Good evening and welcome to the fourth of the city of order of directly regular meetings are all being televised live.

This time I'm gonna ask Director Regal, would you mind doing the invocation?

And Director Good leaders in a pledge.

Please bow your heads with me in a word of prayer.

Lord, we're so grateful for the opportunity to be here this evening, serving and participating in the governance of our community.

We're we appreciate the health that has allowed us to be here tonight, and we ask for your continued blessings to be shown to our community.

In the name of Jesus Christ, we pray.

Amen.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, if you would please call the role.

Directors Rego.

Here.

Good.

Here.

George Get Savis.

Here.

Christina Kittsavis.

Here.

Settled.

Here.

Martin.

Here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just um.

Just I'm going to ask if there's a presentation by our memory board or directors of any item of business not already on the agenda.

Okay.

Seeing none.

We'll ask for approval of the May 19th, uh, 2026 minutes.

So move.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Aye.

Thank you.

A reminder, a motion and second to adopt each of the following items must be offered before director comments or maybe and public comments on items must pertain to the presented item.

With that, we're going to go right to the citizens' forum, Madam Clerk.

Yes, we have several.

The first being Andy Postrick.

And each will have five minutes.

Hey, thanks everybody.

My name's Andy Poster.

I live in Fort Smith.

I love living in Fort Smith because of our clean drinking water.

I was I actually traveled a lot recently and uh had to drink other cities tap water and it was bad.

And uh, you know, every time I uh turn on the tap, the water comes out clean, and and that's a miracle to me.

So um I think that we don't recognize some of the more positive, mundane things that are happening, and I just wanted to uh give my props to the water department for that clean water that we all enjoy.

Uh I was also at a conference about a week ago.

We talked about municipal finance, and I just wanted to recommend this book for anybody who is running for something or just wants to learn a little bit more about municipal finance.

It's called You'll Pay for This, and it's by Michelle Durand Wood.

Uh he spends about the first half talking about like how accounting works, what the difference is between a balance sheet and an income statement is.

Here, when we're at the city meetings, we're working on the budget, we're very, very focused on the income statement, which is important, but I also think that he makes a strong case that the balance sheet is just as important and it's something that we all ought to know how to read and how important that is.

He talks about a concept called bezel, which I enjoy pretty much.

It's uh comes from the word embezzlement, and that idea is uh when when there's a crime like embezzlement, there's a period of time where the criminal, the fraudster, has the 100 dollars and the victim also thinks that they have 100.

And so there's a total amount of wealth that they think exists of 200, when in reality that there's only one hundred dollars that exists, and cities can sort of run into the same issue where they believe that there is more wealth than there actually is, and he sort of walks through that process as well.

Um, but even if you just read the first half of this book, uh, everybody, if you're running for something, I highly recommend it.

Um, it would it gives you a great introduction to municipal accounting, and uh and that's all I wanted to share.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andy.

Next we have Crystal Cadelli.

Good evening.

I do want to start out by saying thank you.

I don't know that I have for allowing citizens five minutes.

Um I think that uh it gives us a chance to really uh give you guys a pulse on how we're feeling.

Um so I'm gonna start out with a question, but I'm gonna ask that if you feel like you want to answer it, you do it after the five minutes.

Um, so the question uh is for Mr.

Rigo, Mr.

Settle, Mr.

Good, and Mr.

Kemp.

What do you consider the critical needs of Fort Smith?

When I talk to residents, the answers are clear.

Public safety, water and sewer infrastructure, streets, drainage, and affordability.

These are not luxuries, they are the basic responsibilities of the city government.

A city can't grow or attract business or improve quality of life without these essentials.

So let's be honest.

How are we doing?

More than a third of our water meters are not working.

We have aging transmission lines that need major investment and could stop working at any time.

We face an enormous and costly consent decree obligation, and let's face facts.

That'll the re the tax reallocation alone is not going to fully cover the cost.

We need additional patrol officers to properly cover our city for their safety and ours, but we asked our police to cut their budget.

The fire station at Chaffee Crossing lost a pumper truck, and with that pumper truck loss, they are down three firefighters, leaving only three crew members on duty at a time.

If that crew is on a call and another call comes in from a business or a resident, they could wait 10 to 12 minutes for help to arrive.

That is a long time to wait in an emergency, along with how will that impact the ISO rating.

We are now down to one fully functional hospital that is already overloaded, and BAPTIS announced today another 73 employee layoff.

Can these issues be fixed in a blink of an eye?

No.

But can we change direction and start turning the ship around?

Absolutely.

The first step is getting serious about priorities.

No more 6.4 million dollar water slides.

Parrot Island already has significant maintenance and operating costs.

No new parks and pause park capital projects for at least five years.

That alone would generate $37 million to put towards critical needs.

Sell all vacant land and unused buildings.

The sale of the properties will start to generate more tax revenues.

Stop giving millions of taxpayer dollars to private developments.

Every developer would love a two million dollar gift given to their development.

Make our coma responsible for their debt and charge fair market value for the water we provide.

What we're currently entertaining is not enough.

If a Fort Smith resident failed to pay one month of water bill, they would shut it off.

And we've allowed them to go a year without paying 400,000.

This is only a start.

There are many other areas where waste can be reduced and priorities can be restored.

I believe in Fort Smith, I believe we can thrive again, but it starts with discipline and accountability.

And I will also ask that this board reconsider the change in government.

Whether you're for it or you're against it, I think that you should let the citizens decide.

Thank you very much.

Chris Cadelli, okay.

Sorry.

Good evening, board, and I too want to say uh thank you for the uh opportunity to participate tonight.

Um I would like to start by saying last, I think it was last Thursday night, we were supposed to get a we were supposed to see an audit, some results for an audit, and I actually went to that meeting and we got there, and within a minute of the um opening comments, the auditor said that this wasn't an audit.

So that was that was that was really strange.

I thought I thought we were paying for an audit, and we got some agreed upon procedure situation, but uh and then I would also like to uh to ask the board once again to place the change of government on the November 26th ballot.

Anyone paying attention can clearly see the public's interest is there to justify board action on this.

While the hard work many of these folks are doing, Shane and Joey and Dan and others, all that time and effort gathering signatures to give the people an opportunity to vote on this continues.

The best pathway is for the citizens' decision on this via the board.

I'll remind the board all we're asking is to send this question to the voters for a decision.

Let the people decide if it's time for a change in the way the city is governed, or if the status quo is the way to go.

While I support the change of government to the same form that nearly every other city in the state utilizes, I certainly would respect the outcome if it goes the other way.

As a concerned citizen, I'm asking for a director tonight to make a motion to place this question back on the November 26th ballot, and another director to second the motion.

The people are looking for leadership on this.

Who's going to step up for the people?

We had three votes last month.

Maybe Director Rigo has had time to reassess the amount of time he thinks the citizens of Fort Smith need to educate themselves on a strong mayor council form of government.

He's publicly stated on multiple occasions right here, how he so desires for this change in government.

Maybe the city attorneys have been able to convince Director Settle the opinions previously provided by them were correct after all, and no consultation with the Secretary of State is required for his vote on this.

Maybe after further consideration, Director Good would also like to reconsider and maybe make sure his constituents have an opportunity to vote on this in November.

Give them a say, let them decide.

Thank you.

Next we have Daniel Williams.

But it's for me that we get five minutes, and I really appreciate that it's at the start of the meeting, not at the end.

