Good evening and welcome to the force of the city board of directors study session on this May 12th of 2026.

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

And with that, we will go to the first item on the agenda, Mr.

Damon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor.

The first item tonight is the continued review of the city's fiscal performance policies.

The board discussed the general fiscal policies at the February 24th study session and then asked that an item be placed on a future study session agenda to review options to include a requirement for spending when reserve funds are in excess.

That is the discussion this evening.

Chief Financial Officer Andy Richards will introduce this item, review the parameters of the suggested policy, and address questions from the board.

Mr.

Richards, thank you.

In the packet, we included the fiscal policy as it stands, which doesn't have uh specific cap on what the contingency reserve could be.

Uh just sets it at 20 percent and below.

Um, I also attach the best practice document that was issued by the Government Finances officer Association.

That is the um that is the policy that our contingency reserve percentage is based upon.

Uh it's just set the best practice just addresses the general fund, but the city uses this percentage for all four of its operating funds, which I think is a good measure.

Um, it doesn't specifically discuss setting a cap.

It does this policy or this best practice from the GFOA does talk about um cases where there's a structural trend where we are accumulating more funds, and that uh you know a formal policy could address situations where structurally we're collecting more funds than we need, and so that's pretty the extent of what is discussed in the best practice document.

So, you know, just as a starting point, you know, in our in the memo, you know, I put out there to the board that um just as a beginning discussion point, you know, possibly setting an 80% cap um at two consecutive years or for the board uh needs to take action.

Um other thing I would mention is um, you know, having a capital or equipment replacement reserve in the general fund, which we don't we haven't currently been setting aside funds in that um in a reserve as our policy suggests, but I think that's because of the budgetary constraints that we've had um you know in the past.

So uh that wouldn't definitely be something that we would want to address if we continue to have uh excess funds above the uh required percentage.

I'll stop there and let the board discuss or ask questions.

Okay, thank you.

Director Christina Cassavage, you recognize.

Andy, forgive me, but I've never been under the impression that the city suffered from being overfunded.

That wasn't my impression either.

Okay, um, you know, what I worry about is that we're gonna get into a situation like we had where we had a really comfortable cushion in the general fund, and then it became this idea of we have to spend this money, and that led to the water slides, and that was the that was the argument for the water slides.

And then we spent all last year making budget cuts, talking about layoffs, trying to keep our head above water.

The only thing that I would consider if we get into a position where we've got excess funds, the only thing I would consider is for debt reduction.

So I know there were a couple different items offered, you know, maintenance and capital expenses, which capital expenses can be really broad.

I mean, the water slides were considered a capital expense.

The only thing I would consider would be using that money for debt reduction because you know, like I always say there's no future if we're drowning in debt.

I want to make sure we're on a really good financial footing because um, you know, we're at a really crucial point in our uh in our history and our time here with infrastructure and and a lot of things going on.

I want to make sure that um you know we're on a good financial footing before we move forward.

Thank you.

Uh Director Kevin Settle.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thanks, Andy.

Appreciate the thing.

This is something I brought up at the the idea.

And the idea was we collect sales tax, property tax, we collect taxes from the citizens.

Those citizens expect services from the city.

If we're not going to choose those services and we're gonna hold hold hold, then let's follow some other examples throughout the US.

Recently, Florida just passed where they're going to get rid of property tax.

To me, there's a limit that we should hold keep, and then where's a point where we got to give the money back to the people?

We talk about certain rates, certain taxes, property tax is one of those things that when your property gets valued higher, your taxes go up.

And so I mean this is discussion really about the general fund.

You know, water and sewer, you got you got all we got projects to do there, gasoline tax does a street department, and then you got the sanitation does the uh sanitation department.

To me, it's all about what I did want to happen is we get higher and higher hold hold hold and we don't spend it.

And so if we're not going to spend a certain threshold and use it for what the citizens ask to do, if it's police, fire, parks, whatever those general fund options are, then let's give it back to the people.

And that's the reason I want to put this in here.

Is because I think it should be a trigger point that says if we're above a certain level, we should reduce our property tax to get back to the people because there's no reason to keep collecting if all we're gonna do is sit on it.

And that was the purpose of this discussion.

So thank you, Andy.

Thank you, Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, so uh Director Settle brought up in that meeting, he brought up uh property tax reduction, and I feel like this is a way that we can get there if we can establish a threshold where if we're over that um we rebate that back to the citizens.

You know, we've our our citizens, the residents of Fort Smith have have had water rate increases, sewer rate increases significantly over the last 10 years from a sewer sewer standpoint.

If we can give the residents of Fort Smith some kind of break, I think that's helpful while those outside of the city um pay uh help pay for water transmission lines and things like that.

Um and I think this goes back to what Director George Kat Savis was saying a couple weeks ago regarding giving senior citizens a break on their sewer bill.

Even though this isn't sewer, can we give a rebate out of general fund dollars to every citizen, every homeowner in the city of Fort Smith.

I mean, think about it.

Um you could if you have residential water users.

If you just took that number, how many do we have 20 29,000?

38,000.

Residential?

Oh, residential.

Residential.

Let's just say 30,000, and you gave everybody a hundred dollars, a hundred dollar rebate at the end of the year, three point nine million or three three million, three million dollars.

Um I and then that gets us to the point where if we continue doing that year one, year two, year three, maybe we get into a situation where we start to reduce property tax.

Um so that's that's what I would I would like to offset the burden on our citizens in water and sewer with potential refunds out of the general fund, rebates out of the general fund that could um start to offset those things for people.

Think about $100 or $120 a year, one time, I think would be pretty significant for for a lot of folks do it around Christmas time, um, or or maybe you wait until the fiscal year's done and you're in you're in January, February.

But you know, that's something that I would I would really like to do, and that gets us that that assesses can we reduce property taxes.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go to Mr.

Dingman and then to uh Director George Gossavage.

But just to follow up on that point that Director Martin was making, and something that Andy mentioned in terms of um equipment replacement reserve.

I mean, we talked about uh if we have such and such a reserve balance that we can afford capital expenditures.

I'm not talking about new expenditures, but for for example, we have established in the streets operating fund an equipment reserve.

We've established in the solid waste operating fund an equipment reserve.

Do we transfer funds each year into that reserve so that on so that we're able to afford the replacement of a piece of equipment every year when um when when we've saved for it for the last 10 years or whatever its life cycle was, and so we haven't done that in the general fund.

We haven't done that in the water and sewer fund.

And so uh if we can adequately fund a uh equipment replacement reserve, and we don't when the general fund carries you know police cars, it carries fire apparatus, and I know we've got other mechanisms and mechanisms in place for some of those purchases but eventually those things will need to get replaced and so if you're saving incrementally the life cycle you know if the life cycle of a equipment is seven years and you were saving that over the course of seven years so you can replace it when it's time then that's the kind of reserve we should be looking at and then if we've adequately funded an equipment replacement reserve then look at I mean then there's a that's a that's a whole different use of the rebate type of thing that you're talking about comes after that I would I would imagine that that would be a recommendation my only argument against that is we'll always find something we'll all there's always a need somewhere.

But exactly well exactly right right but it's there's always a need.

I mean let's my thought is let's prioritize the citizens first and then we can come back and do I'm not saying we can't do both but I would I would like to put the citizens first.

I would I would counter the putting those needs or putting the citizens first.

Okay thank you uh director George Cassavis uh umy what do you tribute this surplus to what what what what causes surplus you're talking about what causes a surplus no what you said we were the excess money why why we don't have a surplus you're saying if we have the excess money we're gonna spend it I mean what tell me I'm not saying that we I mean we have you know there's two there's two couple well everybody's talking about giving rebates and stuff there's got to be a surplus somewhere right now we do not we're sitting on 30 some odd million dollars in the general fund right now and that's about a that's about a 35 percent uh contingency reserve okay that's you know that's you know the that's over that's like four months worth of general fund expense so is this attributed to we're over the 20 percent reserve but that is not a significant no it is reserve but is this attributed to an increase in sales tax revenue it's partially yeah and we've had an increase in property tax but we have other needs longer term needs the budget the budget cycle we focused on um making the making our revenues and expenditures on an annual basis um structurally balanced that was the focus of the budget session and I think I think uh the board was successful at doing that the reserve is another is another thing to look at beyond just structurally balancing the budget we have other long term needs an equipment replacement reserve we just bought a building downtown um which building we have other city hall city hall oh so okay you know I mean those things are going to require some maintenance I mean there are other long you know balancing the budget structurally is one thing which I think is a was a great move um but sitting on 35% reserve is is not an excess no it isn't so are you implying that that in the general fund we should have a sinking fund for for police and fire and other another uh general equipment yes yeah because there's none now right the water and then you know like Mr.

Dingman mentioned there's not one in the water and sewer fund you know we've we've talked about having defer maintenance and having older equipment you know and water resources and um the board was addressed some of that last year which I think so okay so let's say you have a sinking fund from the police department and I think their budget's 15 million dollars that sinking fund come out of the reserve or will it come out of their budget?

