here highlights the differences, I guess the comparison of our original contract amount and then what's before you for approval for review and approval.

Um that original contract executed in January of 2025 of the 466,000, we have uh spent 330,000, and that is paying for our subconsultants, environmental engineers, geotechnical engineers, our survey, and then got us through 60% plan design, and then just assisting from that point on with the city decision making.

And so that leaves us about $90,000 left in uh in design, and then the full budget allotted for the bidding and construction phase, uh, which has obviously not been touched yet.

So on the new amendment, as you can see, we've broken it out by each item that is in the amendment for your approval, uh, along with their design fee amounts and the approximate percentages that they are of the total amendment.

And throughout the next handful of slides, we'll dive into each one of these briefly and give uh some background and explanation for each and provide an opportunity for questions.

And so, if if ever as we're going through, please, by all means, at the end of each slide, we can take some questions and make sure that there's clarity on each one.

All right, so the first of which we'll start with is the decision on the on the wet west creek pond, excuse me.

And as I mentioned before in the timeline breakdown, we provided this third pond option fairly quickly, or as an option uh to pursue, and that is really the we're calling it a pond, but it's really just a berm across the low area in that valley between the two ridges in order to create that storage volume.

So actually, very little little construction work to to construct this pond, but we get some meaningful storage behind it.

Um the implementation of this pond was done for several reasons, but ultimately boils down to uh attempting to save the city time and money.

Uh firstly, um, in an effort to do so, it will reduce the amount of rock, as we've said multiple times, so it reduces the amount of rock excavation needed significantly.

Um at the end of the day, we have a target volume of water that we have to you know store for these large uh storm events, and we have a limited area on the property to do so.

And so specifically on the east basin, where there is uh uh definitely some limited area and where the largest amount of water is going to.

Uh this combined with a drainage reroute to take some of that basin, as Todd was talking about away from the east basin and moving it to the quarry pond, allows us to hopefully stay out of that rock as much as possible.

And um, so at the end of the day, doing this we get the same volume, but we don't have to dig as deep.

All right, and then the other big thing that we avoid with this um option is uh costly and time consuming environmental permitting.

The creek along this western border is identified on the USGS wetlands map or as a potential wetland, and so uh during the original scope of the project, we included environmental studies to get that checked out and make sure that we were you know doing everything the way we needed to be doing it, and that investigation came back identifying that as an intermittent stream and uh relocation, which would have been necessary if we were to stick with the with the two pond scenario, basically getting that green area into the quarry pond shown in the blue, um put candidly uh can be a permitting nightmare.

And so when we can avoid relocation of those streams, streams uh we would love to do so.

So this berm is far less impactful than uh total relocation of that and is would fall under the the core of engineers nationwide permit, um, which that permitted has already been done.

It's very quick and uh I say painless process and it has already been approved.

So we're good to go.

Um any questions on that?

Sorry.

If not, okay.

Is not to further support design.

It is meant primarily to determine if we can save the city money.

So the current investigations that have been done gave us everything we need to know about where that rock layer is, what kind of soil we're dealing with, but as part of the uh the reroute and the the third pond, the the east basin on the east side of old greenwood requires a large amount of excavation.

We're digging a big hole.

And on the west side, we're essentially using the quarry and its natural banks to contain that water and creating some embankments on the north side, and then that west pond is a full embankment, no no fill, no cut necessary.

And so basically we have all this excess spoil on the east side that when we asked uh our geotechnical engineer, hey, is this stuff able to be utilized in those embankment slopes?

Um their answer was in order to give you the right answer, we need to do a little bit more investigation.

So they'll go out, take some more samples, run some more tests, and then be able to tell us that answer.

But at the end of the day, if if that answer is yes, then we get to we'll save a lot of money in trucking costs and uh not having to bring in any material to the site to create those slopes.

We'll be able to use what is on the property.

Um the second portion of this amendment, uh, there are two pieces to this geotechnical portion, I should say, is a um throughout this process, um, some of our preliminary borings, if you can see in your packet, uh, B23 primarily indicates of a pretty healthy layer of shale that could be potentially uh processed and sold.

And so as we move west up that ridge up that hill, um, we anticipate that that is still the case.

And so while they're out there, we're gonna have them punch a few more holes, try to quantify exactly where that limits is and and if it might be a feasible thing for the city to pursue to operate manufacturers and sell it.

Any questions there?

When we went out and we um we looked at it where we were standing, is that about where B23 is?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm trying to orient myself.

Almost exactly where B23 is, actually.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I think you've you probably took everybody to the same spot.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

So this next piece is um the wet quarry pond as it's just labeled in the amendment.

And so after the public engagement piece of of RDG's master plan, it was obvious that there was significant interest in the center pond being a wet recreational amenity amenity.

And uh your number one question for me during that presentation was well, how much is it going to cost additional uh in order to do that?

And as I stated in that study session and some of our meetings on site, unfortunately it's just not something I can answer right now without putting pen to paper and doing some more design work, uh, taking that picture on the right, which is a SNP from RDG's concept plan and making it look a little bit more like what's on the left, which is a picture of our uh 60% plan set of that basin in a dry pond configuration.

Um I should also note that the amount included in this amendment would cover half to do a full design of that basin so that we could take it as a deductive alternative during bidding, and the city could see real uh cost numbers for what that difference would be and make an educated decision from there.

And I'll also note that you know our our contracts are hourly not to exceed, and uh it's very possible that we're able to get enough information and produce estimates as early as 60% plans that would enable the city to make a educated decision if if we felt comfortable enough about it, and you guys felt comfortable enough about it at that point, at which case we would uh no longer bill on that phase and any time left in the contract would be unused.

Any questions?

Okay.

So the um it's been mentioned a couple times already in the presentation, but as part of the plan, we're we're having to move some water, some drainage basin that currently flows through the east property and get it into the quarry in an effort to reduce that rock excavation, like we talked about.

And again, uh what came up during some of the public engagement of the RDG master planning process were some concerns raised from the residents in the area regarding the method of which we're doing that, which is depicted as a snip from our plans as just a we're relocating a ditch, a creek, or it's a it's a ditch that currently flows into the east pond, indicated on a blue line, that blue dashed arrow line, and we'd um have to move that west and get it into the quarry pond.

Doing so, however, would uh eliminate a lot of the trees in that area, which currently act as a as a natural screening buffer between this neighborhood and old Greenwood Road.

So, in an effort to avoid the loss of those trees, has half has been tasked by the city staff to evaluate other alternatives, uh, make a recommendation and uh ultimately create a design for one to incorporate incorporate into the plans.

Any questions here?

Okay.

Lastly, um, and the the largest portion of this amendment, as I've stated, um, is the and as Todd mentioned um is capacity upgrades to an existing trunk line going through the area.

Um the existing line is a mixture of 12 and 18-inch line, and based on capacity studies performed, the line needs to be a 24-inch all the way from the northern portion of our property down to country club.

Um this item of work, as Todd said is addressing consent agenda work, being that a more majority of the lines being replaced or scores of four and five and uh and in need of capacity upgrades.

This amendment covers half to essentially treat this portion of work as a whole separate project.

Um we would create a separate plans and um ideally bid this out in advance of the stormwater pond so that we could get it out of the way and and and treat it as a separate project.

Are there any questions on this?

So funding this sewer upgrade would come out of the one cent sales and use tax sales and use taxes.

Not streets, bridges.

Well, not streets, bridges, and drainage, not parks.

It would come out of the consent decree sales tax.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this?

If not, I'll turn it back over to Todd.

Thank you, Alan.

As we prepared for this meeting, we learned of a funding opportunity called the NOFO notice of funding opportunity from the federal government and that came out in late March through FEMA.

It's called the the BRIC program, building resilient infrastructure and communities program.

And through the Arkansas Division of Emergency Management, they can submit projects from throughout the state for projects like this to help reduce flooding, anything with uh having to do with hazard mitigation, and we are in discussions with the state through Wappadity to submit this program for up to 75% reimbursement.

So one of the things that we are going to evaluate and bring to you, possibly in May, is this to be included in a plan for that so that instead of the full gamut, we get 75% reimbursed on it.

And that could involve the wet pond option, it could involve just a dry pond option, but our plan is to go through what we can before that and also work with Wappa Diddy and get as much information and also the chances of us being approved.

We'll know more about that as we go on.

But I wanted to let you know about that, that it's an exciting opportunity to get some outside money to help pay for this.

So any questions on this presentation at all about the BRIC program.

Anything you'd like to ask me or Alan?

Hi.

I have a question.

It says on the on the project scope summary, it says to reduce flooding.

How much reduction are we looking at from the flooding?

It would be a flood reduction.

We're looking at 50%, 70%.

I'll let Alan address that.

Um depends on what storm event we're looking at.

Um, but in the 25-year event, which is a 25% chance any time it rains, that's the event you're getting.

Um I don't have it in terms of percentage, but I have a 25% chance of what?

25% chance that in this given rain event you're gonna get this storm event.

This it's a little convoluted and confusing.

But the 25-year event is what I'm referring to.

In that event, we will remove 25 structures from that 25 year floodplain and uh reduce the flow rate by 325 CFS.

Um in the 100-year event um we reduce seven structures and it's a C 696 CFS reduction.

And in total, there are 137 structures benefited, meaning that uh floodplain is either reduced or or eliminates flooding in there.

Of the 137 structures.

137 structures are benefited.

That are flooding now.

That are that are in the flood.

Or in the flood.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, good.

Um the good catch.

The m most benefits we'll get are between the park, the sorry, the the property and then the uh park avenue Kincaid street, and then effects uh go away as we go north from there, the basins just you know get more and more drainages are coming in, the effects from this property are less.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Director Neil More.

So I I've got a couple questions.

Go back to Josh.

If you can go back to this slide here, the or yes, if you whoever's driving.

So I look at the the only thing that I have questions on at this point is the utility excavation and the geotech.

Um it's it's really fifty-six thousand dollars, something like that.

So what in terms of the project, where is that geotech and that utility excavation, what part of the is that benefiting?

I'll go over the geotech portion and Valan talk about the utility excavation.

The geotechnical portion is additional data for around where B 17 is shown, B16, B 18, more holes there to show how deep that bedrock layer is for that east pond, because the more we know about it, the lower our bids will come in.

For the east pond?

Yes, for the east pond where the former Acme Brick uh administration buildings in those were uh Philip.

We need to correct that, sorry.

The um it's we are digging some area on that side, taking soil samples for that east pond to determine if that soil over there is good to use in the embankment on the other ponds.

We know where that rock layer is already.

Okay.

One other thing to add too is from B23 where we all met with you individually, we have additional holes that I wanted dug.

I I directed him to do some additional uh investigation to see how much good shale we have, because that's a resource the city could get paid back for and help further reduce the amount.

And I know you probably can't answer this, but how much money are we talking?

If we could if we could mine it and sell it.

Significant?

It's significant in terms of I mean I don't even know how to I don't even know how to describe it here.

Uh hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Yeah, unfortunately, neither do we because it all we have to go off of is that B23 boring that indicates about a 10-foot thick layer that uh could be uh could be mined, but the you know we don't know how far that goes, and so if it doesn't go far enough, the answer to your question is not not enough.

There's not enough impact book.

Okay.

That's what we're trying to figure out.

I guess when I go look at the look at these numbers and you start kind of peeling back a little bit, how much where these dollars are going.

If you if you take out the the original bid was 400, or this this amendment is 464,000.

And I think that was the big concern.

It's double the amount of the original bid.

So we've got an amendment that's basically double the amount.

You look at that, 173,000 of that is sewer consent decree.

Paid by 1% sales tax.

But it's lumped in here, okay?

That brings you down to 291,585.

You take the drainage reroute, that's $60,000, that brings it down to $231.

So really the amendment to this property is $231,000 when you're looking at um uh drainage alleviation in terms of the amendment.

And then that all that geotech and the uh utility excavation potentially brings this amendment outside of this wet uh the wet quarry pond, which I wrote which I wrote down is an amenity.

Now is is that if if that wet quarry pond is included, is it an amenity or is it a part of this drainage solution?

I'll start and then I'll have Alan finish.

But as far as the wet pond, it's a amenity in a sense or a potential amenity, but it reduces our maintenance cost of the pond overall because you have to come in and mow it.

You have sediment that's going to come in, even though we're on a bedrock layer.

Okay.

So eventually you're gonna get weeds and everything, and we need to go in and and maintain that eventually, but in a wet pond, you don't have those.

I mean, some along the shoreline, it's a simple weedy type of job.

But that's one of the ideas, plus it's a potential for if the city or we got future grant money to improve this area in different ways, then there's that potential.

Without that, you could we'd never want to come you could use it as an amenity if it's a wet pond.

Okay.

So I guess really what I was looking at is how much of this amendment was fluff or something like that, and I don't necessarily want to call things fluff, that's probably a bad term.