So I don't feel so frustrated and feel like I have to speak my mind.

I just get the you know speak a truth that uh I believe there are some things changing in our city, and I believe it's for the good.

Um I want to see the good.

I want to see the good in y'all, I want to see the good and um how you are articulate uh change, and we have complex issues that we're looking at.

Um I believe this gives us a time to voice uh more than our opinion, but voice what we hear in the community.

We talk to a lot of people and are talking to more and more daily.

Um people do want to see transparency and they want to see accountability.

Um, however, the the dedication that we saw in the last few weeks from the board uh leaves you know really a bad taste, but it's really I think a blessing in the skies, and uh and so in some ways I want to commend you and I appreciate you because uh more and more people are getting involved, and more and people uh want to sign, and really they want to sign and not even know uh much about it.

Uh it's interesting they don't even ask for the details now because they just realize that their voice is being shut down because of a few people sitting on this committee.

So that brings me to uh, you know, really, I believe that someone should vote for it tonight, and someone should second it tonight, and I believe it should get on the November 26th ballot.

Uh the efforts that are trying to go work against it.

I believe we have educated people and carrying people uh that want the best for this community, and I believe that uh whether it passes once it's on the ballot or not, it's not up to us individually, it'll be up to the voice of the majority the way it should be.

When residents look uh for a vote, uh, whether it be here or on the ballot, you know, we're really looking for change.

And you know, the argument is uh that there's a lot of things, just like we heard the other night in the uh the audit that we thought was an audit was uh that the water conveniently went off at Parrot Island about the time we had water lines break, and we spent over $500,000 that several board members setting here tonight didn't know about uh that was spent uh uh by Carl Gaffton and who I can only assume made the decision and other people had to know that that decision was made.

We're still waiting on all of that to be disclosed.

Uh, we've been waiting for over a year and a half, and we still get more and more pieces.

This isn't going away.

You'll have heard that, right?

This isn't going away anytime soon.

So uh by failing to be proactive by putting that on the ballot, it's gonna get on the ballot, but I believe you can make a decision and uh move to at least get some of your constituents here that are in the community and setting with you on the board to believe that you really do love this city and you really care about it and you're willing to take a stand for it.

We need men and ladies willing to take a stand for what is right, not just for the elites, but for the whole community.

We cannot afford to kick this down the road.

We already have issues, I believe, that are gonna happen in dealing with our water security.

Uh I believe that there's an infrastructure problem not just in the ground, there's an infrastructure problem in uh the security of our water system and how it needs to be developed and overseen.

Whether we are talking about changing uh the structure of the city hall is really not only an important thing, it's just another important thing.

So again, I want to thank you for the five minutes tonight, but I want to urge the board to move forward to remember that listening to us here is only half the job.

Trusting the citizens of Fort Smith to vote on their own future and tackling our heavy infrastructure deficit with transparency is how we truly move forward and you can build some trust back.

Thank you.

Next, we have Jacqueline Hooper.

Good evening.

I wrote it down tonight.

I'm a little more prepared.

So I'm just gonna read it.

Is that right?

All right.

So good evening.

Before I begin, I'd like to ask that the board take notes and be prepared to answer the questions.

The public deserves answers and not silence.

I have two concerns I'd like to address tonight.

First, I want to discuss enforcement of court orders in this city.

I have been repeatedly told that if someone violates a court order, I need to file another police report and take it to the prosecutor myself.

My understanding is that when a judge has already reviewed the evidence and issued an order, officers have the authority to make a warrantless arrest when that order is violated within 12 hours.

When it's a protection order, not a no-contact order, a protection order.

Instead, I have been sent from place to place to another while the violations are still continuing.

Sorry.

What makes this even more concerning is that when one of the officers present tonight here in this room, contacted the individual, and warn him that continuing harassment could affect his immigration status.

My question is simple.

If there was enough concern to make that phone call, why is there not enough concern to enforce the court order?

Court orders should mean something.

Citizens should not have to wonder whether the judge's order will be enforced or whether they will be left to navigate the system alone after a judge has already acted.

My second concern is directed at directors Kevin Settle, Andre Good, Jared Rigo, and Lee Kemp regarding the petition issues.

Please take notes.

That challenge is symbolic.

Really?

Because the behavior surrounding the issue has been disappointing.

When the elected officials spend more time arguing, deflecting, and treating serious public matters like political games, it begins to resemble a playground dispute rather than the leadership.

The people of the city deserve better than bickering, posturing, and unnecessary drama.

They deserve adults who can work together, respect the public process, and address issues with transparency and accountability.

Petitions represent citizens who took time to participate in their government.

Whether you agree with them or not, those voices deserve to be heard and treated with respect.

The blisters on my feet can prove that.

Next we have Jason Skirbitz.

Shane.

Elaborated a lot better than I, excuse me.

I want to remind each and every one of you, some more than others, obviously, you work for us.

We are showing up in greater numbers than I would say at least the last ten years, because of the nonsense that you all have allowed to go on.

And not just allowed, some have participated heartily in it, and unabashedly.

And it's becoming known greater and greater extent.

Why does it take such outrage?

And people being fed up and pissed off for you to possibly take notice.

That's a question.

Anyone care to answer it?

Yeah, I thought not.

When we're not represented, but a few not so vocal minority are.

That's an issue.

And a problem.

But do I expect you all to do anything about it?

Unfortunately, no.

We won't be holding our breath.

We'll continue to do what we're doing because we realize we're gonna have to do it ourselves.

Instead of somewhat relying on the people we've put up there to work and represent us.

I'm not speaking for all of you make me sick.

Next we have Shane McKinney.

Hi, guys.

You probably saw the stack photo.

If not, I'm sure somebody will be sharing it around for you to see later.

This is a tremendous effort from a lot of people, some of them in this room, a lot of them you've never met.

A lot of them you probably never will meet, but I want to ask kind of just a different type of question today.

The people that didn't want to put this on the ballot were saying we want to hear from the people first.

We want to hear from the people first.

Literally, a vote to see what the people want.

Three of you voted against the people voting.

Think about that.

We're coming on two hundred and fifty years of celebrating telling a king.

And three of you representing the people, I'm not sure which people, but I have a clue on a couple of them.

Representing the people don't want to allow a simple majority vote to see about a change of government.

Who are you protecting from a vote?

You're not protecting the people from a vote.

I can tell you if this were 1776, this wouldn't be a couple people up here talking and being pissed off.

And I can tell you that we're getting close to another celebration that some of us libertarians love.

It happened in Colorado.

It involved a bulldozer, some armor plating.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

There's a point where reasonable people are pushed to unreasonable things by leadership.

You don't want to continue to push the.

Every time you say no, fifty, a hundred more people will contact me to volunteer.

You can say no again.

That's going to be another 50, 100 volunteers.

The people just want a vote.

Why are you scared of the people voting?

Jared, why are you afraid?

You say you want this.

Why are you afraid of a vote, Kevin?

Why you good?

Like clearly the people are putting a tremendous amount of effort into this to get a vote, not to force this on anyone.

Just to have a simple vote.

My only question, and I'm going to sit here for two minutes and thirty seconds until somebody answers.

Why are you afraid of a vote?

Kevin, Andre, Jared.

Why are you afraid of a vote?

Crickets.

Mr.

McKinney, you didn't call on me, but may I respond to your question?