You know it'll be part of the it'll be uh it'll be part of the budget yes their budget yes but you know and they also have sales tax to fund their capital and personnel as well, but that you know they still have additional everyone every department has needs like that.

I mean, we've all had to um we've all had to kind of bring it back, you know.

And we've had this kind of scrounds for for um resources, every you know, no one's sitting flush as resources at this point, okay.

Thank you, Director Christina Cassandra.

Andy, do you remember what the um what the reserve was in 24?

Because I was thinking it was since I've been on the board, it's been as high as 60 percent.

Uh I recall 40, 41, 42, maybe because I remember when Director Morton was here, he said we're sitting on a mountain of money and we've got to spend it.

And then we just spent all of 2025 talking about layoffs and budget cuts and getting operationally balanced, and we could be insolvent by March of 28.

And you know, that money goes fast.

I mean, the sales tax, it's up.

I think we've seen it's been up about five percent.

But we're gonna have some down years.

Significant sales tax growth in the after COVID and the twenty-two-23, and then we had significant inflation right after that.

So it was a it was just kind of a whipsaw from what I saw.

Yeah, so I I think I would caution my other uh my fellow board members to you know keep in mind that we're gonna have some down years, and I think this discussion is premature.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Director Rigo, you recognize.

Thank you, Mayor.

So uh when, and please step in, Andy, if I'm uh inaccurate about anything, uh the exercise of trying to budget for uh a local government uh is based on a combination of trying to deduce what the or infer or make a good estimate about what you think the expected revenue that will come in in a given year is, and then setting priorities based on what you expect the revenue to be, setting a budget based on that, and any time that say you set aside a million dollars for a particular purpose, you budget for that and you plan towards that.

If you actually collect 1.3 million dollars, that 300,000 goes into the reserve, when you're talking about the general fund set aside because it's not specifically one of the things we budgeted for, but it's excess revenue that's collected.

And I think whether whether the uh specifics of something are premature or not, I think it's probably fairly wise for us to consider um as has been mentioned.

If we have policies and we do that say if your reserve amount goes below a bottom end threshold and triggers cuts and freezes and reductions, that if you did in some cases and in some day, and I look at like the streets department, we're 69% in the reserve fund right now that you'll present in item number two, I do believe that we should contemplate, and and I don't know if it's 80% precisely, although I appreciate that that's a best practice from a nationwide entity.

That was just a suggestion.

They didn't set a percent.

But but it stands to reason to me at least that if we have a lower end threshold, that there should also be contemplated an upper end threshold that would trigger us to rebate, disperse, save, do something.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, Andy, I appreciate the conversation as well with the board.

You know, when you and I have talked, and I'll just say it here, I think 25 should be the new 20.

Uh, you know, when 20 percent is when we start looking at those budgetary adjustments, I'd like to see that go up.

Uh like I said, I think I've always kind of thought about this as that 25 is the new 20.

And then I do agree with my colleagues.

I mean, I think if there should be a ceiling there, but I think the likelihood of the general fund in the near future getting to 80 percent, although we're gonna see growth, uh, that would be a massive amount of growth, and I think we'll have other more pertinent discussions along the way.

Uh, but when we were talking about dipping below 20 percent, it seemed as if that that conversation was was reactive, and so I would love to see some measures kicked in at 25 percent instead of waiting to 20 percent.

And then I do uh advocate and agree with the concept and idea of a sinking fund for capital equipment, because as we were talking about structurally balancing, which we did get to, uh it was nice to have an ability to do some of that, but in the future, we're gonna need to make sure that we as we have the growth that we've already seen, it'd be nice to create take a section of that as a sinking fund in the general fund.

So I would love to see that done as well.

Thank you.

Director Neil Martin.

Yeah, so just if you if if the citizens can do this, if you go to page one sixty two of the 2024 audit, which is the last audit we had, the 2025 audits being prepared right now and you look at the fund balance for the general fund in 2015 it was about 9.5 million dollars and year by year this is how it's grown 15 million 17 million 20 million twenty four million thirty one million thirty three million forty two million forty two million thirty five million now some of that's COVID and you got COVID you got to figure in with that and and we're not saying in twenty six we've got to start rebating back to folks but I think we need to take a solid look at that and say is this should we should should it get that high should it get to 41 million 42 million dollars or should it go back to the folks should we do multiple things with it rather than just spend capital and that's that's really the that and director Christina Katz Effis was right that was the impetus for the slides but you know I'd like to look at it and say all these people out here have have dealt with um water and sewer rate increases let's let's give some of that back to them so it offsets uh some of those rate increases that they've experienced significantly so I I mean yes we we called back we called back in 206 this year because we were seeing that there were there was we spent a lot more than we should have in 24 in 20 in 24 so we we pulled that back and even in 25 but we've pulled that back a little bit with 26 so we saw we were going the wrong way we made a correction so but we still got a high fund balance and so and we're looking at maybe about 24 something like that I can't remember where we're at but um but I think this is something good that we need to look at and potentially put in place so that folks you know I think from from our perspective if we hit a certain threshold to me that would in my brain it would trigger do I want to spend over here when I know that if I kept my fund balance here all these people get a refund that's that would be my thinking and that would be what I would want to do so um I think it's important for us to potentially do that and if there'll be some years that it works and there'd be some years that it won't but I think if we keep that in our brain and we set that upper upper threshold I think our residents can potentially see some uh some savings and some recovery from what they've experienced over the last in terms of rates water rates and sewer rates over the last 10 12 years.

Mr.

Dingman uh yes and and to to that point director martin uh you know we've talked recently about um the the second precinct building police training facility uh and the fact that you know that is a capital expense that we we still have um still have to get our arms around in terms of where we come up with the funding for that and so I think you know when there is general fund reserve funds that get over a certain threshold we start putting funds towards a project like that you know long-term planning I get I mean there's you know at some point there'll be there'll be other facility needs you know many mentioned the city hall building but they're also you know in terms of the city growing to the south there's also needs for you know planning for fire department expanding you know things things like that that the city will need that will be general fund expenses and so when we have start seeing reserves of a such that we can start putting money aside for those projects then I think that's where we go and then when then when we fund those set asides and have the have a plan for those and still have you know the the opportunity for significant general fund reserves then yes I'm I mean rebates make all kinds of sense I mean I'm I'm not saying this is an either or thing I think we could we could do both but keeping keeping citizens in mind I I don't know any municipal municipalities that uh give rebates back to people um I'd love to be able to do it.

Okay thank you any other questions from the board.

Okay.

Thank you, Andy.

Did you have anything else?

He's standing for the next item.

You stand for the next item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item number two the the next item on the agenda is review of the city's financial report for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, Mr.

Richards.

All right this I guess it's kind of continuation of what item one but uh first quarter of 2026.

That report was in the packet.

We've also produced it's on the on the website for anyone that wants to see that.

It's focused on the four operating funds for the city.

Across the four funds, reflection of the budget session that we that we finished up in December.

And I think you know, revenues overall are up or at least stable in all funds.

But you know, we talked about the general fund.

You know, I think you know, looking at the annual budget compared to the first quarter is helpful.

Um I think it's more helpful to compare the prior year, quarter one and twenty-five to the quarter one of twenty-six.

You know, I show revenues for uh revenues for general fund up two percent, I show the operating expenditures down 17 percent compared to the the same quarter last year, and um ending fund balance at 331 of 24.4 million dollars with a 37.6 contingency reserve percentage.

Um in quarter one of 25, we reported a 33.8 percentage.

So there's been some improvement in that regard from a year ago.

Street maintenance fund, we're actually seeing uh the uh turn the gas turn back funds, which is mainly what what is restricted for street maintenance, it actually has dipped about seven percent.

Um since last year, and I don't know what exactly what that driver is on that.

I mean that that is a that is a state determined uh money that's based upon our you know uh proportion of population in the area.

Overall revenues are down three and a half percent, but total expenditure operating expenditures are down 11% as well, and so there was an improvement in the fund balance or street maintenance of 8.2 million dollars, which represents 68.8 percent uh contingency reserve compared to six point or sixty-two point seven compared to twenty-five, and so um you know I think overall, you know, everything is stable in that fund.

Water and sewer fund our uh service charges increased 12 percent compared to last year's quarter one.

Um we're seeing an increase in sewer revenues because of the rate increase, but I think we're also seeing uh the water volumes increased compared to quarter one of twenty-five, and so we're seeing some improvement there.

Um we do have expenditures were up eight point nine percent, quarter one over quarter one.

Um I think the driver on that is our we just made more debt service transfers in this quarter versus last quarter.

It's just a matter of timing.

So overall, I I think our operating expenditures are flat, um, but we've moved more funds to the bond fund in quarter one twenty-six compared to twenty-five.

I think that was the main piece.

But the reserve percent is forty-six point one percent.

Uh, the net revenues or expenditures, um, 3.1 compared uh 2.4 or almost two and a half last year.

So we're seeing still seeing improvement overall for the water and sewer fund.

That's good.

And I know the debt service coveries we make this calculation, even though it's just a very imprecise estimate, but I think but comparing it to the quarter one of 25 is is useful information.

So we computed a hundred and thirty-eight percent coverage in quarter one and twenty-five.