But I wanted to make sure that I understood this what was coming here was not just stuff that we were just adding on to the end of it.

Really, there was some value to it, especially the the consent decree items.

Let me ask this question.

And uh we probably talked about it last week, but what was the reasoning that these things weren't identified um in the original contract?

First of all, we didn't really adequately answer the utility excavation portion.

Okay.

So if Ellen could answer that and then go to the scope of what they bid on, not bid on, what they addressed in the January 2025 is very important to communicate.

Um so the utility excavations, those are to expose a 16-inch transmission line, water line that we have to cross.

And so we really want to know where that is.

You have to cross it regardless.

We cross it with the drainage reroute regardless.

Okay.

Um to answer your second question there, you know, how much of this or what why wasn't this included in the original amendment?

It's because most of it wasn't on the horizon, you know.

Like we did not know that the sewer lines in the area needed that much work and needed to be upsized, and so that that's a big portion uh whenever we submitted our conceptual plans, those 30% plans, that's when that came in to came to light as a uh comment we received from the city utilities.

Um did did util did city utilities know about it?

Yes, that's what they that's when they told us.

After after after the bid, after um it came to us and we approved it, that's when we we knew that we knew that we would have to do some you relocations, but we didn't know to the extent and and to further say that, even though we were having to ex uh do some ex uh relocations, it was not anywhere, it would not necessarily be anywhere near to the extent of what we're doing right here.

Um we needed to relocate a small portion of this line, and so then the the topic was well while you're doing that, it's it's neat it's needed to be done from here to here.

Oh, okay.

And so that's already already part of capacity planning.

Okay.

That's right.

It was going to be done regardless.

Yes, sir.

At some point, whether it's here or whether it's two years down the road, five years down, whatever.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think it does.

I mean, I I really understanding the the sewer component of this, understanding that uh there's some ancillary things around it, I think is beneficial for me to help me you know wrap my head around it.

So I appreciate you guys.

Thank you.

Thank Director Kemp was nation and a Q and then Director Gassavage.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, gentlemen, for the presentation.

A lot of the detail, really appreciate that.

Are we confident with this amendment?

Are you still are you confident that you have it all?

Or is there a chance that you know we didn't really want to mention this, so we pulled it back, or you know, or or is there a chance that we peel into one of these and then discover we still need more dollars?

Or do you feel like that this amendment has had its time to bake in and really does encompass the finality of where we now start collecting bids and moving forward?

Um I can't like crystal ball tell you for sure, but uh I'm very confident that this amendment covers us for the duration of the of the design project.

Okay.

And is it possible that the other things that they did arise, those are more like uh things that aren't critical to getting bids per se?

It would just be more of a want list at that point.

Yes, if the project proceeded with the scope we have right now, I'm confident that these amendment amounts are good to go.

Let's the second question I have is what if this amendment didn't pass?

And we stop with what we have already approved.

What how does this impact the project?

We would simply design it with the full dry pond capacity.

A little bit, but we would we would make do and it would it would remove the the wet pond option.

But part of this was with the wet quarry pond fund in there to answer some of your questions that you had after the region.

No, I agree.

And I'm I'm supportive of the amendment.

I'm just wrapping my mind around all of this because you also have the sanitary sewer design that sounds like we we need to approve.

And then to your point about saving dollars on the wet pond or any future usability, I still stand by and I just wanted us to hear or feel you know that this almost at some point many of this seems like proper due diligence to me.

But if it didn't pass, I was just gonna ask you how it would impact.

Do you think it would impact bids as well?

I know you've talked about this as cost-saving measures.

I do, especially it would remove the potential for uh rock that the city could sell and we could make money on to fund this.

But if we didn't pass this amendment, we would likely have to reconnoiter and bring a smaller amendment for the sewer consent degree project because I really would like to get that combined in at this time.

It'll overall save us money to do it now because this probably was uh scheduled for a few years out, but getting it in now and having it its own project and done in its own contract prior to any potential pond work, especially if we have to wait for uh federal funding, which I didn't cover it.

It we anticipate at the minimum if we apply for this as a federal grant that it might delay six months because the FEMA program has a history of taking a lot of time.

So we could get that concentric portion fully finished and get the contractors out of the way because normally we have better bids if we keep a contract in a utility mindset or a pond type earth-moving mindset, not to combine them too much, because then they have that markup on a subcontractor and things like that.

My last question would just be uh from administration standpoint: what do we need to do to move forward?

If you'd like to place it on next week's agenda, it would take two directors.

I'm sure there's more dialogue to have here, but I would move to add it.

Any other comment from the board?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh, we need two to put it on the agenda.

I'll make a motion to add this to the next regular meeting agenda.

Seg it.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Go to item number two.

Yes, sir.

At the request of the board, Mr.

Andy Postrick, a Fort Smith resident will present present an overview of a proposed frontage levy as a potential approach to funding water infrastructure.

Mr.

Postric.

Thank you.

Thank you, Josh.

There you go.

Cool.

And this works already?

Yep.

All right, cool.

Thank you, everybody.

My name's Andy Postrick.

I love living in Fort Smith because you guys uh let people like me come up here and do this.

Um if you guys don't know me, my name's Andy Postric.

Um if you're wondering how I got up here, I'm always emailing the board with some crazy ideas.

Sometimes they're really small ideas, and you guys, one of you will reply and and and do it, and then other times it's a big crazy idea and sort of like nobody replies.

And then I follow up and I follow up and I follow up, and eventually somebody breaks down and lets me come and present one of the larger, crazier ideas.

Uh so I am a private citizen, and I brought that up just because I'm not here to sell you anything.

Um, this is just an idea that I had, and I don't even know if it works.

Whenever I brought it up in the past, I've never said that we need to do this.

I've always said the city should look into this, or when I first brought it up is when we had that water consultant uh with the cost of service study, and I thought maybe the the consultant could look into this.

Um but I'm coming at this from uh the direction of being an accountant uh for most of my career.

Uh since I prepared the slideshow like last week, I actually have a new job in the same company.

I'm no longer a real estate accountant.

I'm a I guess I'm like an accounting systems designer is how you could describe it.

Um then before that I was with AmeriCorps and some of my involvement involvement here in uh Fort Smith.

I'm always working on lots and lots of projects all at once.

Um, some of my other projects, I have a reflector project, um, I do a litter patrol, and then I also have a uh newsletter.

So tonight I'm gonna talk about the frontage levy.

Simply put, instead of charging customers for how much water they consume, um I'm here to sort of present a hypothetical sort of philosophical justification for charging for the amount of pipes that they have instead.

Remove the water bill, replace it with this.

Um so the bill is based on how much infrastructure your property is next to, basically.

And that's because a lot of our our bills, if you look at the the budget for the water department, it's largely based on pipes.

There's no section that that says how much they're paying for water.

And so uh again, this is all like hypothetical philosophical, but when we talk about why our property is connected to pipes, um we don't own the pipes in front of our house, uh, but we personally monopolize them.

Those pipes in front of our property are ours, nobody else can use them, and while they are conveying water past us, um they are ours to use how we please as landowners.

And there's four things that I came up with to sort of talk about that and and why that access creates value.

So the first are the first two are access and value creation, and those are sort of related, but just the idea of having access to the water system that the city has built for you, that the taxpayers have built for you, uh, gives you an incentive uh to to buy land.

And if you if you look at land for sale on the outskirts of town, they'll always mention that uh whether it's hooked up to city plumbing or not.

And that is something that the taxpayer has paid for that gives direct value to the landowner.

Uh another thing that happens is opportunity cost, and that is as the landowner you get to decide what to do with the land, but there may be a market for something else uh that that that that land could be used for.

So if your house uh is right where a really snazzy uh car wash might be, that car wash might uh be able to pay, there's a market for it, it might be able to pay a lot more into the water bill system uh than your house would.

And that there's an opportunity cost there.

And then there's also an actual cost to uh having uh a section of pipe just catered to you and your family uh that the city has to pay for in perpetuity forever.

And the actual cost is what I'm gonna try to spend most of tonight talking about.

This graph is uh something that I uh found uh the data for in our annual comprehensive financial reports, and right now it just looks like a bunch of lines, but I find this actually very disturbing.

The red line there is how we actually pay for our water system, and if you'll notice uh it had some fluctuations, but on the on the long-term trend, our water users are using less and less water.

So that's the money coming into our system.

And at the same time, our population is going up, and they're using less water at the same time, and then also the amount of pipes that we have to take care of, our water mains have gone up dramatically, 14%, and the number of employees that have to take care of the pipes has also gone up dramatically.

So we have more people, more pipes, uh, and and less water to pay for it.

And as you continue to increase water rates, because all taxes are a disincentive, we can probably assume that that water usage will continue to decline and people will use less and less water.

So let me give you an example.

Uh, this is an actual job here in Fort Smith.

This is a sewer job, it's not water, but this is um uh one of the more expensive examples I could find.

So it's only uh 900, 350 feet, it was just under a million dollars, and if you break that down to a per foot cost, the cost of this project was $2,829 per foot, which sounds maybe reasonable, these numbers don't mean anything to us, right?

When we break it down to one house, if we assume that the house is 50 feet, the cost to replace a sewer line in front of one house is $70,000, just about one house, $70,000 every 80 years, because the pipes last a long time, but is that a reasonable amount?

I don't know.

Let's break it down even further.

And when we break down that 80-year cost, $70,000 every year, and we break it down to a monthly basis.

According to this this replacement job, which is a high example, but according to this one example, the the cost of pipes every year uh every month is about $73.67 for one house.

Is anybody paying a sewer bill that high?

I I doubt it.

I mean, maybe some people are who use a lot of water, but uh in the majority of cases, houses aren't paying this much, but that's how much it actually costs to replace the pipes next to their own house.

And so when you take a look, let's these are just hypothetical numbers again, but the the $76.67 is how much it costs to replace those pipes, and then this person might be only paying a $45 a month water bill.

So this is this is why the city is running in crisis mode, because the cat the people are, and by the way, that 45 doll is mostly going to operating expenses.

This is just the capital replacement cost.

This is just the cost of the pipe.

This isn't uh debt service, this isn't anything else.

And the other thing is because these pipes go all over the city, and they don't just go to homes, they also go to empty land.

And that empty land also has pipes that need to be replaced, and that vacant lot is not paying anything into the system.

So we have 35,000 customers who are losing money for the city every month, and we have vacant land that's losing money for the city every month, and inevitably we end up in something like a consent decree.

So the way that I can figure to dig us out of this sort of hole is with a frontage levy.

And this is an example of uh uh neighborhood, uh Director Kemp, I picked you out for this one.

Uh because these are some some wider frontages.

And so the idea looks like this.

This is uh what street is this Royal Scots Way?

950 feet long.

And if we estimate that the cost to replace those pipes on Royal Wid Royal Ridge are $483,000 every 80 years, right?

And this is a different job that I used to spec the price on this.

I used this other project in the bottom right there.

But if we estimate the cost of this job, we can also still break down a per foot uh basis.

And by the way, the reason I picked Director Kemp's uh uh property, because I knew he wouldn't mind, um, but also because he takes up literally two thirds of the pipage here.

And the the theory behind this is if he's taking up two thirds of the pipes, and most of the cost associated with our water department are pipes.

Director Kemp, you should be paying two thirds of the water bill on your street.

Now, you do have neighbors across the street, so I cut it down in half, 33%.

But this is what it really would look like under a frontage levy system.

Whatever that cost is for the whole system as a whole, everybody shares their percentage equally of how much of the system that they personally monopolize.

Again, they don't own it, you just personally monopolize it.

And so this particular neighborhood has quite large frontages, and so this neighborhood would probably see their bills go up.

So this is sort of like my estimates of what these people are probably paying, and then what might happen.

And uh again, I don't have the actual numbers, this is all just just hypothetical, and I wanted to show that in this particular case, the one house that actually sees a savings is the one with the pool.

And the reason why the frontage levy incentivizes water consumption is because uh it you're no longer being penalized for using more water.

Here's another um neighborhood, this one's more on the north side of town, and these have smaller frontages, and the adjustment that you might see at uh here is because of their smaller frontages, that the most majority of the bills go down.

And the one thing that you will notice is that under the frontage levy, those vacant lots, instead of paying zero, are now actually paying for the amount of pipes that they personally monopolize from the system.

And so most water users will see a rate decrease, however, those with larger parcels will see an increase.

So that's the way that we can.

I'm not gonna say like this is gonna work for everybody.

The the uh vacant parcels will not be happy with a system like this.

But the system, the whole entire system, we could map this out, we can calculate how many feet of pipes we have, how many manholes are there, how many water towers are there, how many pump stations, lift stations, how much capital equipment do we have that eventually needs to be replaced?

We count its useful life, and then we amortize it to see how much should we be putting in a savings account or a sinking fund every year so we know how much we should be charging for these services.