I'd prefer if you didn't, because I think you have a respectful position and that you're running and you see that as a conflict of interest.

I respect that completely.

Okay.

I'd like to have too much of the secondary.

Wow.

We'll even let you make a Facebook post about it.

You wrote out here, Karen.

You represent us, but we have to talk to us.

That blows my mind.

Okay, but here's the thing of guards.

We can go fast if all we want.

This is why corporations don't come to our city.

Because of it.

Yeah, I if I was to like a big owner of a corporation, I wouldn't want to.

Ten seconds.

Are any of you gonna man up and answer?

We can recall our vote.

We'll take your resignations too.

You're afraid of a vote of the people.

I want you to think about that.

Representatives of our city are afraid of the people voting.

Let that be shown to all of you.

Next we have Richard Morris.

Richard Morris.

I wasn't gonna say this, but you know, you want to talk about the board being afraid.

I'm afraid of this mob rule behind me.

That's my opinion.

Okay, what I came up here to talk about.

Um I come up here to be positive, okay.

I got to show it here that I'm celebrating a quarter of a millennium of America's existence.

And, you know, we started off with the First Amendment, they're now twenty-seven, but the First Amendment is what we are taking advantage of right here and now.

Freedom to assembly, freedom of petition of government, freedom of speech.

And there have been laws put on the books since 1776 to guarantee that citizens are not intimidated to silence them.

Okay, we have uh federal law that supersedes everything else, and I'll bring up something else that I found is interesting to guarantee our rights of free speech.

And let me bring up a picture of this.

Right here in Arkansas, they have what's called the Arkansas Citizen Participation and Government Act.

That's another thing to strengthen a citizen against being bullied by an elected uh government official or an elected governor official wants to silence that citizen by threatening to sue them just for speaking up.

Well, this counteracts that means that if a government official wants to bully you, threatening a lawsuit.

Well, they better be damn sure that what they're trying to sue you for has standing is legitimate.

So that's one check and balance that comes from the state level.

At the federal level, if that individual uh representative, government official, uh is part of a board or city council, and that city council does nothing to discipline that person when a city council, the whole city is liable to the federal government, and cost you a ton of money because you're violating the civil right.

So that sounds very negative.

It's a matter of fact, a matter of law, and we need to celebrate those protections.

The paper in seven in 1776 had a coup about oppression, oppression from King George.

So we gotta guard ourselves, and we can guard ourselves against King Georges and Queen Judges.

That's the point I want to make tonight.

Okay.

Now that sounds adversarial.

Hey, when you're attacked, yeah, you get adversarial, or you take a step back and say, look, we're all in the same country, we're all Americans, greatest country ever.

We need to work together.

We need not to heckle each other.

We don't have to overspeak.

We need not to talk over each other.

For me personally, I would appreciate if you keep it down a little because I'm half deaf and I can barely hear when people are heckling and clapping.

Have some respect.

Have some respect for the institution.

So that's that's what I gotta say.

I hope you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

And I'm not here to tear down government.

I've been in Fort Smith for 20 years as a retiree.

And I participated on various boards and commissions on the city.

One, my hobby, my pastime was to test government and put it to the test.

And it's also to help improve government.

Because it's all we got.

We have to have government, we have uh power spread out and dispersed.

Unless you want an authoritarian government, where we all go, let's not fight amongst us.

We can have vigorous and sensible and reasonable conversations and arguments.

Reasonable men establish the United States.

Laws are made by reasonable men and enforced by reasonable men and women.

That's an improvement.

It said men back there, now it's women too.

Hey, I got a mother.

I want, I want women involved.

So anyway, that's all I've got to say.

Went mild toward none, but I'm trying to be emphatic.

And my patriotism is emotional.

If that's coming across, there's reason behind that emotion, like everyone else has.

We have Joey McCutcheon, thanks for having me tonight.

Um, we are gonna get the signatures.

Uh make no mistake about it, anyone on this board.

We're not here with a beggars' cup.

Uh, we're not begging you, Kevin Settle uh for your vote.

Uh we're not begging anyone for their vote.

We're not here for a beggar's cup.

We're gonna get the signatures.

We fully understand what we embarked on, and when I get a call from a lady who wants petitions at 22nd in Phoenix because she's gonna go uh petition her um older neighbors, that's freedom.

That's what uh Richard Morris speaks about.

Uh that's what real freedom is.

Uh when you're standing on street corners uh getting signatures.

That's called freedom, okay?

And that's worth fighting for.

Uh we spent the better part of last session at the state government fighting for the same cause, our ability to petition uh when our when we want something in our government, so we don't have to rely on government.

Um, but really what we're talking about here tonight is trust.

You can dig your heels in.

Um, you can abstain, Director Settle, uh, you can throw Jerry Canfield under the bus.

Jerry, I bet you didn't like that the other night, did you?

Did you did you like that?

When Kevin Settle threw you under the bus and threw Kobe Rowe under the bus and said that we really need uh an opinion from the Secretary of State, uh, because we don't trust your opinion on a simple matter of law, and I I respect you for your opinions on the law.

We disagree quite often, uh, but you threw him under the bus so you could abstain.

Okay, now what we know is through a little transparency, and we won't hear it tonight, and the board will hold on to it.

A letter from Cole Jester, I guess it was sent out yesterday, to Mr.

Dingman and Mr.

Rowe telling us that I guess the Secretary of State isn't up to giving an opinion on a simple matter of uh two things that the board asked.

Um, you know, when do we have to present our petitions and when will the elections be?

Uh Mr.

Rowe was quite clear on that.

So now we know that this is gonna be again delay, deny, defend.

Kevin, your strategy's working here.

And if you could please just look up occasionally and have a little eye contact.

Uh that would be nice.

Because your strategy's not gonna work because we're gonna get the you may not want to vote.

You may not want to man up and vote, but I'm sure that two of these board members, when it gets so now this has been sent to the attorney general's office, right?

Everyone knows that now, right?

Does everyone on the board know that now we're we've been referred from the Secretary of State who governs elections in our state, who has a stable full of lawyers, now we've been referred to the AG's office, and who knows when we'll get a simple opinion.

So, what I would ask somebody tonight to make a motion and find a lawyer in Fort Smith, Fayetteville, Springdale, Little Rock, uh, someone who knows a little bit about election laws, pay them a couple of hundred dollars, and get your opinion so that Kevin can vote on this.

But but the the main thing here is is that we are seeing citizen engagement, and that's important.

But the the most important point here is we're not just asking you to refer it to the people to refer it to the people, Director Good.

Uh, we're asking you to do as you said you wanted to do, refer it to the people uh for a vote, right?

That's what you said.

You said when you pushed the election off so you could second Director Rigo's motion the other night.

Um, but this is about we're right smack debtor Kemp.

We're right smack dab in the middle of a city administrator search.

As you know, I FOIA's all those documents today.

And we are gonna have transparency because I'm gonna I'm gonna spread those documents far and wide.

I'm gonna talk to candidates, I'm gonna ask them questions, we're we're gonna have that discussion with them.

Who would want to come to this city when you won't even give the people the ability to vote?

You just paid, you just paid a city administrator to sit on his duff for a year 225,000.

Now are we gonna engage in an uh our lawyer to draft another contract for another city administrator?

Is that what we're gonna do?

And then and then fire them when when we get the form of government that the citizens desire, it doesn't even make sense.