We're not a hundred and sixty-three percent um in quarter one of twenty-six.

So I think the budgetary session and the rate increases are helping.

Um, you know, we do need to get to a point where we're seeing now where um, you know, we're needing to generate more net revenues beyond just meeting debt service coverage.

We have capital needs on the water side that we can't fund with the sales tax at this point, and so you know we need capital as well, and so we need that's a focus that we need to work towards uh in the future, but it's good to see that uh performance in the water and sewer fund is improving.

Solid waste fund, we had a rate increase there for um at the landfill we're seeing 22 percent increase in the quarter one revenues over uh uh quarter one of twenty-five uh expend operating expenditures were basically flat compared to last quarter one.

Uh we ended up with a 48 percent reserve at 12.7 million dollars working capital compared to 462 percent uh 12 million dollar working capital and 25.

And so um, like I said, overall, I think uh I think the budgetary session is doing its job.

I think the departments are are uh are following suit with the spending of the money, and you know, so far we've we've looked at sales tax revenues in the first three months.

I think we're seeing about a five percent growth and seen been growing over the past three months, each month, so very positive there.

Hope that keeps going.

Um but uh at this point, you know, I feel pretty good about where we're at.

Okay, thank you.

Director Neil Martin and then Director George Cassavers, so I see my my friend back here with the audit sign over here.

So we are actively in an audit right now.

Yes, we are we are being audited by our uh audit firm that we do every year, correct?

Yes, okay.

So we're right in the middle of that.

So what is our debt service coverage ratio?

And I know that you're you might not have this information or they might not be finished with the audit, but what is our debt service coverage ratio expected to be for 2025?

For 2025, um, I mean it's it's gonna I think we ended at 114 last year.

I'm expecting 125 or higher.

Okay, so again that's that's the key indicator that drove rate increases.

We were we were we weren't even gonna hit 100%.

We were in this we were shooting I think what we were expected to hit was about 70 percent.

And at that point, the bondholders we were getting close to the point where potential bondholders were gonna maybe maybe even take action, right?

So uh we addressed that.

So we're at 120, what'd you say, 124, 125 and 25?

Yes, okay.

So I think that's good, and this is a good number um for you know in the first quarter of 26.

So overall financially, I think we look we look we look okay.

So thank you.

Director uh George Gassavis.

Andy sanitation is an enterprise fund.

Yes, they receive no tax money from the city.

That's correct.

But let me ask you this why what the the city takes money out of sanitation to pay for other services in Port Smith, correct?

Neighborhood services is that funded out of sanitation?

Yeah, partially, yes.

So, how do you get a true picture of the actual city finances when you're pulling money from here to put here, but you don't account for it?

So, thank you.

We do account for it.

But you see what I'm saying?

That's for two.

You pull the money from sanitation, yes, to play to pay for other services in Port Smith.

So that's really not a true reflection of our uh our revenue, is it?

Our expenditures.

Well, I think you know, there is some funds that are being transferred to help support neighborhood services.

Yeah, and well, no, wait a minute.

There's other funds being transferred out there too, correct?

For other things?

Uh to uh support long-term expenditures for uh the landfill.

Other than the landfill, what sir?

For the 2026 budget, we did also include a million dollar transfer from the Solid waste Fund based on this increase, as a general fund revenue to to the general fund.

To the general fund, yes, sir.

I mean, it it's been ever since I've been on the board, it's been common practice to get from if one department is not making it the transfer money from a department that's solved.

Is that still going on?

Oh, if I can address that a bit.

If you remember when we had the cost of service study from solid waste, uh one of the things that was emphasized is that the landfill is is an asset that the citizens of this community do deserve to get some additional benefit from if we can.

And so that that is part of when we increase the landfill tipping fees.

Most of that, most of that comes from commercial haulers and such, the folks that are not residents, residential haulers or residential use in the city.

And so the idea was that we use that increase on those commercial haulers to drive a benefit to the residents of the city by realizing some revenues we could transfer to the general fund to offset expenses.

That was that was the purpose of that.

I mean, the the landfill itself is an asset that we can continue to monetize for the benefit of our residents.

Yeah, Jeff, but you know, money's been taken from the parks department for other other departments over the years, correct.

The parks department is a general fund department, and so money has been taken from their budget for other other departments.

Their budget has been a little bit.

What's your name that runs the parks?

Uh she remitted it.

She said yeah, but we don't do it anymore.

Do we?

I'm not aware.

I'm not the parks didn't generate its own revenue other than its sales tax.

We funded half by the general fund and by half by the one-way sales tax, correct?

The parks.

180 cents sales tax funds for capital expenses, capital expenses, and then the other operational is funded out of the general fund, correct?

Yeah, yes.

Well, let me tell you something, Andy.

I've been up here a long time, and I don't trust anything here anymore.

I'm I'm I mean, I'm sorry to say that, but uh, you know, we would you you something comes up, you do it, and then something different pops up with the same issue.

I mean, it this got to stop.

I mean, we deserve the board needs that needs to know what's going on so we can represent the people.

I mean, I don't know what the house to put it.

I'd say that I'll say that all of these items were reviewed during our budget process and the board approved that.

Jeff, I know that, but you know as well as I do that, especially when Carl was here, the the uh the the reason the recycle cover up for three years, you know, Carl should have been fired, San Texton director should have been fired on the spot, but it never happened.

But it's still okay.

Uh but Andy, you know, I'm sorry, I I just you know I don't I'm not gonna believe in that until I actually see it in writing and it's been audited.

Thank you.

Director Kim.

And then and then when you see something in writing, and if you take the time to review the audit, are you gonna share your thoughts then?

Who may?

Yes.

Well, sure.

I look forward to it.

Okay.

And I think lots of people would.

Yeah, you know, I'm not the most educated guy, I only went to college two years, so you know, I'm not a good idea.

It's not about education, it's about if you've been up here serving for a long time and you have, and you really genuinely feel like there are issues or challenges or things that need to be fixed and need to be addressed.

They do, yes, sir.

Then I would suggest that you take the time to review the materials that we all receive, make some of those suggestions and motions that you see might be necessary.

But you have to trust the material though, Director Rigo.

You have to trust it.

You know, numbers.

What number is the way in what way specifically do you not trust the first quarter budget review materials that we're talking about right now in item number two?

How have they been audited?

Have they been audited yet?

The first quarter of course.

So we're under we're in the middle of the 25 audit right now.

Okay.

When did we start on 26?

After it's the year is over with.

It's an annual audit.

2027.

Can the board request a audit uh quicker than that?

I think the board can request whatever it wants, yeah.

Okay, but that's not I would say it's not you know a standard practice, but it's kind of unique request.

But I suppose the board can request whatever it wants.

Okay, thank you, sir.

That I would say that I always I go back and look at the the comprehensive financial report, this which is audited.

I I reference that a lot because I mean that I it shows me kind of his history, what's happened, our fund balances, all that kind of stuff that that is audited by Forvis.

Um, and I mean, that's what I'm looking at here.

That's that's where I got those fund balance numbers.

Um, and I mean they're they're a third-party entity that that look at this and I mean we get we get clean audits from them.

Um so I I mean I think financially we're I think we're do we're doing pretty well and and you know I can trust that.

I can I can question I can question what we've got in the first quarter, but I've always got these these ACFs, the annual comprehensive financial report that I can trust because they've been audited.

And so I would I would go back and look at those, and those would those would give you a good picture of what's happening.

Thank you.

All I would say, Mayor, is there's a big difference between disagreeing with how money is spent or what projects money is spent on versus trying to imply or or uh in or state almost outright that things are not trustworthy or that stuff deserves.

They're not they're not.

I'm telling you, Derek.

Can I can I address one can I adjust one thing?

Oh I'm gonna I'm sorry if you guys in the please.

Well, I know that you you made mention of taking money from sanitation and and doing it to fund neighborhood services.

I kind of disagreed with that originally, and then it kind of explained it to me a little bit in the fact that that goes to cover the demolition that occurs if if a property uh falls in disrepair and we end up, you know, we've got liens on it and they're not paying it, we end up mowing it uh knocking it down, and we ended up taking that uh those supplies, that equipment, or not equipment, but the what's been demolished, and we take that and put it into the uh the landfill.

So that's why that's why there's dollars transferred from sanitation over into neighborhood services to cover those things.

So that's I at first I was like, why are we taking money out?

But I I understand it after I I listen to it, but I you know that's that's that's where those that's where some of that money goes.

Thank you.

Director Kemp, you were next in the queue.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, if it's an enterprise account and it's an asset of the citizens that have put it together, I think it's definitely appropriate that it funds our budget expenses.

I mean, it's the same concept of taking a contingency of the general fund that's high.

If you're gonna entertain a rebate, this is the to me it's the same principle it carries.

My question, Andy, would be: are any of these first quarter variances timing related?

I mean, are we gonna see or indicate some adjustment in the the expenses and expenses just you know happen to kind of line up where this is showing growth, or do you feel like this is true balanced growth that we're seeing?

I can't think of anything specific that's timing related.