And that's what a frontage levy is really good for because it doesn't fluctuate like water usage.

And so on a frontage levy system, there are winners and there are losers, and that's a question that I like to ask people running for office who wins and who loses under you?

Who wins and who loses under you?

And I'm not going to sugarcoat like some everybody wins under me.

There are losers under the frontage levy system.

And the big one are the vacant lots, because right now they pay nothing, but they consume a lot of city resources that all of us taxpayers essentially have to pay for them.

And I've also made a calculator.

If anybody's interested, you can go to my website, fswater calc.com, and you can type in the length of your parcel and how much water you used on your last bill to see what a hypothetical frontage levy might be.

And you can play around with the numbers.

This is just my hypothetical example of how it might work.

And this in order to implement something like this, the city would have to actually study every single parcel and every single user to maximize the number of people who would benefit from this.

And so here are some examples of things like a frontage levy in the real world.

So Winnipeg is the only other city that actually has a true frontage levy, and it's right here on their website.

You can see the rates, it covers water and sewer.

So for an example of a 65-foot house, their annual frontage levy is 451 dollars.

So if you divide that by 12, it's about an average water bill.

The other thing about Winnipeg and the way that they do it is it's part of their property tax bill.

And then when we look at someplace like Fort Collins, Colorado, they also have uh this is not a frontage levy, but it's it's in the same vein.

They have these impact fees.

They're not charged monthly, they're charged up front.

But when you look at how they're charged, it's based on how much space the infrastructure takes up, because the amount of space that something takes up is highly reflective of its cost to the taxpayer.

And finally, uh, my example from the private sector, in general, when I think about like how do how do we how should we run a city?

I look to how I, as a real estate accountant, run my city-like places, my apartment complexes, and when we have one water meter for the whole entire uh for the whole entire apartment complex, we don't charge the same amount to everybody.

We charge it by how much square footage you take up.

And we have calculations for like you know how much of it goes to landscaping and how much goes to uh uh vacant units and things like that, but everybody pays their share based on how much space they take up.

Um this company can service is uh consulting firm that actually calculates for this for apartment companies every month because that's industry standard, and that's in um in multifamily and in commercial office.

So here's some really good examples uh or advantages of frontage levy.

And the first is that we have a water meter problem, and that if somebody's water meter is broken here, it tends to underbill.

And then they get a $40 water bill every month, or however much it is, very, very low, and then they're surprised three months later.

With a frontage levy, there is no real incentive or need to go out and read water meters every month because people are being charged based on how much space they take up, not how much water they use.

The other thing is is that everybody will pay the same bill every single month.

Uh Director Martin really likes things to go smoothly in Fort Smith.

Um so this would be very, very smooth for our water users because they could expect the same bill every month.

I believe uh later on the agenda you're talking about capping rates for seniors, this would cap rates for everybody.

And then here are a bunch of other examples that I had to cut out because Jeff Jeff made me pare it down.

But uh there are a lot and lot of uh examples of frontage levy uh working out.

Some disadvantages, and I'm again I'm not sugarcoating anything because I don't even know if this will work.

So here's everything that I thought of that I don't like about frontage levy.

First of all, it's a whole new thing.

People are uh not gonna like that.

Number two is it's unavoidable.

Uh there's no nobody can escape this, you can't change your behavior or your patterns to get out of the frontage levy.

You pay what you consume, period.

With the water bill, you can stop consuming water if you know if it gets too high.

And then the other thing is uh one-star reviews from larger parcels as I uh hinted at earlier.

Uh if you have a larger parcel, you'll probably see your land uh your uh your bill go up.

And then also on those vacant parcels, I don't know how we can actually collect it from them unless you put it as part of the property tax bill.

And then um the next one is important too.

No incentive for underconsumption.

So right now our system is almost at capacity for uh water consumption, and under frontage levy, we would probably see that spike tremendously.

People would use a lot more water because we're no longer penalizing them for consuming too much water.

So we would have definitely have to fix the the uh unaccounted for water.

And then finally, the other one is high upfront complexity.

This would be incredibly difficult to set up.

I've made it sound pretty simple, I hope, but somebody in the mapping department in the utility department would have to map out all of the all of the fixed assets across the water department to set this up, calculate their useful life.

Most cities don't know how much they actually have to do.

I think it's a good thing.

Maybe uh cities should know like how much capital replacement costs they have coming due in the next generation.

And then finally, um the other disadvantage of the frontage levy is that it doesn't capture the depth of the lot.

And what uh the example where this plays out is calls to sack is you'll have like five or six houses and they all have you know 35 foot frontages, and then there's a question of whether that's fair because they might have very deep parcels.

Um so and then the other thing that I wanted to bring up tonight, just because uh uh I I have my crazy ideas, and that is uh what I'm gonna call the water service discount, or we can call it a subsidy or a rebate or a dividend.

Uh but the the the idea is basically this.

Right now, uh the city spends four dollars and thirteen cents per CCF uh to deliver water.

That's how much it costs the city.

If you go in the the budget and do the math, that's how much it costs.

But when we charge our residential users for water, we're only charging three dollars and eighty-six cents.

So we're already receiving a discount, everybody.

All of you, me, we all we're all paying in less than it costs for the city to deliver water to us.

And the question is where is that extra money coming from?

And if you start thinking of costs being more related to the amount of infrastructure and uh capital equipment that it uh that it costs to deliver service.

We're all being our water services essentially paid for by these outside users, and these are our top 10 um outside users, or these are retail and wholesale uh customers, I'm sorry.

Uh these these uh 10 people or 10 groups represent 0.03% of our customers uh but approximately 20% of our revenues.

And what's really good about that is because they pay for their own sewer treatment, and I'm talking just about the outside customers.

They pay for their own sewer treatment, their own debt service, and their own administrative overhead.

All we're really paying for is the water treatment to them.

Is that correct?

I believe so.

So really the water that we sell to them is just the treatment cost, which is 65 cents per CCF, but we're charging them for the rivers north uh for the uh customers north of the river, two dollars and fifty-two cents per CCF.

So this $1.87 per CCF that we're charging these customers is where we get this discount that we're all receiving.

Uh maybe we don't even realize it.

But that is why our water bills are lower than what the city is spending to deliver water to us.

So I thought I don't like to live in a state where somebody else is paying for my water bill for me, and you guys might know that about me that I donate money to projects that I deem worthy of my time and attention every year to make up for that deficit of the amount of infrastructure that the city spends on me personally because I don't think that I pay enough.

So if given the choice, maybe people like me, rather than receiving that discount, will take that excess cash from those wholesale users and put it to work towards things like the consent decree or these long-term capital projects.

And the money uh the amount I came up with is about 21 dollars and forty-two cents a month.

This is just hypothetical, but that's how much I think that the uh residents of Fort Smith possibly, and again, this is something the city really has to work out because you all have the sophisticated tools to count this, um, but uh that is how much each residential customer in Fort Smith the city could bear to um to give a discount to for for each month.

But instead of receiving that discount, what if somebody like me, and maybe there are others in this room, I don't know, but I would pay 21 extra dollars a month if you could if I could have reserved parking at the bakery or free parking at the airport or parrot island passes.

And maybe that's something um that we can think about doing.

These are things that the city is already sort of giving away for free.

Uh we don't even need to change money uh between departments to do it.

It's just like a you know preferred customer discount or something.

Uh so I pay 21 extra dollars a month and I receive $80 in value back.

That could be uh something to think about.

Uh so finally, um, will this actually work?

I don't know.

Um the your GIS team is gonna have to get really good at mapping.

Um the utility department will need to figure out their fixed assets.

Your finance team is gonna have to update those depreciation schedules to be super duper accurate, and um you'd have to fix the unaccounted water problem and uh and you couldn't like roll this out all at once.

You'd have to like tiny bits and pieces slowly over time.

And and that's all I have, thank you.

Any any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Rigo and then Director Good.

Well, I just wanted to say thank you, Andy, for taking the time uh to put something together uh to the time to think deeply uh about issues that are important uh not only in the here and now but will continue to be important in the future.

Um just thank you for giving us uh things to think about and for always being a um a positive presence here at the meetings and for caring about the community and doing your part uh each and every day to try and have a positive impact.

Thank you, Andy.

And thank you.

I I appreciate that.

And yeah, like I'd like to say I'm not here to sell this idea and tell you that this is the something that the city really needs to do.

This is just an idea that I have that I thought it'd be cool to check out and talk about.

Okay.

Thank you, Mary.

Um Andy, thank you for all of your ideas, small and large, and thank you for following up with us uh individually and as a group.

Um and you did speak to you know, giving back to the community.

And I want to tell you folks that uh Andy does put his money where his mouth is.

I've seen them at events fundraisers, and he does just that.

But I do have a couple of questions.

So you said your idea uh citizen wouldn't pay for their usage, but will pay for the pipe.

Can we give you an example uh of a small lot on the north side, uh, an elderly person using one or two CCFs?

Wouldn't their monthly rate increase?

Yes, if you use very, very little amounts of water, your monthly rate would increase.

The incentive is to use water if you want to have a garden, you that would be the benefit.

And when I delivered this same presentation to sort of like my my city nerd group, that was the one uh uh that was the one criticism is you know, hey, you know, there's people who don't want to have gardens.

But I want people to have large families and feel like you can have children and not have to worry about your water bill and and use a lot of water if you need it if that's what your family needs.

Yeah, okay.

Second thing, uh you mentioned impact fees.

So impact fees, those would uh primarily be targeted to the developers of communities of properties?

So uh this is essentially the same thing as an impact fee.

Uh as the examples I gave from Fort Collins, those are impact fees.

So impact fees um essentially get baked into the price of your house and you pay it up front all at once, and um and that's it, it's done forever.

But this would sort of spread out that same impact fee monthly throughout the lifetime of the infrastructure.

It's not a one-time lump uh sum.

And so if like there's let's say a $35,000 impact fee, I don't know how much impact fees are.

You know, that all that does is just raise the price of the house by $35 grand essentially.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any more questions from the board?

Director Camp.

Thank you, Mayor.

Andy, thank you for your presentation.

I always enjoy your participation, your spirit, your intellect, uh, your kind of like utilities Dave Ramsey as I'm listening to your you're trying to break down things over the the decades of life and how much it costs, and I think it's hard for a lot of people to actualize that.

Uh I guess a couple thoughts I have would be could you respond more to, and we've talked about this one-on-one, but I just think it's worth talking about here because you've done a good job with this presentation.

But aren't blank lots, you know, we talk about you know they're going to be having an increase of their cost.

And I know you're talking about, well, but they should because the pipe crosses their property, but but wouldn't it also be a fair point to say that we had to cross that property to get it to the next resident?

Yes, that is fair.

Um there's still the lost opportunity cost of what that lot could be developed for the city uh and and to pay in to the to their share.

Right now, that next resident is essentially paying for that empty lots pipes.

Um I guess that it is just sort of a way of looking at things.

If you take that thought experiment of it's just uh getting it to the resident on the other side, well, what if that vacant lot is 10 miles long and the resident has a house that's five feet wide?

The system is gonna cost millions of dollars, and that one residence is gonna pay like five bucks a month or whatever for for water service.

I don't know how much water they're gonna use, and it doesn't cover the cost of the system.

So water usage, I would I like to say is the second best way to charge for for the water system and the frontage levy is the first best because it can actually cover the actual cost of the infrastructure rather than relying on this idea that maybe hopefully our population growth will carry up with our with our pipe maintenance, which obviously it hasn't.

lot is ten miles long and the resident has a house that's five feet wide the system is going to cost millions of dollars and that one residence going to pay like five bucks a month or whatever for for water service I don't know how much water they're gonna use and it doesn't cover the cost of the system so um water usage I would I like to say is the second best way to charge for for the water system and the frontage levy is the first best because it can actually cover the actual cost of the infrastructure rather than relying on this idea that maybe hopefully our population growth will carry up with our with our pipe maintenance which obviously it hasn't the second question would be if you ever calculated how much do you think the city would actually gain in your perspective I mean do you would you say that it is enough to cover the new water transmission line or would how much do you in this model how much do you feel like we gain so I started doing that math and um initially and I gave up because it wasn't going to be enough to really get us anywhere near the finish line for our our transmission line the the the increased capacity at the treatment plant it's not going to to deliver uh on those goals that we have I'm not gonna give advice for how to to meet those goals but it will help it will help push us in the right direction but it won't it won't actually help.

And it was something like I mean it was it was a pitifully small amount.

Okay.

Yeah I I think this listening to you you know when you talked about the disadvantages I think the collection you know when you even talked about how how hard it would be to collect on all especially vacant lots and then no incentive for underconsumption and then also trying to get back to that the unrealized cost needs to be reached you know the the water unactualized water cost uh you know I think these are it's it's an interesting hypothetical I think right now it has uh a lot more brewing to happen in my mind but like I said I've always I always love listening to you and your intellect and your perspective.