That's the reason we're asking you to do the right thing tonight, because we don't want to see any more buyouts.

Thank you.

Next we have Kristen Kitchens.

So two weeks ago I was up here, and I wanted to talk about how this form of government has failed the city of Fort Smith, our residents, and also our board members.

In June 2022, I came up here and I brought up special permits on oil and gas.

And um directed it towards Andre good and let him know what was going on and let him know that there was an oil and gas well in his ward that was also in a FEMA flood zone.

And let everyone know that also our flood zone design and administrator which was Dingman and Gefkin at the time, that um you're not allowed to have those uh pointing gas wells in FEMA flood zones, it's against that flood claim off.

And so um I did a FOIA, and then I learned that we have interest in that wells to see that, right?

And then, you know, Andrew he didn't he didn't ever get in contact with me, he didn't ask me about it, nothing.

So, you know, maybe I should get shamed if he finds a hearst, and I'm gonna go to that neighborhood and I'm gonna start knocking on doors like I did my flood zone, right?

And bring everybody to Joe's office like I did there.

And I think I had 10 people in his office that y'all ended up buying their homes, and then I'm gonna file a lawsuit against you guys because y'all didn't do your job.

And Andre, I'm gonna have to hold him accountable because he's now he didn't do his job, and he's the elected official.

Okay, and so and we're also gonna talk about acne break will number three.

So, special permits on September 10th, 2002, 10 days after the flood that got me involved in all this.

Uh Chesapeake Oil sends an email to Jerry Canfield and asked about them their million dollar 30 bond because they sold it to BHP billion in 2012.

And um, so I've requested all these 30 bonds for everywhere in the city of these running gas wells.

I got one back, it's the one at the airport, probably because it's at the airport, right?

So, and also these gas companies should be paying for our fire department fund, not the city residents because we're protecting their wells, we have to have certain kind of equipment and things, whatever having gas wells are near their fire department.

Okay, and the fire at the fire map, I haven't gotten that at all for the city.

You can't get it, it's not up to date, and there's a reason it's not up to date because we have all and gas wells running in this town that are not supposed to be running, and so we can either fix it and work together, or I'm gonna come after you guys because I want it fixed, and it's failed.

This residents it's not our city, and it's it's failed our directors as well because they've been misled.

That's all I've got to say.

Thank you.

Next, we have Lavon Morton.

I'm Lavon Morton.

I'm a resident of Fort Smith, a certified public accountant certificate 1383.

I'm a member of the city audit committee.

There have been some comments here about the fact that the work done on Parrot Island was not an audit.

And it's true in the technical sense that CPAs who have a certificate have to live by that it wasn't an audit of financials in accordance with general accepted accounting principles.

A process where you perform procedures, audit procedures on certain accounts selected by whoever hires you to do the work.

Three directors, Director Martin, Director Get Savis, Director Good are members of the audit committee, along with me and three other citizens.

And we were the ones, the seven of us, who designed the procedures.

So the auditors did exactly what they were asked to do.

They did not find fraud, they did not find any missing money, they did not find any improper expenditures beyond small amounts that that um would not be significant to the overall results.

The reason it wasn't released is because they're waiting on responses from ARM with respect to specific comments they had on areas that need to be improved or remaining things that were unclear.

I and I would say that the one thing really specific that I got out of the whole process is something the directors and the city need to take note of, and that is that there are a lot of expenses that are on the ARM financial statements that appear to be allocated expenses from the home office rather than direct expenses.

Now I ask the city people who were there to find out what that breakdown was because it is important, you need to make sure that the allocations are fair because we could be overcharged for that.

And I would say if you're going to get a proposal from another firm to manage the park, you need to start right now for it next year.

Because if you wait until September, it'll be too late to switch over.

So I would just ask you to do that.

Uh that's all I have.

Thank you.

And last we have Michaela Gaffney.

Hi everyone.

This is my first time speaking.

And first of all, I would like to address the fact that I think there is a lot of people that are forgetting something very important.

By making this decision, there are people that are going to lose their jobs.

There are going to be people that lose their livelihoods that have to change their roles and the things that they have believed to build a legacy off of.

Those types of transitions cause grief.

Those types of transitions cause heartache.

Those types of transitions are very difficult to go through.

And I think that many of the leaders in this room are feeling that pressure of knowing that a change could possibly happen and knowing that they are sitting on the lines of having to move and plan for a different future than that what they had always been done.

Since I moved here, I have encountered many children without water, without resources, people having attempted suicide, people in the city are hurting, and I believe that one of those main reasons is because of the industry issues, because we do not have the specific resources for people.

There is something that was said in one of these meetings about intellectual gaps, and that is something that is very true within society here.

So it would mean even more so that it is time for us to stand up and start speaking for people who cannot advocate for themselves.

No matter what decision is ended up being made inside of this, there's one truth that nothing will ever be perfect, and there will always be good and evil inside of government as long as we stay divided.

So it is the most important thing to look at the women that are just across the border right now that are in cages because of sex trafficking, because our police officers are not doing what they need to do.

There is prostitution happening in this city.

There are so many people suffering, and just by me starting to volunteer getting signatures, I have walked into those homes and around those people that do not have what they need.

So with that being said, I'm not asking for you guys to change your minds, but I am asking for you to separate yourself from this decision as you are making a vote, and to see the people that are suffering, not just yourselves.

I'm not I'm not educated as much as I should be on government to be speaking today, and I know that I have more to learn.

I am not an expert in this, but what I do know is that there are people suffering, and by you guys releasing your own egos in this and giving yourselves an opportunity to have an objective point of view in the case of leadership, gives more people their dignities back, their humanities back, the very things that so many people have lost.

And I believe that it starts in government, not because one individual at a time can't not do it, but because you guys have a greater impact to impact people as a whole, not just one at a time.

Thank you.

That concludes the citizen forum.

Thank you, thank you, madam clerk.

Mayor, could I ask a question?

Yes.

You don't have to get up here.

I'm just when can we expect an opinion from the IG's office?

I don't have an answer yet.

So the Secretary of State referred that to the IG office.

Is that a does that sound unusual to you?

Well, I don't know what unusual means.

Well that the secretary of state can't make it can't make an opinion.

Secretary of State apparently wanted the opinion of the state's legal official, and and asked for it.

Whether that's usual or unusual for the Secretary of State, I don't know.

So if a board member were to make a motion tonight to put this back on the ballot, would that be legal at this point?

The board has agenda procedures on how matters get on the board's agenda.

It's my understanding that the unanimous consent is required to add an item to the agenda tonight.

Well, so it would take seven votes.

That's my understanding of the agenda ordinance.

To vote on it tonight, not to add it to a future meeting.

Yes.

The board controls the agenda.

Right.

And two members of the board can set an item on a future agenda.

But to put an item on tonight's agenda requires unanimous consent.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Jury.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

The first item this evening is an ordinance amending the 2019 unified development ordinance.

Deputy City Administrator Maggie Rice will address this item.

Yes, sir.

On May 12th, the planning commission held a public hearing to consider amending section 27706 of the unified development ordinance.

The proposed amendments align the zoning code with Act 60 adopted by the Arkansas State Legislature for the requirements of child child care facilities located within residential property.

A summary of the amendments is included within the packet.

The planning commission voted six in favor with zero opposed to recommend the UDO be amended.

Okay.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any citizens' comments?

None indicating.

Okay, thank you.