Um, but you know, there's a lot of there's a lot of budget line items, you know, underneath these numbers.

So but I you know there isn't any, I think it's a pretty steady, you know, and our and our activities aren't necessarily um you know the same every month.

We're gonna have you know, particularly on the capital side when we're spending capital, um, but you know, certain certain expenditures might hit once a year, you know, at certain times, but I don't I can't think of anything significant.

There's no large now.

We've allocated the we've allocated cost monthly here.

We've out we've tried to allocate the insurance costs to all the departments regularly, the fuel charges, all those type of things.

Um, you know, I wouldn't anticipate anything large.

We tried we tried to flatten this thing out as as best as possible for comparative and consistency.

I appreciate your hard work on that.

You know, the comparing the debt service coverage at 163.5% against the amended budget estimate of 99.3.

I mean, that's a big big jump, which you know is great.

I guess my question is this though, is that primarily due to timing or is it due to stronger revenues or delayed expenses or something structural?

I mean, that's a significant jump.

And when we are seeing improvement, we've also, you know, we've also tried to reduce our budget per se in there.

Like I said, the increase that we're seeing in the in the uh expenditures in water sewer, I think the big part of that was just the timing of the debt service transfers that we talked about.

Um, you know, I don't, you know, sometimes we think, well, you know, towards the latter end of the year, we're doing more maintenance per se on you know on the system, um, so you could see a jump in expenses there.

Um, but overall, you know, if you're producing more water, you're probably treating more water, you know.

Uh so those kind of operating expenditures should be.

Do you see this forecast carrying?

Do you feel like fiscal 26 ends at that higher percentage?

Um I don't know.

Well, let's see, if we we ended up at 114 and 25, and we were we measured 136, 138 in the first quarter.

So, you know, I wouldn't expect 163 by the end of the year, but um I wouldn't expect the 110 either.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, the handy further questions for uh for finance.

Okay, thank you, Andy.

Thank you.

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

The third item this evening is a discussion regarding changing to a mayor council form of local government in the city of Fort Smith.

The board placed this item on this May 12th study session agenda.

The city attorney was asked to be present to explain the governing statutes and address the technical elements involved in the petition process and then transitioning from one form of local government to another in Arkansas.

City Attorney Jerry Canfield and Colby Rowe are both here to uh they're both present to review the procedures and answer questions from the board, and then I'll turn it to uh Mr.

Rowe at this point.

Good evening.

Well, I appreciate uh Jerry and I both appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss this issue with you.

Uh in your package, you've got a couple of things.

Uh first one I'll draw your attention to is uh an opinion letter that that our office issued dated April 16 of this year.

And and that letter uh was generated uh in response to inquiries we received from directors Rigo and Directors Kitsabas on this topic of change of former government.

And and following that opinion letter, we then prepared uh the slide presentation, which you also have in your packet.

Uh, the slide presentation is an effort to uh set forth those items in our opinion letter in a different form and maybe more easier to review and discuss format.

So you have that in front of you.

Uh I want to note at the beginning that as noted in our opinion letter and and here on the first slide, uh, the things we're going to be talking about here tonight is based on our interpretation of the constitutional provisions regarding initiatives and a referendum uh referenda, which are under Article 5 section one of the Arkansas Constitution, as and in addition to that, our opinions regarding the interpretation of a statutory uh provision within the city administrative form of government that specifically addresses uh changing the city administrative form of government, and that's at Arkansas Code 1448-105.

Uh there is no case law discussing that provision of the Arkansas Code uh 1448-105.

And that's because, as most of you probably are well aware, there aren't many municipalities that operate under the city administrative form of government, and to my knowledge, there's been none that's changed from the administrative form of government to a different form.

And and if there has been one that's made that change, there was certainly no litigation which resulted therefrom, such that we have any appellate decision regarding this procedure.

As we'll get into here shortly, uh in the uh application of some of these uh issues, our comments are based on our understanding of a proposed petition that is being circulated to change from the city administrative form of government to the mayor council.

So when we we get into those slides, uh that's the reason we're discussing and highlighting uh provisions of the mayor council form of government.

Now, as I as I mentioned, uh we've got the code provision that deals with changing the form of government, as well as the constitutional provision regarding initiative and referendum.

The constitutional provision highlights that municipalities are authorized to uh may provide for the exercise of initiative and referendum as to local legislation, and the constitutional uh provisions defines measure very broadly, a measure in terms of initiative and referendum, and and that is you know, any bill, law, resolution, ordinance, uh, charter, constitutional amendment, or legislative proposal or enactment of any character.

So it's it's a very broad definition of what measure means under the Arkansas Constitution.

Now, in addition to the Arkansas constitutional provisions, there is a provision of the Arkansas Code statutes regarding uh petitions and election procedures for initiatives, referenda, and constitutional amendments, and that's at Art Code and 79101 et sec.

And we want to highlight that in the in the statutory provision that I just mentioned, there's also a definition of measures, uh, measures relating to initiatives and referendum petitions, but it defines measures as one, either an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution, two an act having statewide implication, or three, an ordinance of a municipality, whether it's enacted by the uh municipal legislative body or by the electorate.

So the definition of measure under that code provision is more narrow than how measure is defined in the Arkansas Constitution.

And because of that, it's our opinion that the provisions within the Arkansas Code, this this chapter we've highlighted, aren't applicable to a petition to change uh the city administrative form of government to a different form of municipal government.

Okay.

So we'll start with the step one of how to change uh the city administrative form of government.

And the first step is there has to be a petition.

And there's two ways by which that petition can be generated.

Uh the first mechanism is it's it's a essentially a petition initiated and circulated uh amongst the electors, and it must be signed uh by at least 15 percent uh of the end of the number of individuals who voted in the last mayor election.

And um if that petition meets that uh requisite and meets those number signatures, uh it can meet the threshold.

Uh the other method uh separate and apart from a procedure uh of electors signing a petition is the board of directors itself has the power under these under the statute that we've referenced to enact an ordinance, pass an ordinance that starts this process to put this petition to put a petition to change the form of government on the ballot, and that's separate and apart from a procedure of the electors circulating petitions and getting enough signatures to do that.

And if any point you have any questions, please just interrupt me and savage.

So who actually writes the ballot initiative?

Would that be you?

Would it be city administration?

Because we have to have something to send to the ballot.

Well, I think the answer depends on which petition we're talking about.

If it's a petition generated by electors who are circulating, they those those individuals, the canvassers, who's ever behind circulating a petition, their responsible for drafting a petition that complies with the Arkansas Constitution.

So for the board to send it for the board to do it, then yes, I'd propose that your city attorney would would prepare the petition that would be in line with the constitution, and if the board approves that by ordinance, then it starts that process.

And your office is um ready, willing, and capable to do that?

We are the attorneys for the city, the city is our client.

We'll do what the city tells us to do.

Okay, thank you.

Uh the next slide we talk about is the substance and form of that petition.

Uh we note that it must be it must identify the form of government um to which the city would would change and change into, and here we're operating on the assumption that it's a municipal or excuse me, a mayor of council form.

Uh, the second requirement is that the exact title to be used on the ballot must be submitted with the petition.

And the third requirement is the verification of the person circulating the petition.

The first two requirements there on your screen would be applicable to either a petition that's signed by the electors under that process, and they would also be applicable to a petition that's authorized by the board via ordinance.

One, that all the signatures were made in the presence of the affiant.

Two, to the best of the affiance knowledge, those signatures are genuine, and three, that each person signing that petition is a registered legal voter of the city.

The petition, whether it comes from the electors under that process or the or from the board under that procedure, is submitted to the mayor.

And the question has been asked, you know, when would a petition have to be submitted?

What is the time frame?

And there's city code that the city has enacted under 267 and 268 that deal with the requirements of initiative petitions, when they must be filed, and that says it must be filed at least 90 days before the next for the next regular election.

Referendum petitions must be filed by the close of business on the 31st day following the passage of the measure to be referred to the voters.

As I alluded to earlier, I don't, you know, it's our opinion.

This is neither really a strictly initiative procedure under the city code or under those Arkansas statutes.

Uh, and it's it's certainly not a referendum petition.

Uh it is is it is kind of sui generis.

It's it's of its own ilk and that it's a petition that can be initiated by the voters uh to change this uh form of government.

And because of that, I don't think there is a deadline by which uh such a petition would have to be submitted to the mayor.

Uh now, even though there's no deadline, I think presentment of a petition to the mayor would affect when uh that measure that petition gets put on a ballot for a special election, as we'll we'll look at here shortly.

So uh timing timing will only matter in terms of when it could get put on a ballot.

After a petition is submitted, uh the next step would be the city clerk has uh constitutional duties to verify the sufficiency of that petition, and and that's straight from the Arkansas Constitution.

The city has enacted a code provision which sets forth the clerk's duties, how she might go about certifying a petition, and that's under 271 of the Fort Smith Code.

While those provisions may not be directly applicable to a petition to change form of government, I think they offer good guidance as to what the clerk would do in this situation, how the clerk would go about verifying the sufficiency of signatures on a petition.