Thank you for sharing and thank you and all I want this to be is a hypothetical by the way uh our our city uh organization chart puts the citizens at the top and uh I hope other people feel like they can approach you and come up with ideas and and feel free to present even wacky hypotheticals and hopefully somebody has a better idea and that this will encourage them to come and speak to you and bring those wacky ideas and maybe some of them will work any other questions okay thank you for your presentation thank you thank you next item on the agenda yes sir item number three at the March 3rd regular meeting a study session was requested regarding freezing utility bills for seniors age 65 and older peer cities such as Springdale and Rogers are enacting rate freezes for customers who are 65 and 62 respectively the rate freeze is applicable to bills associated with the primary residence and only for the first 1,000 gallons in Springdale and 1,500 gallons in Rogers.

If the board wants to move forward with such an offering staff requests some parameters such as minimum age primary residence only would it be applicable to the primary residents only and then is the board interested in freezing the entire utility bill or just portions staff is prepared for the board's discussion.

Thank you.

Any comments from the board yeah mayor who who who's here that can discuss this there are several of us here yes sir well um I think Dr.

Good and I brought this up and as you said Springdale is enacted this and I'm I'm wanting to to take a serious look at doing it here.

I I you know I think a time our senior citizens get some kind of break in this town you know they're they're they're they're they're they're the ones that are really feeling the brunt of everything and according to Springdale it's it it's not it's not much of an impact on the on the income for water reserve income so is there any way to figure what a senior citizen would use I mean I mean formula or anything I mean well staff did in terms attempt to quantify such a request and include it in your packet on page 73 was a quantification and that was just for the tier one which is one, two and three CCFs.

So at the board's direction um depending on what the board is wanting for this to look like we can certainly look at other options I think that perhaps and um Andy Richards our CFO can discuss this in more detail as well but I think perhaps probably what the easiest situation in terms of billing would be to just freeze the bill for ages 65 and older at the 2026 rates going forward and so then it if someone were to turn 65 and 2027 they would revert back to those 2026 rates.

Okay but that's of course at the board's discretion depending on what well on the Springdale ordinance 6021 it says in order to receive the freeze provided by here on person 65 age and older must apply to Springdale water utilities and present satisfactory proof of identification driver's license passport etc.

The rate freeze shall apply only to the primary residents, which I'm in five.

That's fine.

Yes, sir.

I mean that that makes sense.

The rate freeze provided here on shall be applied.

Or should not be applied.

So what's the what are you what's your thoughts on this?

Tell me.

So I did second it put this on put this on the agenda because it did sound like it was a worthwhile idea to at least investigate.

And of course, I haven't read all of this material because I was trying to get some information how this might positively and negatively impact uh what we've got going on with the uh EPA.

You know, we just actually you know got our consent decree information solidified, and I believe there's some verbiage in there that that speaks to rates, and any rate changes would have to go through that process or a process that I can't remember, but it said that was what I heard uh Mr.

Maggaboy speak to at a time.

Mr.

Here tonight.

Anybody from water department utilities?

That was just for sewer.

Was that that that is just for sewer?

You're right.

You're absolutely right.

Um I just wanted to have um some open conversation about our thoughts.

And like Direct uh George Cosavett spoke to, I think that you know, helping out our senior citizens is a fantastic idea.

You know, our senior citizens for the most part, particularly the ones that I know on the north side of town, are the users that use the less amount uh of water.

So the amount of impact of savings might be minimal, but to them it might be substantial.

Um again, we have to think about you know what are we actually doing here?

Are we using that term that we hear so much?

Are we subsidizing water usage?

So we have to consider that as well, and what that looks like to um those that are paying for those that are not.

So just want to open up the conversation.

Anybody else?

Director of Christian Chris Average.

Well, I my understanding was it would um just be for the water rates, and um you know, certainly I'm in favor of that.

I worry a lot about our our senior citizens, especially when they're on fixed incomes.

I don't know um legally that you know we would be able to do anything with the sewer rates because of the consent decree, but I think there would be some um relief for the water rates.

I I guess in my head I was imagining it as whenever the person turns 65, that's when the rate froze.

So you know, 10 years in the future, someone's turning 65, it's not reverting back to the 26 rates.

Would that be doable as far as billing goes?

Is that how Springdale handles it?

I I think that that would be tough for our billing department in terms of and I'm looking at Joshua Robertson, and if do you want to expand upon that?

Oh, Josh, come on up, Josh.

I didn't even know you're here.

You know, I think too, when when we look at it um, and we haven't gotten into the numbers yet, but it's not um unreasonable that there are times when younger people are subsidizing older people, especially we look at health insurance, um healthier younger people, um, or sometimes subsidizing older, sicker people.

But I mean, I think that's uh you know, part of living in a society is that we take care of um people that have come before us.

And to your question, it would be difficult if you know every year that we would have to set up a new charge code to freeze that certain rate.

Now, if you did just one is um the Maggie was referring to as the 26 rate, then we can set up a charge code for that, just like we did when you did the water rate increases and we had an inside city rate and an outside city rate.

Well, those are two different charge codes that are set up on the account depending on where that account is.

Well, how do they do it with um property taxes?

Don't they freeze property taxes?

65.

When you're 65?

We did.

And I think they do they do it um at the rate you're at when you turn 65, because I think if we get, and I understand what you're saying, I think we would have to be creative with it, but if we get you know, five years, ten years down the road, we can't be reverting all the way back.

I mean, when I turn 65, you know, I don't think we'd be reverting back to the the 26 rates.

It would have to, it would have to keep up and stay current.

I guess depending on how you set that up.

I mean, again, it wouldn't be that big of a deal if we were let it would be if we were raising uh water rates every year.

Well, you've already voted to increase those periodically.

And so each year we have to set up a new charge code that would freeze that sewer rate for that individual when they met the criteria going forward.

So when someone came in and they applied, would you manually go in and assign a code to them, a billing code?

Is that how it would work?

Yes, depending on how this was set up and just in general.

I mean, that's how it would be done.

So whatever the criteria that they meet on a certain freeze, then there would be a certain charge code set up for those individuals with that criteria that they meet.

So if someone's already 65, you know, then they're reverting back to the 26 rates.

But five years from now, someone who's turning 65, would we not say that in 2031, everyone who turns 65 uh and applies, they revert to this rate, and then the next year this rate?

You could set it up that way.

Exactly.

It's just however you see that.

Our system will allow that.

As far as that, yeah, because anything we would do, we would set up a particular charge code that would charge a certain way.

And so just like now, again, inside the city water rate is lower than the charge code set up for outside the city.

Two different charge codes, and those are applied to the account based on the criteria.

So if it's inside the city, they get that charge code.

And the same rel um element to this too, depending on the criteria, the the way you all set that up would be how the charge code would be set up and it would be established and it would not expire until something else changed.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh as we're talking about this, and I'm I'm in favor of something to this effect, whatever we're kind of working towards.

Is it better to just consider a senior rate?

Because you know, we're talking about freezing a current rate, but if they're already struggling, it doesn't bring any immediate adjustment per se.

It just prevents future looking.

I guess I guess what I'm saying is what problem are we trying to solve?

And is there we already have, you know, uh when people can apply uh for project concern, there's an adjustment, but and that that's that's benevolent.

And seniors are eligible for that, correct?

Yes.

So they can do that.

Okay.

Because I guess I was thinking is it easier just to have a a senior rate and just know that the board hopefully sets a tone that that rate should be lower than other rates and have a reflection?

Um I guess the thought is how is lost revenue backfilled?

You know, when we take project concern, for example, when we adjust those bills.

Um is that covered by other customers?

Is it covered by a utility fund?

Is it just a write-off?

Is there another source?

What happens to the project concern dollars?

How's that backfilled?

Anything like that is going to go into a rate study on the next rate study.

So any cost that you're not covering through revenue, it will go into, okay, well, that will go into the rate study, and that will produce a rate to cover what you're giving away.

Right now I know that we only have 820 people on project concern, but 330 of those individuals are senior citizens.

And how do we fund that though?

I mean, is it is that just a write-off?

Yeah, it's just I mean, you ain't off any.

Andy, do you want to how we write off?

I think it would just show up as reduced revenue, right?

Yes, it would definitely be reduced revenue.

Any write-offs or adjustments to the revenues are netted.

So our the service charges that we see for water and sewer are net of any uncollectibles or project concerned write-offs or any discounts or adjustments.

Okay.

Um, those are my questions for now.

Thank you.

Joshua, you said there's about 820 folks uh enrolled in project concern.

What's the uh remind us what the because that's an underutilized program still?

Yes.

What what would you say is the capacity that could be like if what would be a number that would represent maximum enrollment in project concern?

Well, our income levels are set.

I mean, I've always had the opinion that we have over 30,000 residential customers, and with the medium household income that we have in the city of Fort Smith, there would be a large part of those that I would feel like that would be eligible.

I know that Josh Bufink and his team is probably one of the two highest things that we market that the city offers.

Uh sure.

Let me let me sorry and appreciate that.

Relative to what we kind of set aside or eyeball because I remember a year or so ago we decided to set aside additional money or you know plus up accessibility to project concern, you know, how talk to us a little bit about the difference between what the 820 users currently you know how much is left.

Really didn't set aside anything again it's just a write-off and it's something that's actually budgeted or we you know allocate something to we did increase the overall income levels per household you know occupant but there's really been never a number put on it.

I mean I guess in turn to your question if we ever started to get a very mass number of people that were signing up for this program that was you know hard starting to really hurt revenue we might bring that back to the board to start a restraint but we're not at that point.

Again we're not even over a thousand um people within the program does that kind of help answer the question you know uh I I think this is a interesting uh conversation to have thank you Joshua this is kind of an interesting topic to discuss and I just uh I will make the comment that it's you know we uh I mean we know that I mean people's calculations probably vary a little bit here and there but generally speaking we um spend more to deliver water than we charge people um and you look in the memo you know even the way it's structured in the memo and you add it up you know down the bottom right hand corner you know you're looking at uh up to a half a million dollar you know uh hit if you will uh to the expected revenue stream based on the modeling you could probably tweak it a little bit this way or a little bit that way um you know I think what motivated uh Springdale and Rogers is you know they don't have the uh you know they're they're getting the Act 603 um situation placed in front of them where they're having to make rate adjustments for the first time in a long time I just think it's something we should be very um considerate and deliberate and thoughtful about you know making a change of this magnitude uh as compared to uh continuing to utilize and and plusing up the participation in the project concern program that already is in place that we already have that we already uh you know have experience working with and that's something that will give you a 50 percent discount on your water 50 percent up to 50 percent discount on your water and on your sewer and 25 percent off on your solid waste so I just um those are kind of what's uh on my mind right now mayor thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Director Neil Martin.

Uh Director Christina Savage.

Well really if what we're wanting to do is to mirror Springdale their freeze is on the first thousand gallons.

So a a CCF is what 748 gallons.

So I mean really what we could say is we'll we'll put the freeze on the first two CCF or the first one C C F and that would kind of closely mirror what we're seeing in Springdale and I don't think we're probably going to see a big hit on that but I think you know for some people if you know it will be beneficial to them.

So we're not talking about the whole bill.

You know if if someone is uh has an irrigation system if they're watering they're still gonna they're still going to be paying for that but um for people that are just using enough to to get by I think that um I think this is a good program for that.

Thank you Director Josh goes Josh How long would it take to for you to figure the the deficit of income by freezing freezing these rights?

Well the financial impact in other words what I'm saying or can it be done?

We could look into it.

It's going to be an estimate I mean again we don't we can look at the census numbers but again we don't know how many actual senior citizens are actually account holders.

We do not have we've started to collect that information whenever I took over in 2020 I think we started 2020 2021 working to try to see how we can pull that but again I don't think every account that we have is going to have a date of birth on there to indicate how many senior citizens we actually have as account holders we could use census data is that and I believe that's what Maggie and and staff did for the figures there.

But again they may not be the account holder they may not be the person that's actually owns the home property owner or or whatnot that's actually on the account of the exempting the first thousand or two thousand gallons and then charge normal after that I don't have an opinion on the matter.

I I'm here to let you know that that that could be done.

They're not going to use that much water or that you're do you think?

I mean, compared to a family of four, I mean two elderly people in a house, they're not going to sit there and you know.

Well, all senior citizens, that's a that's a pretty broad scope.

Right.

And that you're gonna have, you know, some that are gonna have large houses, some that are low, and that's all incomes you're talking there.

Again, you know, your project concern is set up for all low income.

Um that that's a hard question.

I mean, I I can't really just you know, everybody uses a different amount of water, no matter the age.

Well, I I just I would like to figure out something.

Just just to show just to help a little even a little bit, even a little bit would help these people.

So what it's the board, it's up to you, whatever y'all want to pursue this or study it some more or whatever.

I don't want care.

Director Kemp.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I even wonder uh Joshua, I'm sorry, uh you said down there.