Need a motion to adopt the ordinance with suspension of the rules.

So move suspension of the rules.

Second.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please read the ordinance.

An ordinance amending the 2019 unified development ordinance of the city of Fort Smith.

This time we'll have director's comments.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Directors Rigo?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis.

Christina Kitsavis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Motion to adopt the emergency clock.

So second.

Thank you.

Please call the roll.

Directors good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis.

Okay.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Item number two.

Item two is an ordinance approving a private club license for an establishment at 1004 Garrison Avenue.

Chief Financial Officer Andy Richards will address this item.

So item two is for an application that's being made by Greater Fort Smith Yacht Club Inc.

The business name is last call of Garrison Avenue.

It's operated 1004 Garrison Avenue.

I got a call, they clarified that this is an actual 5 a.m.

permit for this location.

And so in order for them to get approved by the ABC and get a permit, one of the state requirements is the board approves them applying to the state board to get the permit.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, on any citizens' comments.

We have a Peyton Bullington to answer questions only.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just I will attend a motion to adopt.

So I'll move.

Second.

Okay.

Comment from the board.

Go ahead, Director Neil Moore.

So Andy, uh, there isn't anything in here that says 2 a.m.

versus 5 a.m.

Is that right in the ordinance itself?

No, the ordinance itself just refers to a permit, doesn't specify which.

So they've got to go and then do additional work to get a 5 a.m.

Yeah.

Well, there's a different, there's a different application, I think, with the state for that.

Okay.

But it's the same requirement.

This is just for them to file an app.

This is them filing an application for a private club license.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Settle.

Andy, do we have any idea how many 5 a.m.

permits do we have out there?

Do we have any?

Do we keep track of between the five and a two AM permit by chance?

I don't know that.

I mean, I'm sure we can find out.

I just think it's interesting that they want to come back and ask for 5 a.m.

versus the standard two.

That's that's unique.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

So no further questions.

Uh Madam Clerk, all the roll.

Directors Kemp.

Yes.

George Getzavis.

Christina Kitsavis.

Settle.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego.

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Item three.

Item three this evening is an appropriation ordinance distributing insurance proceeds back to various city departments.

Mr.

Richards will address this item.

So attached to the item is a schedule of various insurance proceeds that we've collected over the last few months.

And so the departments are requesting appropriations so they can get their vehicles and property repaired.

There's about 92, looks like I think it was 92,000 total across various funds.

Of the proceeds were actually collected in 25.

The rest of the 9273,000 was actually received by the city recorded in our 26th financials.

So we're asking the board to appropriate $19,000 approximately of our fund balance for the general fund to account for the proceeds that were received in 25 to make these repairs.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, are there any citizens' comments?

None indicated.

Motion to adopt the order.

So moved.

Thank you.

Any director Neil Moore.

So this is similar to a carry forward or uh or uh carry forward or carry over, carry over and carry forward.

Well, it's it's it is a timing issue, which is similar to a carryover.

Okay.

Uh, but you know, we you know, and sometimes these proceeds they come in and then later on we go to get the repairs so we got the proceeds in twenty-five, so we got insurance proceeds in twenty-five.

Now we're just moving that over to twenty-six.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments?

Please call the roll.

Directors George Get Savis.

Yes.

Christina Gitzavis?

Yes.

Settled?

Yes.

Martin, yes, Rego.

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Kim.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero.

Go to four.

Item four is a resolution authorizing a professional services contract with Garver LLC for engineering services related to the Mazard Water Reclamation Facility Improvements.

Project number 25-15-81 in the amount of eight million five hundred seventy-five thousand dollars.

This item was tabled at the May 19 regular meeting pending discussion at a board study session, which took place last week, and the board subsequently placed this item on tonight's agenda.

Director of Engineering Todd Mitke will further address this item and respond to questions from the board.

Thank you for having me.

Uh this agreement was approved or to be added to the today's agenda following last week's study session to address large deficiencies at the Mazard water reclamation facility.

This is a consent decree project listing several capacity-related projects.

Um main thing I wanted to emphasize about this, this would be solving one of the largest SSOs in the city's sanitary sewer overflows.

So this component of the project facilitates compliance with the consent decree by reducing and eliminating SSOs and the reduction of potential SSO stipulated penalties for our largest volume SSO site.

So we talked a little bit last week about the study session at the study session about some specifics with this.

This was changed from what was listed as a lump sum engineering contract to a fixed fee engineering contract.

And uh part of this was the total approximate price of the construction of this is approximately 150 million dollars for concentricary work.

Normal design fee for something like that would be about 10 percent.

This came in at 5.6 to 6 percent of the construction cost fee or the estimated construction cost.

So I saw this as a uh tremendous value.

What would have been could have been $15 million design project down to $8.575 million design project.

So it is to the city's interest to have this as a fixed fee uh project, which the consultant still doesn't have to bill for their hours.

We will pay for their, they don't have to bill for the total of that amount if they don't want to, but I do anticipate they will.

So I would love to answer any questions you have about this.

Okay, thank you.

Are they the citizens' comments, madam clerk?

Uh yes.

Uh first we have Andy Pruitt who is here to answer questions.

He's with Garvin.

Okay.

Uh, but first we have Joey McCutcheon.

I have two minutes.

I think it uh bears repeating uh what uh Mr.

Mitkey uh just referred to uh that this project is necessary to eliminate the cause of the largest remaining wet weather SSO, which has been the source of 15 million gallons.

That's 15 million gallons of untreated wastewater being discharged uh into our environment since February, just since February of 2022, and we wonder why we've got a stipulated penalty, and we wonder why for 40 years we've had city attorneys, we've had downtown elitists, we've had boards, we've had the same form of government, and we're still 15 million gallons of shit flowing in to our river, because that's the next portion down here.

And I think what we really really need is to hire.

When we pass all that tax money, to me, it seems that this is monopoly money.

Really, this just seems like monopoly money.

I mean, we've seen bids that have been horrendous in the past, which the board caught.

Uh, but but sometimes it's just like monopoly money, and that's why I'm up here tonight.

I mean, the design portion, I don't know if eight million five hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars is reasonable or not, and I bet not one of these board members knows that either.

You're relying on one person to tell you that.

I think you need to wait.

I think you need to get an outside independent uh this project.

I think Mr.

Dingman has said that that that's gonna happen soon, but I think you should wait and get their opinion on this, and maybe you know, maybe maybe save the citizens, you know, a couple of drops in the bucket.

And last we have Shane McKinney.

Hello again.

So uh nobody answered me about uh why they're afraid of a vote.

Um this is gonna be relevant to the topic, don't worry.

So I'm gonna start addressing direct issues that I think might be why you're afraid of a vote.

One of the things I've seen thrown around by several people against us petitioning has been we need professional, college educated, experienced at large business leadership for the city of Fort Smith.

Look at what our professional leadership has brought us to 15 million gallons of shit in the water, and you guys are about to spend eight million dollars.

Raise your hand if you're a professional civil engineer and actually understand any of the stuff that's being talked about here.

College educated?

None of you, huh?

Doesn't seem like you need to be college educated to have a vote on this.

I'm I'm I'm college educated.

Well, are you a civil engineer?

I'm not a civil engineer.

I'm an IT director.

I mean you can have a college degree in uh you know seminary or something.

It doesn't mean you know how to spend eight million dollars in engineering, and you guys are part-timers.