Uh assuming the clerk certifies the sufficiency of a petition, uh the mayor under the statute under the city administrative form of government I've referenced is directed to uh issue a proclamation and the proclamation um submits the petition to the voters at a special election.

Um the proclamation has to be published one time.

Notice of the election must be published uh in accordance with these uh procedures and applicability of the Arkansas Code.

The proclamation also must be filed with the county, uh, the county clerk.

The proclamation needs to state the date of the special election, the full text of the measure uh to be proposed to the electors, uh, and the ballot title.

Uh, all those things must be in the mayor's proclamation.

Now, the date of a special election, uh, the statute provides that it has to be held in accordance with another provision in the Arkansas Code, and that's at 7 11 201 at sec, and those provisions concerns elections on special elections on measures and questions and with respect to special elections.

If either of those dates based on timing, you know are frankly aren't workable.

The Arkansas Constitution is referenced in that any other Tuesday of a month other than March or November could be selected if it's necessary to comply with the Arkansas Constitution.

The one timing provision, another another timing provision that is in the code is that special election cannot occur within 70 days of that proclamation being submitted to the county clerk.

So once that proclamation of the mayor submitted the county clerk, special election at least has to be outside of 70 days.

Is that 70 business days or 70 calendar days?

70 calendar days.

So that would be some time relative to the November general election, that would be some time in August, correct?

Yes, if we're talking about the special election being on the same date as the November regular election in November 2026, you'd back up 70 calendar days from that, wherever it gets you.

August 25th is what city clerk say.

I haven't calculated, but I'll take our word for it.

Okay.

So the election, once your petition uh is submitted and the proclamation, uh the clerk certifies the sufficiency of the signatures on it, gets to the county, they then hold the election on that petition, and it's that election be conducted in the same manner as any other municipal election.

And the uh the county board election commissioners has to certify the results after the election, and those results are final unless there's a uh an action to contest the results within 30 days of that uh county board of commissioners' certification.

If no if no lawsuit is filed challenging the election results, the mayor is then tasked with filing uh certificates, uh noting that the question of change of form of government was adopted and those certificates have to be filed with the Secretary of State and the County Clerk.

If if the measure is defeated uh at that special election, uh the question of adopting that same form of government cannot be submitted to the voters again uh for another four years.

Uh so there's a window there you you have to wait to bring it back up to the voters.

Okay, so if you have the election after the election, uh if the majority of voters vote in favor of changing the former government, uh the city is then tasked with proceeding to elect all those city officials required under the new form of government uh adopted and uh uh and uh approved by the citizens.

Um the statute provides that those elections on those city officials required under the new form of government will take place at the next time, at the next time provided for the election of such city officials under the laws applicable to that former government adopted.

Um so here we're talking about we'll show you shortly that you'd have to look to the laws of the mayor council former government to determine when do those elections get held following the uh citizens' approval to change the form of government.

Uh the required city officials under a mayor council form of government include a mayor, uh include a city clerk, uh, two council members from each ward, uh a city attorney, and a city treasurer.

All of those officials uh hold office for a term of four years.

Uh if the voters uh you know if we have a petition that's that gets put on uh that puts the question to the voters and it's uh put on the ballot in November 2026, the election for the city officials required under the mayor, council form of government would occur uh in the general election of November 2028.

Um, and under the mayor council form and government, it requires that council members be elected uh every two years for staggered four-year terms.

And because of that, because you're gonna have council members elected every two years um the the election to uh to uh uh the election for those city officials required those council members uh would have to uh address that half of the council members one from each ward would be serving an initial term of two years uh and that's again so we can get on staggered terms every two years you've got half the council members um one from each ward being elected um so the initial ones half the initial ones get initial term of two year terms instead of four uh same kind of concept are true for the city attorney and the city treasurer uh unless the board adopts an ordinance indicating otherwise uh that that the city attorney is elected at the same time as the mayor and city clerk the in the election for the initial city attorney would be for a term of two years and then that would repeat uh in 2030 and at that point you'd have an election every four years for your city attorney and city treasurer uh the default rule with respect to council members and whether elected at large by ward is that they're elected all of them at large uh that's the default and of course that can be changed um if the governing body adopts an ordinance um it can do so providing that half of the count you know you can have one council member uh uh from a ward elected at large and the other one uh elected by ward uh alternatively the the governing body could pass an ordinance that says both council members members from each ward are elected uh at ward only instead and have no at-large uh council members uh colby if i may before we move on from that point is the best practice uh observed across the state in communities that have this form of government that one member from the ward is elected at large and one member from the ward is elected by the ward I haven't or is it a real mixture?

I haven't looked as to how individual municipalities handle that um so I don't I don't think I want to say what's common or what's best practice but um you know we could certainly figure that out so I don't I don't know offhand.

Thank you.

So after after the election uh of those city officials under the new former government um all officials under the city administrator former government continue in their positions the mayor and the the board of directors until January 1 of 2029 uh that follows the November 2028 election of course um and because you know we're operating under this this procedure here we've talked about changing the former government in November 2026 uh if the voters approve that change of former government there would be no elections for uh directors at the uh ward position or excuse me at large in 2028 even though they would be slated to right now because if the if the former government changes city has no ability no authority to go hold elections uh for uh board of directors in 2028 when at the you know we're transitioning to a new former government uh those officials elected under the mayor council former government in November 2028 will take office on uh January 1 2029 and on that date uh the mayor under the city administrator former government and all board of directors uh under city administrator former government their positions terminate uh the the transition from administrator former government to the mayor would then be complete on that date under under the time frames we set forth uh I had a couple of slides uh to discuss uh the duties of the mayor and the council under that new former government and uh the mayor is the is the chiefs chief executive of the uh city in that former government he's the ex officio president of the city council of course presides over the council meetings um mayor is actually entitled to a vote uh to establish a quorum and when necessary uh to pass an ordinance by law resolution order or other motion um the mayor is tasked with supervising the conduct of all officials of the city.

Colby Kobe may I clarify something that in that language?

That's a that is meant to represent a tie-breaking vote, correct?

That's right.

Because you would have an even number of council members.

Right.

Yes, when necessary, meaning if there's a tie uh the mayor can can vote.

But the mayor cannot the mayor cannot vote unless there's a tie I yeah, if it's not necessary, I don't think the mayor would get to vote.

I mean the mayor can is can establish a quorum.

I mean, if that's necessary, but outside of that, uh, I think there would have to be a tie for the mayor's vote to be needed to pass a resolution or an ordinance or a motion.

So let me let me ask this question.

What if you have a board member that's missing?

Meaning not present.

So so we would have eight eight board members, right?

We would have eight board two from each board.

Let's say one is missing.

So you've got seven.

Okay.

Well, you've got a quorum.

You don't need the mayor to establish, you can defeat it.

I mean, a tie a tie defeats a motion.

Well, okay, okay.

So if you've got seven council members present at a meeting, you have a quorum.

We don't have an issue with the mayor needing to establish a quorum.

Uh assuming all the members present vote, there would be no tie.

I don't the mayor wouldn't get to vote to create a tie.

I don't interpret the law that way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh the mayor also has the power of a veto.

Um that can be overridden by two-thirds of the council.

Um the mayor does not have veto power over things such as filling vacancy if there's a council position that becomes vacant.

Uh there's a statutory procedure which directs how that that is filled, and the mayor cannot override that procedure with a veto.

City council is comparable to uh the board of directors.

It's uh possesses all the legislative powers granted to it under the Arkansas Code.

Uh it manages and controls the finances of a city.

Uh it will provide the times and place of its open public meetings.

Um, and uh, you know, we note that the mayor and or any three council members can call special meetings uh in a manner provided by ordinance.

Uh and I'd be.

Is that the only way that a special meeting can be called?

The mayor and three.

I think that's a mechanism that the council could could adopt by ordinance uh that the mayor could call one.

I don't think it's it's exclusive to that.

Okay.

So that the board could could call for a special meeting.

Well that there is no board.

Are you saying the council?

Council, yes, sorry.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

Mayor, I have a question.

Director Rigo, I think.

You got adds before the meeting.

Okay, that's fine.

If there are other questions, that's fine, sir.

I would find yielding to the question to say.

Well, I wanted to um speak on this because Director Rigo and I initially put this on the agenda back in March.

And um, you know, I believe that um we're kind of working against the clock here because I believe it's really important for this to be on the ballot in November.

This is a huge issue.

Um, it involves the whole community, and we need to have I don't want to see it at a special election.

I want to see it on in November when we've got high voter turnout and people are coming out you know, um to vote and we'll be there.

Uh you know, I don't want to see this pigeonhole to a special election where just a few people turn out.

And um, you know, I believe that the board should send this to the ballot um in November.

And let me make one comment to make sure my uh my comments earlier were clear.

If the if the timing works out and uh you know petition is is presented uh you know within the next few weeks, months or two, and the clerk has sufficient time to to determine the sufficiency of that petition, and it's to the county clerk in enough time, even though the law says it's a special election.

I mean, and it would be the date of that special election would be on the same date as the November general election in 2026.

So I mean we're it's still called a special election, even though it's on the same date of the general election.