Just even to the spirit of of the freeze and having evaluation.

What if there's a fixed percentage, George?

This is another thought.

I mean, just a fifteen percent off or ten percent off for seniors.

And then what if that is to benefit all seniors regardless of their income?

Is there any uh idea to quantify that for particular evaluation?

So then as rates go through time, it's just accounted for with a senior discount potential.

Again, I don't I don't have a number of how many actual senior citizens are account holders.

And again, we can base it off of census status that every you know senior citizen from the census is an account holder, and I can give you a number.

Um 15 percent, I believe we can do that in the system.

Um and I'm kind of speaking for our system, just kind of the way I do know, but some things we'd have to test and make sure that it could be possible.

But I you know, with you know, providing a 10 percent late fee.

I'm I'm pretty sure that we could just do on the reverse, do a 15 percent discount.

Um, but that may be a little bit different than building a charge code.

I don't know how we would do that, but I could look into that.

I was just gonna say it's just another way.

Well, yeah.

And then it doesn't necessarily even go off of income base.

It's just uh they verify their age, they they're eligible for a discount of a percentage that you can do.

Anything that anything that helps is on five, that's fine with me.

They just say anything.

I mean, you know, uh a few dollars to the senior citizens is a lot a lot of money.

Okay, you know, they're deciding between food and medicine.

Uh some of them say, well, I'm gonna have to cut our medicine in half some months.

I mean, that's just it's just I don't understand it.

Okay.

Director of Christian.

Has anybody reached out to Springdale to see how they're doing it, how they're structuring it?

Yes, we did.

The planning department did, and they are giving a discount on the first thousand gallons.

Now, Springdale charges in the reverse of Fort Smith, so they charge the most for the first thousand gallons, whereas we charge the most the more you use.

So it's a little bit of a difference in the terms of their yes, ma'am.

They'll have a bigger impact.

Yes, ma'am.

Because I know that you know, we run into not wanting to be arbitrary and capricious and end up um end up in court over that.

But um I'm sure there's a way we we can come together and find a way uh to get this done.

You know, I don't I don't really like using income-based.

I think it should be for everybody because you look at people and on paper they look like they're making good money, but they're you know, they're drowning in medical debt or or things like that that it doesn't necessarily show up when you're just looking at income.

So I think if we do it, I think it should be for everyone 65 and older.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the board?

So how what how are we leaving this, Mayor?

I mean, what's what's the next step or is there a next step, or what do you all want to do?

Um do you have any ideas of what would Maggie, what your what would lead us to a a good resolution or a good uh process for this?

Well, staff can certainly go look at the alternatives as in terms of a 10 percent discount or it sounds like what I heard tonight is that the board is interested in only looking at the water portion of the utility bill.

And so we can look at freezing just that portion alone or also just offering a 10 percent discount.

You know, we did quantify, so based on census data, sixteen percent of Fort Smith residents are sixty-five and older.

What percent?

Sixteen percent.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

So if you take sixteen percent of our total water accounts, that's approximately five thousand eight hundred and sixty accounts that would be eligible or could be eligible.

Uh, depending on the account holder.

So we did do a little bit of quantification, but we can certainly go back and look and see if the system is capable of doing it.

10 percent discount overall um or just freezing that first tier, which is one, two, three CCFs, but allowing it for all 65.

So could you draft something for the board to look at here soon that we could look at and then bumble?

We could plan to bring it back to the first study session in June.

Would that be another value in the end?

That's fine.

Yes, okay.

We include an irrigation meters in this.

Most cities are not including irrigation meters.

No, those are exempt.

Residents only.

Yes, residents primary residential meters.

Okay.

Do we need uh someone to put this on the June?

Well, I took the Kit Savases as the Okay concurrence.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

With that, we will go to item number four.

Yes, sir.

At the March 17th regular meeting, a study session was requested pertaining to the citizen forum public comment period.

Presently, at the end of the first study session of the month, each citizen has up to five minutes to speak on city government matters that are not on that evening's agenda.

The restriction of not commenting on items from the same meeting's agenda is a holdover from when public comment period was designated on regular meeting agendas.

The thought being that the public comment period should be for new matters and the citizens wishing to speak on agenda items should sign up to speak on that item during that particular item.

Staff surveyed peer communities as to how they handle public comment periods, which is included within your packet and is ready for your discussion this evening.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Directors Christina Cassavers and George Cassavis, you can open to discussion.

Go ahead.

Uh well uh this is I brought this up because I had heard from um many, many people who um have expressed frustration with our process.

I find our process frustrating.

I um you know my heart certainly goes out to people that come here and they sit here for sometimes three hours before they get their opportunity to speak.

So I think that we should um move the citizens forum um to the beginning of the meeting, and I think people should be able to speak on whatever they like.

I don't think there should be parameters put on that uh director good director Chris Christina because I was um are you talking about the regular meetings or study session meetings for the citizens forum?

Well, I mean if we if we uh maintained it like we do now after uh at the first study session of each month, doing it before the study session.

Well, I wanted to give give a little um I guess a little history on why we changed because I'm all for putting it back at the beginning, but I would rather put it at the beginning of the regular board business meeting instead of the study session.

That's the way we used to have it.

Um time ago when we were meeting at the service center uh before we got all the social media and everything.

Uh we had citizens um taking advantage of the time to um highlight their skills, whether it's singing or playing instruments or throw off the walls or whatnot.

But uh it was a time that um they use as they saw fit, but I think was more of a time to be seen.

So I think now that we have more you know, social media, more ways of of getting information out there.

I think people are more interested in getting their excuse me, getting their concerns to the board and discuss without having to perform.

Um so I'm all for not letting the citizens having to wait and put it back at the beginning, but I would rather have it at a business meeting instead of a study session.

And again, just as a reminder, these are uh the board's business meetings and they're for us to discuss more business, but the citizens forum.

That's why I think it's better to be put at the business meeting so they can discuss those things that we're gonna discuss.

Yeah, I have no issues with that.

That sounds good to me.

Director Neil Martin.

Um Sherry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember when we made this change, it allowed for a citizen's forum to be moved whenever we need to.

So if we wanted to move a citizens forum to the beginning, we can do that.

That's correct.

Okay.

So that was the that was the intent to have that flexibility.

That is correct.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Well uh director Kemp and then direct and director George could say um yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um I like the idea of moving it to the regular meetings uh or maybe meeting.

I would even be open to putting it in front of every regular meeting.

The only comment I do have is um I think it would be good if if you could increase the frequency by doing it at every regular meeting at the beginning.

Do we want to consider going to three minutes only because you're going to get two minutes on each item still that you want to speak to?

So they're going to have that three-minute opening remark additionally at every meeting at the front of the meeting, then they can sign up for every item on there for two minutes, and they're still getting the five minutes.

So go ahead, George.

So this won't be this, they weren't it won't be like a citizens' forum, in other words.

When they can just come talk about whatever they want, it has to be an agenda item.

No, I was saying they could talk about whatever they wanted to do a citizens forum at the beginning of every regular meeting.

I'm fine with that.

I don't have time with that.

And then I was saying instead of five minutes, three minutes, because they can sign up for any item on the agenda for two minutes.

See what I'm saying?

Yeah.

So uh just thinking about time.

I mean, when we're there to do the business, but uh conceivably they could have more time, and they I'm all for removing limitation of what they talk about, but doing it at the beginning of each regular meeting.

So sure there's two it's two minutes to on speaking on agenda item now.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And and uh if I could add, Director Kemp, what you just stated is that it uh being located at the first of regular meeting agendas, that's how it used to be.

It was on every regular meeting, and you were permitted two minutes.

Okay, citizens forum they get how long.

Citizens forum presently you have five minutes.

Okay, five minutes sentence for two minutes on agenda items.

Correct.

But I was advocating for three minutes because they would get to do two minutes on each item they would want to.

Sure, I understand.

So it's and then also advocating that they get to do it every regular meeting.

Yeah.

So it's not like there's any limitations.

It's actually opening up the well, you know, I mean, in the I know in the past it's been abused by some people.

You all know that.

We've had problems.

And I think that's why there's talk of change, but uh uh you know, whatever these people deserve they have the right to talk.

I mean, let them talk.

I'm done.

Okay, Director Christina Savage.

I would just say um people might not necessarily be speaking on what's on the agenda, so they might want a full five minutes.

So um, I'm I'm all for putting it before the meetings.

I'm all for putting it before um uh you know every regular meeting.

Should we try it with five minutes and and see how that works time-wise?

I mean I I don't a lot of people don't take their full five minutes, but I think for the ones that want it, it's certainly nice to have the option.

Well, make a motion and let's well, I mean I want to get the temperature of what everyone else is.

Well, guys, Garrett, what do you want to do?

I I I mean I think if you're gonna have three minutes and two minutes to each item, that's a plenty of time to amply communicate.

I mean it gets it to the point.

We get to have their what their problems are, and we get to have it more frequently than what we currently get.

So I mean if we put it to each regular meeting three minutes and then two in seachem, that's where my mind is.

You can make them make a motion.

Yeah, maybe I'll make it or we all make it or whatever.

You want to vote on it next week?

I'm I make a motion to move the citizens' forum to beginning of every regular meeting, allowing and permitting citizens to speak for three minutes to any topic of their choice at the beginning of each regular meeting.

Okay, I'll second that.

I I really think we should stick with five minutes.

I mean, really, when I I mean I uh this is my Tuesday night.

I I have no other plans.

I plan to be here.

I mean, we've been here till midnight sometimes.

You know, what what's a couple extra minutes for a few people who want to speak?

Another motion to do five minutes then.

I mean, is is anybody interested in that?

I'll say if you want to go five minutes, I'll second it.

Okay.

Well, we've already got a motion on the floor.

How does that work, Sherry?

If we wouldn't amend the time.

When it comes before the board at the regular meeting, then it can be amended at that time.

Okay.

Okay.

So no action then we need right now, mayor.

Okay.

No, repeat your motion.

Yes, sir.

I'm making a motion to add the citizens forum to the beginning of each regular meeting, allowing them third three minutes to speak to any item uh regardless of what they're choosing is at the beginning of each regular meeting.

Okay.

You you all want to compromise four minutes?

No.

Motions on motions on you guys can you we can adjust it when we vote on it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And to um clarify before the April 21st regular meeting?

Yes.

Okay.

Is that it?

Did you get a second map correct?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

You're sure we can't adjust.

Yeah, I mean.

Yes, when the ordinance comes before the board, an amendment can be provided.

If if so, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh review of the preliminary agenda for the 21st.

Sure, you've done that.

This time we will go to the citizen four.

Okay.

We do have several individuals, the first being Jimmy Harrison.

Oh, I didn't know that.

I got a question for the board of directors.

Why haven't y'all hired a shady administrator yet?

We're going through the interview process now.

We've got an outside firm that's doing that.

Oh, uh, I'm sorry.

That's your neck of the woods.

Sorry.

We've contracted with Colin Benzinger and associates to do a national search.

The board had an opportunity to meet with their associates.

They came in town and met with each board member direct individually.

They've comprised a packet to have as a uh recruitment package to which once the board, which the board does need to answer that by April twenty uh twentieth.

We're asking that the board members reply to Colin Benzinger representatives, and then they will begin a recruitment timeline to which is also still being finalized, but um it's looking like we would come to a decision pending the process went just as it was planned by the end of July.

Yes, sir, by the end of July.

Does the rest of the board agree with that?

Well, I'm not sure.

Sure.

That's a process.

That's just the process.

It just takes about that long to recruit it.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Next we have Quentin Cunningham, and he has provided some handouts, so I'll be passing them on.

Quentin Cunningham.

You recognize.

Hello.

In 2022, uh the board or the city was told of 42 police calls at the Towson Avenue U-Hall, and it was framed as a homeless issue.

I looked into that data.

Um it only had one call from a home uh how homeless person.

Uh and it was a paying customer.

In 2023, the city criminalized feeding stray animals based on an admittedly deadly parasite, but it's just a parasite that infects maybe one person a year in the entire country.

That policy led to a citizen getting pepper sprayed.

Um I shared that information with the board when it happened.

Uh last week, citizens brought up the main street survey.

I've spent two weeks and dozens of hours of my own time pouring through all 658 responses that mentioned homelessness.

And yes, as other citizens stated last week, that data is misleading.

The survey combined homelessness and housing insecurity into the same check box.

That is called double barreling, and it is a known documented flaw in surveyed data.

When we isolate those that explicitly called for enforcement or removal, we reach only 67 respondents.

However, over 400 did express concern for homelessness.

I catalog those under no specific intent because I cannot read their minds.

They did not provide enough information to really tell what they wanted.

The remaining number wanted either affordable housing or assistance for the homeless.

Those CBID minutes helped to finally kind of paint a picture of where this bus myth keeps coming from.