You don't get a huge amount of time to study these issues, you're dependent upon what the people bring to you, which I think are very good and qualified, and I think they're making a good logical decision.

What I'm saying is you're a perfect example of people that aren't qualified to lead our city, leading our city.

That's all for public comment.

Thank you.

Just time we entertain a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved, second, okay.

Any comments from the board?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, to all it is, we spoke last week.

Um, if we approve this tonight, and we do hire an engineering firm, the engineering firm will be involved in this project.

Is that correct?

The engineering firm will be designing it, yes.

But the outside firm that we're gonna hire besides Garver, we've said we'd like them to be involved in this setting it up, design and everything.

That's what we talked last week about.

Are you talking about the program manager?

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes, they will be involved in decisions along with value engineering, exactly.

They'll be heavily involved.

Okay, the other thing I would ask uh to this board is uh every three months have a report to the board of where this project is at.

We can do that.

Okay, thank you very much.

One thing I want to add to is the construction manager at risk portion.

We will be working with them to get that construction manager at risk hired very quickly as soon as possible, so that we can get the up to 24 month lead time necessary for some of the equipment because the economy around the spec the specialty equipment is very competitive, so we need to get our orders in quickly, and also we have a requirement by uh Arkansas Department of Health.

I believe that we are complete by December 31st, 2028, and this schedule will get there.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Lance.

Feel free to come up.

Uh, but this will ensure that happens.

One of the things that concerned me with the other group that submitted an application is they couldn't do that in the timeline necessary.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, director Kemp.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for that.

Um, Todd or probably Lance, whichever one.

I know that there is significant savings, and I appreciate you guys taking the time to break this down.

It's a large amount of money.

Uh, the project's a large a lot of money amount of money as well.

Uh with the savings being there, when you talked about it could have been like a $15 million price tag on the general percentage runs of projects of this scope.

We're confident that we're not going to see change orders that the work will be completed, and that the the savings will actually be realized.

I'm confident the save the change orders will be at a minimum.

I can't guarantee there won't be any because this is a large plant and there's a lot of moving parts, but I trust Garver in their experience they've already had Hawkins, we're their subconsultant.

I trust them as well, but they have a lot of institutional knowledge already, a lot of blood, sweat, and tears from crawling through the the belly of the plant, so to speak, and we don't have that institutional knowledge in a lot of consultancy.

And I saw Lance stand.

Lance, would you like to weigh in on this?

Um, yeah, the one thing that uh Mr.

Mitkey did very intelligently, is there is a clause in this agreement that unless we change the scope of the design, so unless we go to Garver and say we want something different, this is a guaranteed price.

This is this is their design at risk.

They risk losing money on this project if they have to do additional geotech.

If something comes up that they did not anticipate, they eat it.

So the only time I would see a change order come in, is if for some reason the board instructed um to increase the scope of what the current design is.

So the couple items uh Lance, if you don't mind, Mr.

I can we uh when you talked about this.

You said you know, there's a couple things we've already asked them, and and we asked them if they thought of this, but those things that you mentioned, those are not eligible for a change order.

Correct.

Okay, yeah.

They they are standing by the uh price that you see before you today.

Okay, thank you.

And uh I appreciate you guys and and your expertise, especially with each of you in your different fields of expertise.

The ones that I have uh heard from just by myself asking around in the community about this with other experts.

Um, once they heard the breakdown of the study session, felt really good about this.

I think that a lot of the concerns were more stemmed around for me.

How this was the first time that the last page is different than then compared to other projects.

Uh, I think this is great because it is the largest volume of consent decree things, and I wondered one other question.

Regulation to consent decree, if this resolves even more SSOs than maybe we ever realized.

Perhaps this was a bigger problem than we thought, and we complete this project.

Is there still some negotiable ability to adjusting our consent decree scope of work?

As it stands right now, and I'm just going to go from my understanding speaking with our our legal team, uh Paul Calamida in particular.

What EPA and DOJ is looking for is compliance.

After four or five years of compliance, is there a chance to get another bite at the apple?

Maybe I I really don't know because I can't see four to five years out.

But there is that possibility that we could look at how do we reduce the overall impact of what's required on the citizens.

And that's my comment.

I want to last thing I'll say is I would like that the project management company that it is keeping that in front of them.

Is as we tackle these projects, and we find that wow, this was uh a larger problem than we realized, and getting this repaired was a greater fix than we realized, and trying to find the ways to continue to bring savings to the project.

So thank you.

Okay.

So have a quick question.

Yes, boy, George.

Todd Lance, has this been signed off on by the EPA and the ADQ?

Um it is in the uh CIP that was submitted to EPA and DEQ.

But did they approve?

Do they approve the work?

Well, they don't approve the work, they just want the work done.

But I have been working.

Can they come in and say, wait a minute, this isn't right?

It's gonna cost us more money.

I don't see where they could because what we're building to meets the requirements of both uh the CD and the modification.

And we have been working very closely with the state on how to do this.

Um we're going to be doing a process not to get too much.

I just don't want to get into surprise of white.

And I agree with you.

Here's another two million you're gonna have to spend on I agree.

So you don't think that's gonna happen?

I don't think that will happen.

I really do not.

Okay, thank you.

There are no further questions.

Director Good, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I just had a quick question on uh this is on it's just on page 48 on the screen, but uh in our um in our work it's page 32.

Um have a note uh just questioning item 10 about extra work.

Uh this extra work that um that's referenced.

Is that typical of such a large job?

Yeah, testing what to do.

Yes, there are some things considered extra, or sometimes they have a not to include and uh if Garber would like to talk about any of these extra work items in detail because we want all your questions to be answered.

One thing as they're coming up, this does not cover construction administration uh inspection from Garver.

If we choose to use them, which normally you do, that's gonna be uh different contract once construction starts, and part of that as we move forward with our construction manager at risk.

We will identify different construction methods sometimes with that.

So I didn't want you to be surprised when we come back in construction thinking that was included in this package.

It is not normally included.

Understood, thank you.

This is Andy Pruitt, Vice President of Garber.

So thank you, Mr.

Pruitt.

Thank you.

Um, glad to be here to answer y'all's question.

This is a really exciting project for us to get to work on.

We want to help y'all solve this problem here in Fort Smith.

Um, this extra work, um, these are just items that help us clarify like what the scope of that work is so we can define the fee and so we can understand our cost.

And so this extra work are things that we don't anticipate that you're going to need, but just if we are asked by the city to do them, they would be extra work, and we want to clarify that so that it's clear on both parties.

Like, yes, we agree to do this, and and accept the direction of the city if if we go do that.

Understood.

Thanks, Andy.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Madam Croy, please call the role.

Directors Christina Savis.

Yes.

Settled.

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Camp?

Yes.

George Get Savage.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Item five.

Item five is a resolution authorizing amendment number one to an engineering services agreement with half associates for 2022 SSA remedial measures project number 25-13-81.

Mr.

Mickey.

Thank you.

This consent decree project consists of remediation of submission S005 sanitary sewer collection System, which includes approximately 6,800 linear feet of pipe and six manholes.

Upon starting at the city of Fort Smith, I've asked for an increased attention to easements on folks' property, and this partially stems from that.

So this is a 12,000 dollar increase to the design cost, which was previously in the amount of four hundred and eighteen thousand six hundred dollars.

So it is a twelve thousand dollar increase so that we can better define our easements and also obtain more closed circuit television inspection of these pipes.