But the you know, I think the path of least resistance would be for the board um to send this without, you know, we've seen, I think, a fair amount of signatures.

Um, uh you know, it is hard to get that many uh that will take.

Um, so I, you know, for me personally, I believe the path of least resistance is for the board to send it directly to the ballot.

And that's why I was curious about who writes the ballot initiative.

So we would have to, if that's something we're in favor of, we would have to direct you to do that.

You would write it and present us with it to vote on it.

Is that how that would work?

Yes, the we would prepare a petition that the board would approve my ordinance, and we would make sure that that petition is in line with these requirements that I've talked about in the Arkansas constitution.

I mean, it still needs to comply with those things.

Uh, we'd probably would need to definitely prepare a ballot title because a ballot title needs to be submitted with a petition.

And then, of course, we would assist in preparing, if requested, the proclamation uh that the mayor would issue if the board passes such an ordinance approving that petition.

You know, what has been communicated to me was that for a city our size and a city that's growing, we've really outgrown the city administrator form of government.

And um, you know, I think a lot of people are seeing that everywhere I go.

This is what people want to talk about.

So this is something citywide that's on people's mind.

And I just, you know, I would love to see it on in November so that we have a large turnout of people to vote on it.

Thank you.

Director Kevin Settle.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Colby, you didn't.

I think you missed something here.

I didn't see if I missed it.

The mayor has higher and fire authority of all department heads, correct?

He's the chief executive.

So, yes, it's the mayor under a mayor council form of government uh would be comparable to how Fort Smith has handled the city administrator, even though the we can the board could could take back and fire authority from administrator.

But yes, the mayor has the has the higher and fire authority as the supervisor, the manager over all employees of the city.

And the council can only override that appointment or firing by two-thirds vote.

The two-thirds is a is a veto.

Uh is an overall.

I think it's two-thirds.

Yes, yeah, two-thirds.

So um, so I think that's very important to understand is that if you have a mayor every four years, you theoretically could have new department heads every four years.

And so the other the other thing that if we're gonna match mayor, former council of government is uh everybody I've talked to at the state, uh, not one mayor, former council government has internal audits.

So the internal audit department would go away because the council does not have an employee reporting to them.

That's all, Mayor.

Thank you.

Director Rigo.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just have a few thoughts I'd like to share.

So, in the nine years that I've lived in Fort Smith, uh, anyone who's talked to me about this topic knows that I very much support changing our government to the strong mayor form of government.

And based on the enthusiasm we've seen over the last several weeks, I'm not the only person in town who would like to see this change happen.

I support this change for multiple reasons.

I support it because of personal experience.

I worked on the campaign to change the form of government from city administrator to strong mayor in Colorado Springs back in 2010.

I then worked on the campaign and in the administration for the first strong mayor of Colorado Springs, Steve Bach.

I saw firsthand the positive and necessary change that occurred in Colorado Springs, and know that it would be a positive for Fort Smith as well.

I also support changing the form of government because I'm a best practice guy.

Of the dozens upon dozens of first class or large cities in Arkansas, we're one of only three that has the city administrator form of government.

That fact alone is a clear indication to me that we're severely behind the times when it comes to our system of self-governance.

We vote for a chief executive at the national level.

We vote for chief executive at the state level.

We vote for the chief executive at the county level.

Why can't we do so at the closest and most crucial level of government here at the municipal level?

That said, how you go about doing something really genuinely matters.

As we've heard tonight, changing the form of government from city administrator to strong mayor has not ever taken place in that direction, city administrator to strong mayor in our state.

And the process to do so is not a rapid one.

And there are many aspects of changing the form of government that go beyond simply electing a strong mayor.

Changing that form of government moves us to the system, as we heard, where we elect a city attorney, city clerk, and city treasurer, and it means adding a seat on our city council to take us from a seven-seat legislative body to an eight-seat body.

Changing the form means the current board of directors has an important responsibility to decide what the salary for the mayor, city attorney, city clerk, city treasurer, and possibly even city council itself would be in a new form of government.

Changing the form of government means that the current board of directors has to decide if elections for these positions will take place in November of 2028, or if some stagger to November of 2030.

Changing the form of government means that the current board of directors has to decide if the elections for the eight seats on the new council will occur on an at large basis, or as was said, if the traditional ward-based election system will continue for half of the seats.

And I'm sure that many people have many other questions about what the road ahead looks like when you change the form of government.

I really genuinely believe that the people of Fort Smith deserve the following three things.

First, the time and ability to make a decision of this magnitude with all questions thoughtfully considered and thoroughly answered.

Second, knowing where their board of directors, and crucially, the candidates for those offices up for election this year, where they stand on the policy decisions that they will have to make to help transition to and set up the new form of government.

And third, in our busy world, folks need the ability to learn about something in multiple ways across many different platforms, meetings, public QA's, one-on-one conversations over coffee, et cetera.

I have genuine respect and admiration for the work that signature gatherers have put in to try and place this change on the November 2026 ballot.

I've heard no compelling reason why this vote should take place this November.

Three or four months is not enough time to have an in-depth and productive conversation about this topic and involve everyone who's curious and interested across our community.

And so, because the elections for officials in a new form of government wouldn't occur until November of 2028, because, for the sake of clarity, a question about the form of government shouldn't share a ballot with candidates for an existing form of government, because people deserve the most possible time and greatest number of opportunities to learn and reflect on this incredibly important and unprecedented decision, because failure at the ballot box in November of 2026 would prevent the change of government question from being brought before the voters by anyone for at least for four years, and because I want this change to be a success that's supported by a strong consensus of the people, I'd like to make a motion tonight to place an ordinance prepared by the city attorney on our May 19th regular meeting calling for an election on our form of government to take place at the November 2027 general election.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Could you repeat that?

I don't understand what you said, Director Higo.

Well, I'm just uh throwing out the notion of having a motion for us to consider at our regular meeting next week to have an ordinance where we would place uh this question in front of the voters in November of 2027 on that general election ballot to give us the full year ahead to educate and talk and discuss about this topic so we can get the broadest possible consensus on this important unprecedented issue and separate it from what I would describe as unrelated candidate elections in a current and different form of government.

And so just an idea, just a thought to consider, um, that I think would bring in more people to the conversation and and really be set up for great consensus and citywide success.

It would allow a positive vote would allow folks to know that next November there would be a vote one year ahead of future elections for candidates to change that form of government, uh the elections in November of 2028.

And so I just think it's something we should really consider.

It would recognize, I believe very strongly the work and the effort and the enthusiasm that's been demonstrated that people have a genuine curiosity about this question, and it would allow that curiosity to be answered and allow us to have an uh election in November of 2027 that focuses on that question of the form of government.

November 2027.

Yeah.

That's what I'm putting out for consideration tonight.

Okay, could Director George Gasavis.

Okay, Colby, let me try to understand this.

If I were to make a motion tonight to put it on the agenda for next Tuesday to be voted on.

You said we had to have a you had to draw up a petition for the board to consider, correct?

Well, yes, but if your question is, how do you get this before the board to consider?

I mean, I think your answer is you you make a motion for the board to consider that petition.

Um this coming to the consider the petition or have an actual vote.

Well, I want to vote.

I want to vote on it.

There is a motion on the floor.

There is a motion on the floor.

But not for 2020 for 2026.

Right?

The motion is for 27.

Yes, I I'm the I'm the individual up here who has made a motion, and that should, you know, for 2026 or 2027.

2027.

2027.

And so there's a motion on the floor.

I can't.

If there's a second, we'll consider it next Tuesday.

We've got a motion on the floor.

And we're looking for a second.

Director.

Let me let me if you would allow me to comment before I second, but I will second the comment.

You know, uh, Director Regal, I really appreciate your comments.

You know, that is one of the issues.

The broadest possible consensus is exactly what I was concerned about.

I think a lot of people aren't even aware of some of the minor changes that will happen.

You know, there will be a lot of changes to happen, and I think people need to be aware.

You know, I still have you know people ask me, well, what is going on?

What's the big deal, and and just so many comments, questions, you know, what does the mayor do anyway?

You know, what is his responsibility?

Isn't he only ceremony?

Well, actually, no, he's not.

You know, this changes a lot of things, and people need to know, and I have no problem with the citizens being allowed to vote.

I'm all for that.

Always have been, always have been.

But we need an educated group of folks voting, and we need a majority of the citizens coming out to support, just like director Christina Kasavits didn't want to do a excuse me, to do a special study session because she said it would you know pigeonhole a small group of people to vote, and it leaves a lot of people out opposed to doing a um vote uh during a general election.

You know, I do think we need to get more information out there.

I do think our citizens deserve to have the time to understand what this change, what this change means.

So, yeah, I'll I'll second it just so we can even talk about it and vote on it.

Okay, and Rick Rigo.

And just to elaborate as well.

I mean, if if we, you know, now that's been motioned and seconded, and we'll consider it next week.

If we take that positive vote to place it onto the ballot for November of 2027, that gives us as elected officials who who place that in front of folks for the ballot next year, that gives us the time to move in our circles to communicate the way that we communicate, talk about the importance of what this is.