So far in my research, I found the first documented utterance of that came from a June 21st, 2022 meeting.

And it member Stuart Gann asked about a rumor about bussing people into Fort Smith.

Miss Richardson stated she knew of a family brought here from Portland.

On the flip side of that page, there is a note from Sharon Chapman, next step, talking about us offering the exact same kind of services that that rumor has stemmed from.

Though next step has confirmed that that does occasionally happen, there is zero evidence of systemic constant widespread bussing into Fort Smith.

This is just yet another example of a lack of proper research, and it's one that's led to three years of really harmful rhetoric.

Finally, in supplying this data, Main Street Fort Smith leaked unredacted personally identifiable information of 259 Fort Smith citizens.

In the second, supposedly redacted set I received, there was still personal information.

A phone number, an address, and a full name.

That is a massive liability and violates the Arkansas Personal Information Protection Act, not once, but twice.

Time and again, policies which cause direct harm to our citizens come forward without proper vetting.

We should not have to do that homework.

That is the bare minimum I expect of any minute uh elected official.

I support mainstream efforts with small businesses.

However, they failed at basic data safety and objective analysis.

As such, I am formally asking this board to terminate the city's contract under Section 4, subsection C.

We can't reward throwing our citizens' information with our tax dollars.

Now you can choose to ignore me in the data, but you can't ignore that.

That said, if anybody in this room ever has to look up from the sidewalk, I hope and pray that the faces looking back don't reflect the opposition I frequently see in this room.

Thank you.

Next we have Gary Podgersky.

And then after Mr.

Podgarski, we will have John Rimmer.

Good evening, uh Mr.

Mayor, Madam Administrator, members of the board tonight.

Uh I want to address, I have personally been chastised no less than three times over the last four weeks about uh what can and cannot be said during these meetings.

Uh, one of those has actually been on social media from a member of the audience behind me, and the other times have been from the board.

So figured I'd have a little civics lesson, and we'll go through uh freedom of speech a little bit.

United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2.

The Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary, notwithstanding.

So the federal law is supreme.

It's called the supremacy clause.

First amendment to the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no laws regard uh respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or bridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, to get on the social media, because some of the board members have issues with some social media accounts.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued an opinion that provides guidance on how to determine if an individual's social media page is protected, extension of their private lives, or of the government page related to the official duties that amounts to a public forum in lender versus I'm sorry, I'm not wearing my glasses.

Free, the court held that social media post by an individual who is a public official, all of you may be considered as government action if the official one processes the actual authority to speak for the government, again, all of you, and was actually purporting to speak to the government, or excuse me, purporting to speak for the government when communicating on social media.

In a number of recent cases, courts have held that spaces on government official social media pages where the members of the public can comment are subject to the First Amendment, and constituently that removing comments posted by members by the public may be subject to government officials to liability.

This guideline provides an overview of what types of public comments may principally be removed from municipality operated social media pages and provides a model policy for municipalities that may use as a template.

The guide applied equally to social media accounts operated by a municipality, a municipal department or agency, and a municipal official for municipal business.

So I challenge each of you to look at your social medias.

Those of you who may have not accepted a friend request from myself or others, you might want to think about that.

Those of you who limit comments, you might want to think about that.

That concludes my freedom of speech civics lessons for this evening.

That's all.

And then after Dr.

Rumer, we'll have Shane McKinney.

Good evening.

I'm about ready to retire.

And I haven't because I have so many animals that can't go anywhere else.

There's been a massive increase in veterinary costs.

Those y'all that have pets know this, but those that don't, I'm telling you.

Veterinary costs have gone up about 60%.

And the driving factor, I think, is threefold.

One is corporate takeover.

Corporate entities will purchase a practice.

When they do, they immediately raise all the prices because they want return on their investment.

The second is pharmaceutical prices have increased.

A lot of the older drugs that used to work just fine, but they were dirt cheap, have been discontinued, and now we have to use an alternate drug.

It works nearly as well, but it's three or four times more expensive.

So I was trying to figure out how I could retire and not subject my patients and my clients to not being able to find veterinary care because of lack of income.

So I thought of an idea.

And as you realize, a lot of ideas are not that good of an idea.

So I went to Mayor McGill and I asked him if he thought it was a good idea.

He agreed with me that it was and sent me to Mr.

Gafkin.

When I spoke with Mr.

Gafkin, he said he thought it was a good idea and beneficial for the city, but he wanted me to come up with, and I had to write this down, a novel permanent sustaining revenue stream.

Well, after I decoded that or figured out what he was talking about, I came back and I gave him five.

Five potentials.

And because they can't afford it, they're not taking them in.

So those animals are behind in vaccinations.

They're not protected against heartworm, not protected against the common parasites that we have.

And when somebody is in financial situations as that, when the animal gets sick, they hope it gets better.

They hope it gets better until it gets just about gone, and then they rush it in.

But they don't have any money to pay.

When I was in school, one of my professors asked me, was I in it for the money or in it for the animals?

Because he said, either one you choose, the other will suffer.

And I told him I'm in it for the animals.

So when someone comes in and they have $60, that's all I have.

I tried to make that $60 go as far as possible to figure out what's wrong with the dog and be a poor cat and be able to treat it.

So this is a potential, I think, that would pull us.

It's sort of in line with what Rogers is doing.

Rogers is establishing a low-income veterinary clinic.

And I think it would be beneficial for the city.

A lot of people, they don't have anybody to talk to except their dog.

The dog doesn't comment about their economic condition, doesn't comment about their potential lack of hygiene.

The dog accepts them.

And that's important to me.

It's important to me for the dog, and it's important to me what the dog does for the owner.

So I would like this board to consider this proposal to bring low cost care to the citizens of Fort Smith.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Shane McKinney, and after Mr.

McKinney, we will have Amanda, is it Lancart?

Hi everybody.

So some of you who've talked to me personally and have seen some of my videos recently with siding contractors doing a poor job on a house.

Some of you may have seen the deck that was being constructed on a house yesterday I did on a video.

And I wanted to ask you guys a question.

If you're building a house, say you're putting a million dollars into a nice house.

Do you go take a look at it during the build process?

I do.

You guys?

Like you probably want to see the foundation, you kind of want to see how things go.

Figure out if things are being done well.

What I'm really talking about, I guess, is the alleyway project that's happening.

It's right between my Airbnb properties close to downtown.

That's it's going on right now.

It's been going on for a few weeks.

Have any of y'all gone to go look at that?

I mean, it's millions of dollars.

Anybody?

Raise your hand if any of y'all have gone to go look.

What about some of the other projects in town?

There's lots of projects you guys vote to spend money on, and y'all don't see all of them.

You don't see what's going on.

Um I go to some of these meetings, I went to the alleyway planning because it does affect a lot of my properties.

Um I don't think it's uh purposefully bad.

I don't think it's companies being bad about things, but I do think we have a planning problem, and I think we have a removal of the authority from the implementation of the project problem.

In other words, the person that you can get in trouble with isn't necessarily the person that's going to look at the project that's being done.

There are power lines on both sides of my alley with poles on both sides of my alley.

This project is 12 feet wide.

There's about eight and a half, not nine feet between some of these poles.

I brought it up in planning over a year ago that these poles need to be consolidated to one side or the other, or you're going to have a problem.

Uh it was discussed, it was ignored.

Now we've had the frames out for three weeks where they have the footing where the concrete is going to be poured.

Uh I've talked to the guys and said, Are you really going to do this?

I took some pictures beforehand because I couldn't believe I figured somebody would do something.

I even called OG and E to talk about it, but they just poured thousands, maybe hundreds of yards of concrete on this alley today, right around all the telephone poles that were in the way.

Right around both sides.

So now those telephone poles that are 15 to 20 years old and are gonna have to be replaced, are uh gonna cause a lot of damage to this uh alleyway.

It's a very simple and obvious thing.

You don't need to be an engineer to see that as being an issue.

Um weeks and just looked at the footings where we're spending millions would have seen and said, wait a minute, that's that's not very smart.

Why don't we change that?

Um so I guess I don't uh you guys are part-time guys.

You you have other jobs, you have other things you can do.

You can't go look at every project.

But where is the oversight?

How many people looked at those forms from our city are millions of dollars being spent and thought, wait a minute.

This is an obvious problem.

And how many other obvious problems are like that on our other projects that are many more millions of dollars?

How many more things are you guys not looking at?

How many times are you not looking underneath the floorboards on the deck to see what the contractor is framed in before he covers it up?

How many problems can be avoided by this with oversight?

It's a legit question.

So uh, what is the procedure for preventing mistakes like this or problems like this that lead to future financial expansions of these projects?

What do you guys do?

I think we have folks on staff that are uh responsible for uh being a part of those projects, planning uh uh watching, ensuring that those things are done according to plan and according to codes and standards and those things.

So if you were building a house, you'd have your contractor that was to make sure things are going to code.

Are you still gonna go look at it sometimes?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Right?

You're still gonna go look at it yourself.

It's not your money, it's taxpayer dollars.

Um, this is grant money for this particular project, so that probably makes it feel even more removed.

I just think we need leadership that actually just goes out and walks frequently, things that are happening in the city just to see how they're pro progressing.

I think that would be good accountability.

Mr.

McKinney, I want to answer your, I want to respond to you as well.

Um Director Martin spoke correctly that we do have staff for oversight.

You know, the board of directors is a policy making board.

But not only that, you know, we go to individuals' homes, we go to individuals' businesses, the majority of us have day jobs and families, and have social events where we meet people like you out to discuss city issues.

Right.

So there's no way in the world we can go and look at all the um the things going on that we have in the city, construction-wise, or even planning.

I think you're right.

I think it's time we have a strong mayor form of government where we have somebody that is full-time.

Even a mayor doesn't have time to do all of that that you're referring to.

Madam Carl?

Yes, uh, Amanda Lankert.

Is that am I saying that correctly?

You are.

Okay.

Good evening.

I'm here about the mosquito fogging program reinstated on March 17th.

The city clearly cares about protecting its residents from mosquito-borne illness.

I respect that.

But I want to ask a question.

Does one resident's right to opt into chemical application override another resident's right to breathe clean air in their own yard?

To protect their children, their pets in their garden from chemicals they didn't consent to.

The director of public works acknowledged on February 24th that spray drift cannot be contained to opt-in properties.

Residents who did not ask for this, did not want this, and actively objected to this will be chemically exposed regardless.

That is not a compromise.

That is involuntary exposure.

The science is not ambiguous.

A 2022 systemic review of 25 peer-reviewed studies concluded that pyrothroids are probably human developmental neurotoxicants, harmful to children's brain development.

At the exposure levels, the general population already experiences daily.

A University of Toledo study found that prenatal prenatal paratroid exposure at doses the EPA currently considers safe, produced autism-relevant behavioral changes in offspring.

The lead researchers' own words, it's what they fog in the streets for mosquitoes.

A federally funded observational study of over 2,000 American adults published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that those with the highest pyrothroid exposure were three times more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those with the lowest over approximately 14 years of follow-up.

The EPA has found suggestive evidence that permethrin is carcinogenic to humans.

That is the federal government's own finding about the compound this city is spraying on a calendar schedule.

The EPA has also formally listed pyrothroids as potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Human studies have found that men with elevated pyrothroid exposure show measurable hormonal disruption, including suppressed testosterone.

The people in this room already carry background pyrothroid loads.

This program adds to that burden without medical justification.

Beyond health, this program contradicts its own product label.

Control 3030's label states it is extremely toxic to aquatic organisms, and that runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish and aquatic life.

Fort Smith has waterways.

The label also acknowledges this product is highly toxic to bees, and promethrin on vegetation remains toxic to bees foraging on treated surfaces the following morning.

The CDC and EPA do not recommend routine calendar scheduled adult deciding.

Their guidance reserves it for when mosquito surveillance confirms a documented disease threshold has been crossed.

Sebastian County has no recent West Nile cases.

The threshold has not been crossed.

The program does not meet the federal standard.

But the damage doesn't stop at bees and waterways.

The spray kills fireflies, dragonflies, and aquatic invertebrates, the creatures that naturally keep mosquito populations in check.

Since moving here last year, my fiance and I built a dead hedge to attract dragonflies and planted a native garden bed to support pollinators.

It worked, they came.

And the places where blooming plants are the most concentrated, front yards and the landscaped areas closest to the street are the areas most exposed when the trucks roll through.

The label acknowledges this.

The city is spraying anyway.

I'm afraid for what we've built and for what losing it means for the years ahead.

So here's what I'm asking.

Pause this program now.

The evidence of harm existed before the vote.

This program contradicts federal guidance on when adult deciding is warranted.

Both warrant immediate reconsideration.

Expand the BTI larvicide dunk program.

The CDC recommends this as the primary strategy.

It is cheaper and more effective.

At the June budget meeting, commit to an ecosystem first program for 2027, one that invests in community education, supports natural predator populations, and reserves adult deciding only for a documented disease threshold.