So this is in the vicinity of Kelly Highway and North 54th Street.

No, that's the next item.

I'm sorry.

This uh but I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have on this.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments, Madam Clark?

Uh we just have Jeff Nichols with half associates to answer questions.

You need a motion to adopt a resolution.

So moved second.

Thank you.

Comment from the board.

Please call the roll.

Director Settle?

Yes.

Martin?

Yes.

Rego.

Good.

Yes.

Kemp?

Yes.

George Gitzavis?

Yes.

Christina Kitsavis.

Yes.

It's approved.

Six in favor and zero opposed.

Six.

Item six is a resolution authorizing acquisition of sewer utility and temporary construction easements related to the 2022 SSA remedial measures project number 25-13.

Mr.

Mickey.

Thank you.

This is in Ward 2 in the vicinity of Kelly Highway and then North 54th Street.

And this involves 30 37 tracks where we need.

Easements.

I'm sorry.

So we have approximately $18,000 worth of offers for this, and as a requirement of the consent decree, we must bring each to your attention.

So I'm excited to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Any citizens' comments, Madam Clerk?

None indicating.

They need a motion to adopt a resolution.

Comments from the board.

Okay.

Seeing none, please call the roll.

Directors Martin.

Yes.

Rego?

Yes.

Good.

Yes.

Camp?

Yes.

George Kitsavis.

Christina Kit Savis.

Yes.

Settle.

Yes.

It's approved.

Seven in favor and zero opposed.

Go to item seven, the Senate agenda.

There are three items on tonight's consent agenda.

We have a resolution authorizing a contract with square one enterprises corporation for racetrack road waterline improvements.

Project 24-15-C1.

We have a resolution accepting bids for the purchase of two one-ton service trucks for the water resources department.

And a resolution adopting the substance abuse testing program policy for Fort Smith Transit.

Okay, thank you.

Um would any board member like to put any item off for discussion?

A and C.

A.

A.

C.

Yeah, we don't want to pull C.

I just need to make a comment on it.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Let's go with A.

Who can answer that, Jeff?

Question.

What's your question?

Question.

Oh.

If I may, we do have Barry McCormick to answer questions on Adam Sanders.

Well, Maggie, Maggie, wait a minute, you might be able to.

For this project, is that right?

Does somebody from engineering want to answer that question?

Todd?

Definitely can.

Hi, Barry.

Uh this this project is recommended to award to square one construction.

No, no, but was a good one and good one originally chosen for this project?

They were not.

They weren't chosen?

They were not.

They they did bid on it, and they are one of the bidders, but they are not who I recommend for award.

So you so square one is a low bidder?

Yes, sir.

They're the lowest responsive bidder, and I can go into any detail you'd like with their bid if you'd like me to.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

Well, I I had questions on A as well, because they called me as well and said they've had to file multiple FOIA requests to get information about this, that good one and good one was the low bidder, and then this company, I think they're out of um central Arkansas was allowed to go back in and change their bid.

That is incorrect.

They you are correct, they FOIA'd this, but they did not change anything.

This was a SEAL bid, and I can provide any details you'd like about it.

Because what I was told was after they filed the FOIA request that um there's that the uh bid was not dated and there's no corporate seal on it.

It was dated.

The sealed envelope was dated that they submitted, and there is a corporate seal, and I have a copy of that.

I can show you if you'd like.

Then where was the miscommunication here?

I wasn't part of the conversation, so I don't know.

But who was part of the conversations?

Um James Gentry gets the FOIA request.

In this case, the uh one of the contractors' attorneys sent our attorney uh Dalian Woodson a letter, and so I intercepted that because it did not go through the proper FOIA process.

So I believe it was May 14th.

So we forwarded to James Gentry.

We went through the FOIA on that and gave all of the documents we had on the bid that were requested, and so I can tell you on May 11th, we checked the following prior to sending out contracts to uh me and administration on who we recommended for award and for contract execution.

So we staff checks the contractor's license, the business license, good standing with the secretary of state, and search of legal actions pending, and the uh low bidder square one enterprise corporation of Hot Springs, Arkansas, was found to be uh have a valid contractor licensing board, uh applicate uh registration, and that was one of the things that was asked about was where was the because the website was unclear, but we cleared it up with the department.

So square one never said they had made an error and went back and revised their bid after the bidding was closed.

Correct.

I just I guess I just can't reconcile why someone who's filed a FOIA request and they they've got documentation fills otherwise.

We don't allow contractors to modify their bids in any way once the sealed bids are open.

That would that would be illegal, so we do not do that.

You know, because I know these people they do business with the city and they they've done a lot of business with this, and we haven't really had any issues with this.

And then I feel like if they're coming and they're saying, you know, we something was off here, we defile a FOIA request.

They said the city put them off multiple times, and uh before they finally got the documentation that they needed, and then that it showed that there was a discrepancy between the first bid and the final bid.

Yeah, I was not part of I have not talked to any other contractors other than and I actually I haven't even talked to square one about it personally.

Who can who handled the bids?

I mean, was it our procurement department?

Uh our procurement department uh posts the advertisement.

We advertise the paper and they help with that, but it's my engineering staff, so some internal staff, and I I don't want to say their names, this is publicly, but our assist our deputy director of engineering and utilities uh went through it, and a couple of our project engineers, and we involve our council Dalian Woods as well, and some of our program management staff.

Well, Jerry, can you provide some clarity here?

The city received from an attorney for Goodwin and Goodwin, questions about the award of the contract.

Uh there were issues already mentioned about whether bids were dated and other details, technicalities, which the city has the right to waive.

But as the directors indicated, we're not a difficulty anyway.

An issue was raised as to whether this utility work requires licensed plumber to do the utility work, and it does not plumbing work is required from the city line on to the house, but not for the utility installation.

Uh there was also a question raised uh as to the status of the uh contractor's license for the contractor, which is recommended for award.

Uh but the information when checked with the department indicated no difficulty.

It was a matter of paying a fee which has been paid, the non-payment of which did not suspend the license.

And so the claims that were raised by the attorney have been investigated, and uh have provide no reason that the board, if the board chooses to do so, should not award the contract to the highest bidder.

Lowest bidder.

Yeah, I guess for me it's good one.

They put bids in all the time.

They get out bid all the time, and that there's never been an issue.

Well, but we the city has litigated with good one on a number of projects.

But so that but the city would take the inquiries from their attorney with the same, give it the same weight.

Uh the inquiries were read, the issues were noted, they were checked, and they haven't found to be a reason not to award the contract.

Because I believe that Crawford construction also had submitted a bid and um weren't they were they lower?

They were classified as a second low better, so square one was the first low better.

Crawford is classified as second, and Goodwin and Goodwin is classified as third.

There is some question between two and three that would be outstanding with this, but I don't see any reason to throw out the lowest bidder than this.

I said it is the best value for the city, and I want our water funds to go as far as possible.

And so I want to I would love to keep this the lowest responsible bid.

Yeah, I mean I I want that too.

That's what we that's what we all want, but you know, when someone's making an allegation that bids were changed after bidding was closed and everyone had submitted their bid, that's something I take seriously, so that's why I wanted to ask about that.

That allegation was not made in the correspondence from the attorneys.

Well, it was it was raised with me today, and that's why I wanted to to look into it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

We'll go to uh item C.

I had a question, Mayor.