When the reality is, I mean, the reality is it is it is a I very vehemently believe it is not a best practice to have simultaneously on the same ballot, a question about the form of government and elections for people in a different form of government.

I just think if we have if we're able to have an election in a November, which I very much agree with Director Christina Kitsavis about November versus a special in the springtime or March or something like that, and there are no candidates up for election in November of 2027, this it could be the question.

This is the decision people will make, this is the engagement they will get to have.

Like, are we doing this?

I mean, I think it's a little bit uh curious, quite frankly, to make Russian a handful of months towards a discussion around changing a form of government when you don't even then take the election for people in that form of government for two years, and it doesn't even become implemented until the third year.

I just, I mean, again, I want to see the form of government change, and I've always wanted to see the form of government change, and I alone of anyone up here, and I say this not to be rude or uncouth to anyone, I have worked on this and been involved in this, and think it's a good thing.

I but how you do things matters to the ultimate success and outcome.

Thank you all very much.

Director Christie Sandage.

There's a flaw in your logic though, is that we need to know who the mayor is going to be before we decide, but there's still going to be another election for a new mayor when the form of government changes.

That's right.

Yeah, people have they've been out, they've been signing the petition, they want this now.

You know, I trust the voters at Fort Smith to make informed decisions for their city.

I mean, the grassroots movement to go out and collect those signatures.

I mean, that's democracy at its best.

I mean, and this has been going on for months, and this idea that people don't know what's going on.

I do a minimum of five events a week.

I am everywhere.

I'm talking to people everywhere, and everyone's talking about this.

For us to sit up here and say we know better than the people out there.

I mean, if if that's the attitude, you've got bigger changes and just you know, bigger problems than just the form of government.

I think delaying the vote another year means another year of uncertainty, another year of political infighting, another more division in the community.

Uh, you know, people aren't signing that petition because they want it next year.

They're signing the petition because they want it now.

I think what's happened is that the boys downtown want to find out if I'm mayor or not next year before they decide on how to proceed in 2027.

Thank you.

Well, that's that's certainly one way to look at it.

Or can we call a vote?

Another way to look at it.

Can we call a vote?

Oh, no, there's nothing being voted on tonight.

Director settled.

There's been a motion placed on our second order.

Mayor, I'm going to vote.

I'm good.

Oh, good.

No, good nine.

Okay.

Director Kim.

Director Kent.

I guess uh point of order is do we do we talk anymore?

Are we gonna wait till next week?

Well, wait, oh hold on.

Because I do have comments to share.

Is there any mayor to it?

Make your comment.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

One thing I would say to us as we had delineate over these things and think about them over the next week would be that no matter what, government is only as good as the leaders that it has in place.

So I think when we look at this as a silver bullet, you still have council people who are elected by the people who will vote on all those maneuvers, and you're writing city administrator, you're you're putting mayor in those slots, and it still is there.

So I think we should be careful to paint a picture with facts.

Um I would encourage people to look at the ICMA website, there's loads of resources, and I guess I would hope that in the next week presentation, because I feel like this is maybe rushing even as it's not trying to be rushed.

We haven't even delineated what the people did in 1960s when they worked hard to petition effort to change to this form of government.

Why is only 38% of the country even using a strong mayor?

Why is it that Colorado Springs in 2010 had a population of over 400,000 people when they made this transition?

Um what are the strengths and why is more than half of this country not using a strong mayor?

And why do we present it like it's such a rarity when most of the country is doing something other than the strong mayor?

I think it's okay to have what I want to see us do is bring discussion.

We're currently in a search, a nationwide recruitment search for a city administrator.

And I think that is very important, and the timeline of that is actually to be coming to its culmination by July 31st.

You know, we're talking about a big entity, it's a big decision.

Um I think the my stance of this is that allow this to continue to develop among the people that are working hard for this effort.

It is a process that they're entitled to.

Um, when we talk about that, it would solve like infighting.

Uh the board still or the council, the council's still going to vote.

Um we need to be careful that we're painting not just simple, oversimplified answers to a very complex matter of local municipal government.

Thank you.

I think Director Good and then Director Rigo and then Director George was saying.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just want to share some some thoughts.

Um to Director Christina Scava's comments about attending events throughout the week and hearing from citizens and speaking to the citizens that signed the petition.

I mean, we have many more citizens that you don't speak to and that I don't speak to.

I do multiple events a week as well, and talk to people as well.

And people just have questions.

It's not that they're for or against it, they have questions.

They don't understand.

They don't understand the full ramifications of what this could mean.

You know, and as far as the people signing the petitions, I'm all for it.

Absolutely.

You know, grassroot movements is basically how I think any of us got started.

We got started in the trenches because we wanted to make a difference in our city government.

So I'm all for that.

You know, but having the right information and having the right person at the right time absolutely matters.

Absolutely matters.

I'll give you an example of of one of the things that that I'm speaking about about information, correct information.

You know, I believe that there's been a lot of misinformation, some information that was framed inadequately out there.

I think people have questions.

Give you an example.

When we talk about no more appointed rulers, I mean, when you say that we have a ruler over the city, doesn't that kind of give you a bad connotation, a bad feeling?

We don't have a ruler over this city, you know.

Full time elected leaders, you know.

Is that the board of directors?

You want the board of directors to be full time, or you want the mayor to be full-time, or do you want the city administrator to be full-time because the city administrator is already full-time?

Some of these things that have been put out there are just questionable, you know, and it it gives a negative connotation.

I think people deserve to know the facts about what this decision means for all of them for as many people as possible.

Okay, thank you, Director Neil Martin and then Director Regal.

I'll come back.

I you know, we've we've had a lot of a lot of um communication back and forth.

We've seen we've seen petitioners go out and and try to get petitions.

Um we're trying to hire a city administrator at the same time.

I I don't know if we can wait till 2027.

I think we need to go ahead and solve this in 26, be done with it.

So I would like to put a I'd like to do an A and a B.

We've got it, we've got a motion A to do it in 2027.

I say we need to have a motion that we put it on the ballot in 2026.

Second.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Uh Director Rigo.

And Colby, I just had a clarifying question.

So if the board were to decide next Tuesday to say that we would like to place this on the November 2027 ballot, would that in any way stop or prevent or uh uh preclude petition gatherers from continuing to work towards a uh petition initiated 2026 election if they so chose to do that?

No.

Thank you.

Director uh director Christina, for sure.

I would just say to um Director Rigo's point about hashing out the details of salaries, things like that.

I mean, that's something that we could sit down in a day and look at.

Just like we do the budget meeting, you know, for the city, we take a day, we sit down, we figure it out, and then we know where we're going.

I don't think that this is something we need to drag out uh for months on end.

Thank you.

Direct settle.

Thank you.

Uh Colby Sherry, what is the drop dead date that this has to be decided by?

Well, I think that depends on if the goal is to get it on if the question is to get it on November, the special election on the November.

Let's say theoretically this November, what would it be?

It's it's it at least 70 days before that, and then the clerk has to have enough time to perform her constitutional duties, uh, which there's no time frame in the constitution, so a reasonable time that the clerk needs to verify the sufficiency of 2600 plus signatures.

So likely late July or early August, correct?

Late July.

So there's nothing says we have to have this done May 19th or whatever.

Okay.

The other question I have for Colby is um back on the presentation slide 93, Josh, if you can.

Mayor, city city clerk, two council members, city attorney, treasurer are the ones that uh required uh to be under the mayor council government.

Is the city attorney the only one has to be a position that has to he does have the law license to run.

Is that correct the city attorney?

That's correct.

But this the city treasurer the city clerk and the mayor can be anybody they don't the the city treasurer doesn't have to have a CPA license.

Correct the city clerk doesn't have to know anything about municipal city government anything at all correct that's correct.

So it could be whoever uh resident um the city okay so they if they don't know anything about being a city clerk and they get elected they're gonna have to learn on the fly as fast as possible.

Yes.

Okay thank you.

Director Good and then Director George Gassavis uh my apologies last comment I believe uh I did want to start out the my initial conversation my comments out with thanking my colleagues for um allowing me to be a part of the conversation allowing the schedule uh to be changed when we when we address this I did have a conflict come up that I absolutely could not be here so I just want to thank you directors my colleagues that allowed me to be a part of this conversation because it's just not me that you're hearing from you're hearing from people that talk to me you're hearing from constituents in my ward and all around the city so thank you for allowing me to be a part of the conversation.

Director George Cassandra sure or mayor or whoever so um you're telling me I can't make a substitute motion you missed it.

Neil did I seconded it for 2026 so next week we'll have an A and a B to choose from either 27 or 26 to put it on the ballot either in 26 or 27.

Yes.

That will be on the ballot next week.

There'll be there will be I mean it'd be on the be on the the board meeting next week.

Correct okay Jerry I have a quick question you were around when we had the mayor form of government years ago weren't you?

George would not I don't want to not I don't want I'm not implying anything.

I came to Fort Smith in 1970 the change to the administrative form of government took place in 1968.