Fort Smith could be a model for how a city handles this responsibly.

That opportunity is still on the table.

The peer-reviewed studies linking pyrothroids to neurological harm, cardiovascular death, cancer risk, and hormonal disruption were not published after your vote.

They were there before it, published and publicly available.

The CDC and EPA do not recommend routine calendar scheduled truck adult deciding.

Their guidance restricts it to documented disease thresholds this county has not crossed.

Director Martin fulfilled his responsibility.

He voted no.

He asked for evidence.

The evidence was there.

It should not have fallen to an individual citizen to compile it.

I'm here because I believe this board can still get this right and because the residents of this city deserve that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Liz Smith, and after Miss Smith, we'll have Crystal Cadelli.

Okay.

Sorry, guys, I was about ready to leave.

I just wanted to thank you guys for all that you do, and a lot of people that get up here and talk do not reflect the views a lot of the citizens of the Fort Smith area have.

Thank you, all of you.

Thank you.

Crystal Cadelli.

After Ms.

Cadelli, we'll have Chris Cadelli.

Good evening.

Well, I I hate to be the negative voice, especially after Ms.

Smith, but I want to speak today about priorities because I feel like we get glimpses of this board putting priorities first, and we take two steps forward and then we take three steps back.

You know, this board late in 25 asked all the departments to come with budget cuts in those departments where it's really hard.

And they cut a lot of even essential jobs from their budget to make it work to get to the threshold that we needed to be.

The police department didn't fill nine positions, one of them being the animal warden.

Our community is already struggling with an overpopulation of animals, and we need to be confident that we have someone that can show up to calls in urgent situations like aggressive dogs or a hurt animal.

These are the people that we rely on to show up in emergencies.

But we had room in the budget to add a digital media position.

This shows a serious disconnect, especially since I see Mr.

Good, you know, yawning and showing a total disinterest in what I'm saying.

Mr.

Kemp, Ms.

Rego, Mr.

Settle, they can always find 20,000, 50,000, 80,000, whatever we need, they can find it in the budget.

Because why do they care?

It's just digging into the citizens' pockets, and they have no regard for families' financial situations.

This administration and board should be focused on ways to generate revenue and not continue wasting money.

The city owns numerous residential and commercial properties that are sitting idle and just becoming dilapidated, which is costing the taxpayers more money.

We need to focus on fixing the drainage issues on the residential properties and sell them for tax revenue.

The three commercial properties that should be focused on is acme brick, not for a park, but for a development, for a developer that wants to come in and invest into the city.

We need to sell the crane building and use those funds for the water meters to add positions back into our police department and our fire department.

Those three commercial buildings combined will bring at least $8 million back to our budget.

That will replace 10,000 uh water meters in the first year and will help reinstate the positions that are needed.

I just I don't want to be the negative person standing up here every citizen forum.

I want to be the one having all the positive things to say.

But we elected you to do a job, and the job is to make the city thrive.

And unfortunately, we're not.

We're not thriving.

We need to be working together to find ways to bring businesses in.

We need to be giving tax incentives, cutting red tape, or maybe building codes, anything to make this city viable for businesses to generate tax revenue.

I appreciate your time.

Have a good evening.

Chris Cadelli, and then after Mr.

Cadelli, we'll have Eduardo Guzman.

Good evening, board.

I I just would like to take a minute to talk about uh health care here in Fort Smith.

Uh you know, especially with the news around uh Baptists and what's going on out there.

I know that the city doesn't run the hospital, but you know, I think the city should get involved in any capacity they can to find out what's happened out there and if we can find a way to recruit someone to fill that gap.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Director uh Christine Nicket Savus for her effort a couple weeks back to bring additional attention to the winding down of certain vital hospital services at Baptist Hospital.

I didn't understand then the controversy behind you know a letter of communication expressing concerns over a potential health crisis due to the shrinking access to health care in Fort Smith.

As a concerned citizen, I can't think of a more important issue facing the citizens of Fort Smith than declining access to health care.

This news is also a negative economic indicator as well.

Additionally, less competition in the market could lead to higher health care costs, longer wait times for services, critical testing, all that will probably uh the wait times for all that, I'm sure are going to increase.

Many folks with the ability to travel for health care are already doing that, and this will no doubt increase those numbers as well.

I'd also like to ask the board to consider a study session on the possibility of changing our form of government from the current form to a strong mayor council, whereas the elected mayor serves as the chief executive officer, and the elected council members handle legislation and budgeting.

Nearly every city we compare ourselves against operate under this form of government.

There is already a grassroots effort to force this via petition drive that has already garnered the signature of our very own acting city administrator, which you know I would consider that a pretty good endorsement.

In addition to an elected CEO, this would also allow the citizens to elect a city attorney.

Considering the recent mishaps and boondoggles, I can't help but believe many of these costly mistakes may have been prevented with an in-house council available for immediate consultations.

Excuse me, the strong mayor council form of government offers the Democrat features, democratic features of accountability by electing or defeating the leadership.

Clear responsibility as it becomes easier for citizens to know who to credit or who to blame for this city for the city's performance.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Okay.

Joey McCutcheon.

Hello.

I agree.

And I think the uh we do have a study session coming up on the uh mayorial form of government.

I think that's been set for April 28th.

Uh but I'd like the board to consider one step after this study session.

Um Shane McKinney has taken the lead to create a petition and uh get signatures, and we are gonna get the signatures.

I can I can assure you of that.

We're having a town hall meeting Thursday, uh and I hope all the board will attend.

Uh that'll be at 2700 Kavanaugh Road to discuss this issue to talk about uh the benefits of each form of government and specifically why I at least feel Fort Smith should go to a strong mayorial form of government, specifically because we need to elect our leader, and we need to fire our leader if the leader is not uh doing our job.

It's the closest to the people, and there's a reason why virtually every city in the state has a strong mayoral form of government.

Uh so I hope that the board will come to the town hall, but I also hope you will carry after your study session.

I hope there will be a motion and a second and a vote by this board on the board taking the lead, and let's bypass the all the signatures and the board make the decision to refer this to the people in November and to and let the people take a vote.

We're not asking you to vote on it, we're just asking you, four of you to make the motion, the second, and two more of you say that we're going to refer this to the people and let the people decide what they feel is the best form of government in the state.

Otherwise, uh we'll get the 3,000 plus signatures.

Now I want to ask the board a question, uh, particularly those of you who voted against Parrot Island, and frankly, those who uh voted uh for Parrott Island.

On good information, uh I've been told that there's a secret water line project being performed by the city.

It involves emergency boring under Zero Street to place a 12-inch casing with a six-inch water line to supply water to the new slides at Perrin Island.

The reason being is there is not enough capacity in the existing lines for the new slides.

In the next few days, and you all can check on it in the next few days.

Starting with an open pit close to the Grand Central Station bar on the north side of the street and ending with what with a with water and ending at the water park with another open pit.

So I think that that needs to be investigated.

Questions need to be asked.

And if my source is wrong, I would doubt that because this is a person that I place a lot of confidence and trust in.

But if this is the case, someone needs to be held accountable.

If this board, and I'm asking you, did you know about that?

So I also want to thank our our new engineer who who seems to be doing a great job.

And also want to thank our FOIA, our new FOIA person who also is doing a great job, both very responsive, I think, to the citizens' votes are very transparent, and they both are very committed to what they do.

Also want to thank Lucius Arder.

The discussion you had tonight about freezing the water rates for our elderly citizens.

I like that idea.

Obviously, you've got to do your homework to see how that will affect everyone in the system.

But I think it's a great idea.

But I want to thank Lucius Arder for uh taking the lead on this and doing the homework and providing it to George Kat Savas and thank the board for considering that tonight.

Thank you.

Next we have Dan Williams.

Mayor.

Can I say something real quick?

Go ahead.

Do you know anything about that waterline, Maggie?

I don't, but I will follow up on it.

Okay, sure.

When Jeff gets back, ask him to let us know if that's true or not.

We'll do.

Okay.

Would that have been something that we would have to approve?

It's part of the what it's part of Parrot Island.

It's another expense we don't know about.

I'll tell you what, if this is true, and Jeff didn't tell us he needs to be fired.

Well, let's let's let's let's find out.

Let's find out.

Is there anyone here who could speak to it tonight?

I doubt it.

No.

Who's an ex-mail for that?

Dan Williams.

Sorry, Dan.

Good evening, board.

Um, I think that brings up interesting questions.

Just um, you know, we heard a little bit ago about the survey that I brought up last week or at the last one, and I mentioned that uh 60 residents talked about the downtown homelessness and come to find out it was 400 out of 600 that talked about it.

I think that is that what he said.

Is that what y'all heard?

Okay.

That's what you heard, right?

In two and a half years that I've come, let me just put it this way.

I don't feel like the board has held people accountable.

To the point going all the way back to the last city administrator.

It took him basically saying something for y'all to do something when there were things that that were being done.

Uh I do think we have a transparency and accountability issue within the leadership.

I do think we need to go to a strong mayoral-led city because there will be accountability.

Uh, whenever our own mayor here found out that he had been doing things wrong that the other mayors had been doing, he sat up there and talked about his name being on all of these things and how great uh his efforts were.

If he would have just simply said, if he just simply said, I made a mistake, I'm gonna correct a mistake.

That'd been great.

But it just shows you a pattern of the leadership that won't step up and be accountable.

And I'll tell every one of you on the board.

People want to see people accountable even when they do the right things and talk about that.

And I don't like to be the one to come up here and talk about negative things either.

But I do believe that y'all got so busy focused on things that were not focused on the citizens, but were focused on pet projects that you've let a real damage to your character and to your integrity and to the transparency of this city fall to the waistline, and it's gonna completely take a complete change in this board for you to gain it back, and that's the point we're at.

And it's gonna happen.

The votes are gonna happen, it's gonna get in there.

Y'all need to step up and go ahead and make it happen so y'all will at least have some kind of integrity and transparency in it so that you can save what I believe could be safe with your integrity and your character.

It's very sad to keep coming and finding out little things like that.

Let me ask you, does anybody has any of y'all ever looked at any of those surveys?

Look at what?

The paradigm uh the uh the survey equipment.

Yeah, you've had a study session.

Yeah, I know you talked about it, but did you look at he looked at 600 different responses?

Did any of y'all look at the responses of those surveys?

We got the results of the survey.

Got the results.

Okay.

Sixty comments about homelessness downtown that keeps people from coming, and we invest 180 or whatever thousand dollars it in for to get people down there.

I'm not, I want downtown to work.

But 400 comments out of 600 that says homelessness is a problem, that's a big deal, guys.

When are you gonna focus on that and make that a priority instead of just throwing money at stuff?

When win.

I understand.

It is the most policed area.

I do understand that.

I live right I live right down here.

Right, and so you know that there are there are plenty of resources put into that.

There are plenty of resources put in, but guess what?

When you when I go down the street at uh whether when I leave home in the morning and when I go down the street, that's all I see is homeless people.

Yeah.

All day long.

Yeah.

Okay.

I agree.

There needs to be a plan.

Y'all need to develop a plan to do something about it so that it changes.

And then you can invest in them people, 400 citizens that took time to respond to the survey that want to go downtown, they won't have to say it's a problem that's keeping them from going to town town, wouldn't you think?

Uh I I think what you're saying that looked at the survey is different than what he's saying.

Oh, that's correct.

I think you're you were saying that.

He was saying less people were concerned about homelessness.

No, he didn't.

Based on emails coming from him to us.

That's not what he said.

From from what I see, out of 1,067 total responses that were counted, and put in that PDF that they gave to you guys when Amanda was up here.

658 mentioned and checked the homelessness and housing insecurity box.

When I went through all 658, I gave you my methodology.

You can look at why I categorize them as I did.

67 want enforcement, which is removal or more policing with less homeless.

Like I said, I can't be a mind reader for these people.

That's how I'm up here right now.

Okay.

Right.

So it's it's not 400 people that made mention of 67 were the 67 want enforcement.

400 mentioned it.

Yes.

But they have to.

If you mention it, if you mention it, it's a concern.

Okay.

I'm not saying they want to remove.

I think you said me from bringing my family downtown.

I thought you said it was housing.

The I I I, with all due respect, did you look at the packet I gave you?

That you just gave me tonight?

Yes.

No, I've not read it yet.

Okay.

I mean, I just I just got it tonight.

I I understand.

But I was speaking for like five minutes.

Regardless.

Um the data is there.

I I also have two copies of all 658 responses.

I think we'll take and really appreciate your presentation, Dan.

Appreciate your comments.

Right.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk.

Next we have Don Chester.

The voice of the people.

That's your problem.

Right there.

Perfect.

Madam Clerk.

Don Chesser.

Hi.

My name is Don Chester.

And I want to begin by saying that I am very happy to be living in Fort Smith.