Yes.

Um Jeff, who could who could talk about city policy?

City policy, yeah.

Uh, Maggie.

Well, just depends on what policy we talk about, Joyce.

Well, there's a resolution of adopting a structured abuse test program, what programs are.

This is a subuse testing program for the transit department.

I know that, but what policy does the city have for substance abuse?

Or do we have any policy?

We have a general city personnel handbook, which uh has some substance abuse type of language.

Well, we require drug testing to get hard on them, city.

Yes, sir.

We do require drug testing, yes.

So what's gonna be the difference between this and that?

Well, this is what Mr.

Savage will tell us.

I think I could provide some clarity on that.

So uh the transit department, in order for to receive uh federal grant um revenues, we have to maintain a drug and alcohol policy or substance abuse testing policy that is um been vetted by the Federal Transit Administration, separate from the policy for the city of Fort Smith.

So our employees, as I indicated in the in the memo, our employees are still subject to the city's testing policy.

This is over and above what is required by the city since because they have a CD on the transport pattern.

Right, and they're safety-sensitive positions, transporting uh person.

Are these random tests?

Yes, there's random post-accessing, post-acident, um there's um reasonable suspicion, all of the same aspects that's in the city's policy, is also in the federal policy.

Okay, thanks, Ken.

Director Neil Martin.

Can uh if marijuana gets reclassified, what does that do to this?

Well, I think what what we what was indicated in this change, you know, when uh medical marijuana first became legalized in Arkansas, we took it to um uh put a statement in here stating that the Federal Transit Administration does not recognize or authorize that.

Right.

Um, and to do that at that time, we had to put that language in bold indicating that was our policy.

Um the changes with this is the Federal Transit Administration and DOT has now taken that under their umbrella, and so um we've we've taken that language out of bold, is now under the control of the federal transit administration yeah I guess uh if if the federal government reclassifies it I think that puts us in a I think that puts citizens in harm's way well I mean as it's indicated that's not you that's not you but right I think that's something we need to think about as we as we move forward thank you thank you madam clerk are there any citizens' comments none indicating need a motion to adopt a consent agenda so move second thank you any further comment from the board being none madam clerk call the role director's rego yes good yes Kemp yes George Cassavis yes Christina Kitzavis abstain on a and yes to B and C.

Settle yes Martin yes it's approved seven in favor and zero I'm sorry seven in favor zero opposed with the exception of item seven a which is six in favor zero opposed and one abstention okay thank you very much to sign we'll go to the official form uh I don't have anything for this evening and we'll go to director regal nothing sir director good nothing thank you director Kemp nothing for me sir thank you director joy yes sir uh two things Jeff explain something to me Ben Guerin is is public property correct the county is public property the Ben the park itself is public property it is owned by the public yes okay is Parrot Island water park public property or private property it is uh it is a it is owned by the public yes okay so tell me there was an individual went out the other day to do it to shoot some footage of something and he was told by the manager the water island this is private property get off it's not private property but what it is is is is publicly controlled space it's not right of way publicly control by who the well by the by the operator in the city I mean it is a I mean just like just like City Hall I mean we have rules for for how you would uh you know attend or or walk through city hall because it's a it's a private facility owned by the public it is not publicly accessible.

For somebody to take their their their phone and and film something and then and told this is private property you can't do that.

What would there be their recourse?

Well it is not private property that's for sure.

Well it's not certainly told but it certainly is could can be restricted property yes and it depends on where they were on the property.

If they're within an area that is cordoned off or signed with no trespassing signs and things like that then it can be controlled yes so a mom taking pictures being her kids going down the slide is that is that that's illegal that could be illegal then that I mean that's that's a different question but I mean I'm uh then you were just asking me well I I I every time Parrot Island comes up there's always something bad about it.

And I I just I don't I can't figure this out yet but we'll I mean there is an active construction project there.

Yeah and it is signed and it's fenced and it has no trespassing signs posted.

I don't know where where the individual you were talking about was I don't want to mention but so if I go out there and film the slides being put up I could be told this is private property I can't do that it's a get dog call the police.

If you're if you're taking it was threatened with the police to call the police from the roadway then you would be able to do that but if you're on the still public property though.

It is publicly owned George but not necessarily publicly accessible.

Alright thank you uh director Christian savage yeah I do have a couple things I had a resident reach out to me this morning um lives off Hendricks on South 40th and people have been dumping um cats are y'all aware of that um he would at least like um a sign put up in he said in his yard um that talks about uh the penalty for dumping animals and then that's something that I've I'd like for our animal services to look into because it seems like it's been uh dozens of cats dumped there um in this area uh over the past year or so.

I had another resident that reached out to me this afternoon that um they say they always pay a little bit extra on their water bill in case they have a month where they come up short and they were told they can't do that anymore.

Is that accurate I I don't know what they were told, and I think if if someone makes a habit of doing that, then I think we would ask them to not so that we're not carrying a balance and owed and owe them dollars.

But I mean I can look into that particular instance.

Um, they were told the city it wasn't a bank.

Yeah.

I mean, that I mean that is true.

I mean, we don't we don't we don't want people to overpay so that we're uh can consistently being a creditor of those.

Well, you know, I think some people worry because the billing is inconsistent.

I think some people want a little assurance that, you know, especially people that um are shift workers and they're on fixed incomes.

If they have a little extra, they want a little cushion there.

Well, that's I mean, I don't know the instance that you're speaking of, and we can certainly have that discussion, but I would say that we would not.

I mean, I'm sure our system can keep up with it.

If they're comfortable with it, um, um, after the audit meeting on Thursday, I asked you about the um getting the RFP out for an operator for Parrot Island.

You told me July 1st.

Is that is that still accurate?

The well, I said July the 10th.

The resolution that the board approved earlier this spring.

I've a few a few meetings ago specified that we would have the RFP out before July the 10th.

Okay.

Um, I guess that's all I've got tonight.

Uh you know, I will say um uh former director Morton spoke about um that the agreed upon procedures was exactly what we had asked for, but it was not exactly what I had asked for.

And um, you know, one of the things I specifically wanted to look at was the eight thousand dollar check that went missing, and um that was not answered, and there's still questions around that.

We're still waiting to hear back from that.

So um, you know, I did I did want to push back a little bit on what he said earlier because um uh you know it's not complete with no evidence of wrongdoing.

We're it's still ongoing.

Right.

Thank you.

Director Settle.

No, sir.

Director Neilmar.

Nothing mayor.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Administrator.

I yes, uh I need uh I would like to ask four directors to call the strategic workshop meeting for Friday, June the 26th at 8 30 a.m.

at the Regents Bank Building 524 Garrison Avenue, seventh floor.

If I could get four directors to call that.

Some of them or I call okay.

I need three others.

A point of clarity.

This is gonna be for the 26th.

Yes, June the Friday, June the 26th for the strategic workshop.

Not June 12th or is an additional not June 12th, June 26th.

Up second, okay.

So we've got director good, Director Kemp and Director Rigo and Director Neil Moore.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um if she's still here, I would like to recognize Jennifer Petrovic.

I don't know if she's still here or not.

I think she spoke with uh at least as many directors before the meeting the meeting that she could catch up with.

She's been the mayor's assistant for uh a number of years, and this is her last week with us, and so we wanted to bid her farewell.

Okay, thank you.

If there's nothing else, motion to adjourn.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Thank you.