Before you got here yes I served uh as an attorney for the city for five decades do you know the re do you know the reason they switched back to the mayor council form Georgia it wasn't a mayor council form of government back then what was a mayor commissioner form of government commissioner yes so it was a mayor and two commissioner form of government and the people uh follow the state constitution at the time they signed the petitions they got the on the ballot and then with the city administrative form of government because they wanted a professional run in the city that was what the decision was back then they wanted a professional city manager and and then about 10 years later there was a petition to go back to the commission form of government and it failed basically on the same vote as the original vote to go to the administrator form of government okay so if the board approves 2026 next Tuesday do you all have to draw up a petition?

We'll need to do that on Tuesday.

Yes well that petition and the ballot title will need to be the traditional ballot title you have to draw that up before next Tuesday correct so the board can have something to vote on yes okay thank you director do you have anything for so just a couple things real quick uh Colby and Jerry do we need do we need to have a charter for the city for this form of government or is that already spelled out in the uh state law the the creation of the city of Fort Smith was by legislative action, and that is the charter.

City needs no further constitutional charter.

I guess in terms of you know, some of the some cities have hybrid forms of this.

Do we have to spell do we need to spell that out before it goes to the voters?

Spell out whether so um uh do if there's any specifics about the form of government that maybe we have, I'm assuming we've the board here needs to spell that out before it goes to uh the citizens for a vote.

Either by a petition of the electorate or by petition submitted by this board, the voters would be asked to vote on whether to go to the mayor council form of government as it exists under the Arkansas statute.

Well, let me let me give this example then.

Let's just talk salary of the mayor.

We probably the that's not set out by state statute.

That's correct.

So that's something we would need to solve first.

Well, at least, not not first, but that's one thing we would need to spell out.

At least the initial salary would have to be set.

It would be subject to change once the new form of government was put into existence.

Okay.

I think Colby Colby outlined that we would have to um determine how uh board member or council members are elected at large or or um by ward.

They are elected at uh by at large unless the board takes some action.

Correct, correct.

So there's still some things we gotta work out.

Is there is there a way, Colby and Jerry, that when we when we come next week and and we're deciding between these two options, can you identify those items that we we need to make a decision on before a um a uh the citizens' vote?

Well, I don't think there's any items you'll have to that you have to make a decision on before a vote.

Um well like Jerry said you'd you'd need to set an initial salary, and if the board takes no action to address how council members are elected, we have the default rule, and a city council can change that later.

Of course, they can go adopt an ordinance to make it all at large, or excuse me, all by ward or half and half.

Um I mean I don't think you're saying there's not much that we've got to decide.

I don't I don't think so.

I mean again if the you can decide initial salaries, but that will all be subject to change by the officials under the new form of government.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

There it may I mayor.

There's nothing that's required to be decided before uh the community votes, whether it's this year or next year.

I think we all know, however, that there are people who are going to base their decision in north-south and east-west from all over the community on some pieces of information like salaries for those elected officials, size of those staffs, how the city council gets elected, et cetera, et cetera.

And with those questions not able to not required to be answered and likely probably not able to be locked in before an election.

I mean, that's again, I mean, this is we'll go round and round about this, but questions like that that are outstanding to some extent are a reason to have a longer runway on the conversation.

Or we could or we could solve them in the in the in the short term.

So all right, very good.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mayor, if I may, can I ask a question of someone in the audience?

Um, I hope we would confine it with would I uh legal counsel?

It is a study session.

Well, I I have a uh question that um is relevant to Director Rego's um concerns.

I was gonna ask someone who's collected petitions, it's just one question.

Yeah, what's the wishes of the board?

Yeah, that's fine.

Yeah, that's fine.

In favor of stepping out of the order.

Yeah, that's one clear.

Just one question.

Okay.

Um Mr.

McKinney, would you mind?

Um you've certainly been one of the most um prominent uh faces and most vocal.

When you have been out gathering signatures, has anyone inquired about staff size or salary?

No, we haven't have a single question.

Asked to there hasn't been a single question asked about staff size or salary or any of those things.

There have been questions about when the change would occur.

Another big concern is if I would be the or whoever was elected mayor, would immediately have that power, which I've explained to everybody.

No, it'd be a future mayor that's elected depending on how the ordinance is written.

So those have been the two major concerns is that we're not petitioning to give ourselves power, that it would happen at a future date, and that the transition has happened before.

Have other cities done something similar, which we talk about other cities that have made changes.

Those are the major things we get asked.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I believe, mayor, I just wanted to say real quick, and thank you, Shane, for that answer.

It's it's very fair to state, and it's not uh terribly hard to believe that the questions that people would ask regarding simply placing something on a ballot are different than the questions that they would consider and contemplate and pray about before actually deciding whether or not to vote yes or no on the change.

But that's information.

I still have the floor.

That's information that we could provide.

I mean, that doesn't take months to to come up with that.

We can look at some other cities that you know that we're similar to or that we admire and want to be like and and copy a similar formula.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel here.

I really think we could do a day-long study session like we do for our strategic planning where we set all the priorities for the city or the budget, where we decide the entire budget for the city, hundreds of millions of dollars, and I think we could answer these questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

There are no further questions or concerns.

Director Good, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I believe one of the directors asked about hiring fire authorities.

That of all in so just a point of clarification.

So, then if we were under a strong mayor, the mayor would be able to uh hire or fire staff, such as uh building everybody, all only the council can reject, or so if he hires it, the council can reject can uh reject the hiring or the council can reject the firing by two-thirds vote.

Clarification.

I I don't think the council has the veto authority over the mayor's personnel decisions.

The council has vetoed authority uh over a excuse me, the council can override a veto that the mayor uh enacts or or proposes, uh, which would be a again that's a veto of the mayor over the council's actions, meaning they passed a resolution or an ordinance and the mayor vetoes it, then the council can override it.

I'm not aware of any provision in a mayor or council former government that the mayor makes it a a personnel decision that the council then can come back, whether it's unanimity or two-thirds can overrule that.

Thank you for the comment.

Okay, so the reason I was asking that is in some of the conversation that I've heard and that I've seen, there's been statements saying that uh we have staff that are mistrained and are terrible for conducting business for the city of Fort Smith.

Um, nope, not lying.

Um, but I wanted to speak to uh statement that Director George Kasavis made uh about not trusting uh those staff members that are here and those that aren't here that are listening.

You know, you do have our trust.

You do have our trust, and we support you.

Give you an example of one of the things that force I am constantly still learning in our conversations with that we are allowed to have with staff.

There was a time that we weren't allowed to speak with department heads and some staff, but because we have that freedom to do so, we get that we get the opportunity to learn a lot.

Um, so one of the things that that we need to all be doing is pointing out misinformation.

Uh and I want to tell you what I learned about our um building department.

You know, since the issue came up about we haven't staffed that are um not customer friendly and are mistrained.

Um our staff in that department how to take notes, um, go through training.

Um they're certified by the ICC uh city uh inspectors go by the internal code council and they take classes regularly you know we have the department of labor and the department of health that we also have to go by those are state laws so even if people think that it's hard to do business in the city of Fort Smith state laws are such that they are to be gone they are so be upheld throughout the whole state not just the city of Fort Smith so the statement that we are charging or it costs 30 to 40 thousand dollars you know more to build a house uh than our neighbors is actually is inaccurate if that statement was given to the person that said the comment uh I believe he might have been given some misinformation um what I've been told Fort Smith is equal or lower to the inspection fees and permits for for other municipalities um and a real number that I was given to build a new home if it if it if it is above uh it's around the $800 range not the thirty to forty thousand dollar range so it does matter who we have in these positions you know we definitely want people that are educated in the law that are yes customer friendly exactly I've said that the whole time because that's the business I'm in customer service and I've said that's the only business that we're really in is customer service because our citizens provide the opportunity for us to serve them just like our mayor does has to serve everybody just not a few people or pockets of people so it definitely matters who we have in each and every one of these positions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dingman you recognized just as a reminder um as a and one of my final comments we do have on June the 12th scheduled a strategic workshop I do need four directors to call that meeting for Friday June the 12th 2026 at 8 30 a.m at the ACHE research institute health and wellness center at 1000 Fianna way the former golden living build uh facility in room RI 1215A so I did need 12 uh directors to call that four I'm sorry four meeting if we decide on this date this is the one date I said I couldn't make that I have a work commitment the only day all summer why is this the one date we picked the June 12th date has been on the calendar that was adopted in December okay we need four other date is there an alternative yeah any other date that's that's the only date I said I couldn't do it because I have a work commitment that I I can't miss and that's the only date all summer.

Can we do June 11th let's see if we can Jeff you want to you want to look and see what uh other availabilities might be for that uh we certainly can find an alternate date right we're gonna cover the date okay indeed okay thank you uh just a reminder this coming Thursday May the 14th the municipal league is sending John Wilkerson uh who's a staff attorney to come to Fort Smith is going to be at the bakery district in the collection room and he's going to uh talk about the differences in government and we'll be getting it from again our municipal league and and those at the state level and in that session you'll be able to ask questions uh and and go deeper into your concerns or questions about the various forms of government view pro reviewed your preliminary agenda for may 19th entertain a motion to adjourn so moved thank you