My husband Scott and I were delighted to finally be able to come back to Arkansas, our home state, two years ago.

Took me 40 years to get home.

But we love it here, and we want to do everything we can to help our community thrive.

So I'm here to share some concerns about impacts of what is happening at Baptist Hospital.

And I know that you can't stop that from happening, but I think that we can do some work to prepare our community for the impact.

Our home is six blocks from Baptist.

We work out at Marvin Altman Fitzmash several times a week.

And as you know, downtown residents, we are very grateful to have a hospital on this side of town.

Baptists cared for both of my parents as well as Mercy.

How many of you all have been served by Baptist?

Or Sparks, as it used to be.

I asked an employee at Baptist just last week about what the changes meant for her, her eyes filled with tears as she shook her head and she said, I was born in the hospital.

All my children were born at the hospital.

I can't imagine it not being here for us.

So many lives are impacted.

And my daddy was a Methodist preacher.

He served two churches in Walder and then Charleston.

And I could tell you he was in Fort Smith most days of the week, visiting his parishioners from those communities when they were in the hospital.

So this is not just about Fort Smith residents.

My concern is that the decision to close the Baptist Health and Labor Labor and Delivery Unit marks a disturbing flash point in the overall story of health care in the state of Arkansas.

Currently, Arkansas is ranked at or near the bottom among states by several critical health measures.

For example, Arkansas has the fourth highest maternal death rate in the nation.

The closure of a labor and delivery unit in Fort Smith, the third largest city in the state, and a facility that serves not just our residents but collar counties, rural people from Oklahoma, is potentially catastrophic for our already poor performance.

We do not want to be first place on this one, but the closing of LDE at Baptist might just move the needle.

Maybe next year we can rise to third highest maternal death rate in the nation.

But don't worry, we are still holding first place in another important health marker.

Arkansas was recently ranked number one for being the most viewed insecure state in the nation for the third year in a row.

Approximately 688,000 Arkansans experience hunger, including one in four children.

Here in Sebastian County, over 32% of our neighbors have trouble accessing enough food.

I guess it is nice to be number one in something, although I wish it was something else.

To further complicate matters, there is a growing crisis in health care insurance coverage.

While some reports suggest that the uninsured rate has dropped to 8.4%, a closer look at the data exposes a troubling affordability paradox.

Even with the affordable care marketplace still functioning, 16% of adults in our state are unable to purchase insurance due to the high cost, and that number is expected to rise.

Lack of insurance has led to 31% increase in adults avoiding health care altogether.

For many individuals, seeing a doctor is a financial hit that they cannot take.

But let's talk specifically about health care currently available to your constituents here in Sebastian County.

I appreciate the concern about our pets health care, but I'm also worried about people's health care.

We are the sixth largest county in the state with 132,000 residents, but our provider to resident ratios are way below the national average.

For example, we have one family medicine physician for every 1,200 people, one pediatrician for every 1,378 children, one OBGE for every 3,300 women, and soon only one labor and delivery unit to serve these women.

And these numbers, even as bad as they are, do not capture the full picture.

For instance, while the stateless 24 licensed general surgeons in Sepasta County, only 10 serve in the River Valley.

This is part of a larger trend in which 35% of all physicians in Arkansas are now over the age of 60.

And if they retire and are not replaced, and departments are forced to close, the already too thin margin of providers gets stretched until it's in danger of breaking.

And I'm wondering if the decision to shutter the L and D at Baptist is the first step towards something inevitable.

What we are experiencing is part of a larger trend.

Across Arkansas 31 of our 47 rural hospitals, about 66% are in danger of closure.

Some of us surely knew that this was happening, knew it was imminent, and chose to ignore the warning signs.

But we cannot keep doing that because we love our community and we want our residents to have access to all the services that keep Fort Smith healthy and vibrant and a great place to live.

Thank you.

Next we have Richard Morris.

Richard Morris.

I like to start off on a positive note that just happened here tonight.

I'm using the hearing assistance device provided by the city for the first time.

I've been deaf in my right ear since the age of 10.

30% lost my left ear since who knows when.

So that that affects how I perceive, how I speak.

That's why I ask a lot of questions.

I want to be sure I heard what I heard, so I have a reputation for asking a lot of questions.

Not because I'm stupid, because I want to make sure I hear you.

So that's positive.

Thank you.

And this is FM technology, which is ancient by today's standards.

It works well, very well.

Little thing on my belt, a little earbud.

And I've never heard you guys better.

So I'm glad we've got this now.

I've been trying to hear you for you know 20 years.

Um I that's new.

Just walking in the door.

What I came to talk about tonight was um I took it upon myself to do a little AI research.

And you know, I'm trying to teach an old dog new tricks.

What do you use?

What are you using?

I forget what it is.

Okay.

And it might be Chat GPT, might have one of them.

Okay.

I used a few others.

Uh, there's a lot of them out there, but so what I did, I I punched in, I forget the initial question, but it was I wanted uh an assessment or an evaluation of board meetings.

And with the chaos of the board meetings.

So this is what I got back.

I give you the mild opinion.

Uh what this tells you about meetings in Fort Smith, is the body is politically divided.

Authority, meaning the chair or Robert's rules, is not consistently enforced.

Uh, debate style is adversarial rather than analytical.

And key disputes like costs are framed, they're not resolved.

That doesn't sound like a good good assessment to me.

Um, and that's leaving out on a on a the psychodrama and the uh what seems to be anchor management group therapy here.

I mean, that's just leaving out that that skewed part of it.

I'm trying to stay objective.

Now, the real strategy, what actually works as suggested by AI, um, is if you dealing with a Fort Smith type dynamic, it says, we should use early interruption tools.

Don't wait, intervene immediately.

So when somebody goes off the rails, it gets emotional, whether it's out here or on the board, you need to nip it in a bug.

And actually, we all know each other, you ought to know what's coming.

Everybody has their style.

Sometimes it's appropriate, most of the time it's outrageous style, it's not appropriate.

Okay.

Then it mentions uh we need to forge rulings on the record, which means every point of order creates accountability.

That's what it's saying.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but you can, I'm just sharing this with you.

You you're making what you want.

And then it says uh box the chair in procedurally.

That would mean the mayor or anyone who's chairing the meetings, and that means appeal is rulings or demand enforcement.

And last it says control the floor, not the argument.

That's a good just think about that.

Control the floor, not the argument.

That has to do with procedure.

We need to keep order.

That's what Robert's rules is for.

And just plain respect.

So on controlling the floor, not the argument.

It says this isn't about being right.

It's about who is allowed to speak.

And we have rules for that.

It's parliamentary procedures, Robert's rules.

I'm very rushing in Robert's rules.

I have experience in running meetings.

I used to run union meetings on a Friday night with 300 drunk guys.

And when all of us failed, it's motion to recess, let's go out and have another beer out in the parking lot.

I mean, uh, you don't even get a recess here.

So I uh, you know, it sounds funny, it's laughable, and very laughable, but it's serious.

We need some decorum, we need some respect.

We need to stop putting out misinformation.

We need to stop everything Kevin's shadow address after uh Christina's uh breakdown.

Okay, everything he he expressed.

We can't be throwing pot shots at each other.

Well, as I saw, we weren't throwing pot shot at each other when one person was throwing pot shots.

So just let that all sink in and do a better job.

The optics are terrible.

And that's enough to keep me from investing here or living here.

Thank you for your time.

I would just like to add I have never had a breakdown.

Madam Clerk.

Excuse me, Madam Croog, how many do we have remaining?

Uh that was all that have signed in, but I believe Director Good would like to.

Yeah, actually, uh board, Mr.

Mayor, I'll uh notice Mr.

Walter Guzman did walk in, he had signed up to speak, he walked in, so I'd like to give him an opportunity to speak as well.

You recognize thank you.

Good evening, members of the board, Mr.

Mayor, Madam Deputy Administrator, and to the citizens of Fort Smith who have come here this evening.

Your presence is the heartbeat of our democracy, and I really hope that you all believe that tonight.

My name is Eduardo Guzman, and I am running to be the next state senator from Fort Smith.

I'm here tonight because the Baptist Health closures are not abstract.

They're not political theory, they are real life.

We're talking about mothers in labor, workers losing their livelihoods, and whether families in the river valley can get care when they need it most.

You've heard the data, you've heard the stories, and I'm here to stand in front of you and to say clearly that this moment matters.

When access to care is reduced, it hits those on the margins the hardest, our seniors and our working families.

But Fort Smith is not a community that just waits for things to happen to us.

We're a community that works to solve problems together.

I want to share a piece of evidence for what is possible when we stop looking for excuses and start looking for solutions.

Recently, the church I attend, first Presbyterian right here in Fort Smith, decided to tackle a problem often called unsolvable by politicians.

Medical debt.

With just $63,000, they partnered with a national group called Undue Medical Debt to wipe out over 17 million in debt.

Here's what that looks like on the ground.

In Crawford County, they forgave 6.8 million to over 4,000 people.

In Sebastian County, they forgave 10.29 million to over 6,000 people.

Combined that total is 10,859 of our neighbors who can now breathe again.

That's great.

Now let's be honest.

Wiping out debt doesn't reopen a closed hospital wing.

It doesn't solve the medical crisis caused by the partial closure of Baptist health.

But what it does is release the pressure.

At a time when everything from groceries to gas to child care is getting more expensive, this solution gives our neighbors a fighting chance.

To put that 63,000 in perspective, it represents just 2.4% of the new 2.68 million being spent on the water slides.

At the state level, it practically disappears.

It is less than one one hundredth of a percent of the $825 million proposed plan for the new prison or the $379 million going towards Learns Act vouchers.

Think about that.

If a single local church can move mountains with 63,000, imagine what we could achieve if our government chose to prioritize our health with even a fraction of the same urgency that they show for slides and prison cells.

Now, I know this board doesn't run the state and that the state doesn't run our parks, but the taxpayer is the same person.

Whether it's city funds or state funds, it's our money.

And when we find hundreds of millions for prisons, but can't find the rounding error needed to protect our health care infrastructure, it's a clear sign that our priorities are out of alignment.

Hospitals are infrastructure, just like roads and water.

They're the anchors of our economy.

We can't allow that infrastructure to shrink while we find millions for the slides in prison cells.

I understand that hospital regulation is out of the hands of this board, but couldn't we at least send the letter?

Couldn't we make an effort that Fort Smithians can see and feel?

Couldn't we try?

I also understand that the relationship between the board and our state representatives is two-sided, and it's a shame that the relationship is one of permission asking and taking the temperature and not one of collaboration, trust, and focus.

As your next state senator, I will be a voice for proactive partnerships like the one I mentioned to keep our care local and our family solvent.

And to my neighbors here tonight, I affirm that transparency is not a luxury and it's certainly not a buzzword.

You should never feel like you need permission from an elected official to speak up.

If you send me a letter, I will read it and I will do everything in my power to act on it and to fight for the best interest of Fort Smith.

This seat belongs to you.

Every director and elected official seat belongs to you.

Tonight is the continuation and amplification of a fight to bring Fort Smith's voice back to its people and to vote for elected officials who work as hard as the people of this city do.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Two comments before we adjourn, Mayor.

Yes, you recognize.

How do you pronounce your last name?

Is it Podowski?

You had rec made a recommendation about the uh transit system uh having free rides on election days.

I did uh that's already happened.

Correct, it is already happening.

Just wanted to put that out there.

And uh Dr.

Ramer uh had brought up a low-cost vet care um clinic for the city.

You know, I don't know what that looks like, but I know Andy Postrick has already left, but I wanted to thank him again for everything he does for the community, but I wanted to ask him again.

Um I'm sure you're listening.

Uh I will be hitting you up about that and what that might look like.

That's it, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Director Christine Crusader.

Well, I want to I want to address the language that we use because I think it matters.

When we say words like emotional or breaking down, we apply those to women in a way that they just aren't applied to men.

You know, when a man speaks with intensity, he's passionate, he's in control, he's a boss.

When a woman does the same, she's labeled emotional or unstable.

And uh it's a double standard, and it's rooted in a belief that women just aren't fit to lead, and I don't subscribe to that.

You know, last week I was right about something, and I stood my ground on it.

Everybody told me I was wrong.

It was about the Roberts rules, and after the meeting was over, Colby called me.

He said, you know what, we looked it up and you were right, and I knew I was right, and I didn't push it because I'm not emotional.

So I would just like to say when people come here and they address the board, they need to be respectful because I have earned the respect.

Three three years I've been on this board.

11,371 people put me here, and I am passionate about protecting their interests, and I will continue to be passionate.

Thank you.

You should have refused yourself, not abstain.

Is it different?

Is there is our answer to the other thing?

I never spoke on the item.

I never spoke on the item, and it was a perceived conflict of interest, not a conflict of interest.

I followed the rules appropriately.

Thank you.

As I have every time the item has come up.

Is there anything else to come before the board?

Soul move, thank you.