And so, and so, and we have to come.

Um, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, and so, um, and so, and so, and so, and so, um, and so, um, and so We have a lot of good evening and welcome to this evening's study session for the Fort Smith Billard of Directors.

Uh, the mayor is absent tonight, as is our vice mayor, so the remaining board members need to uh determine someone to uh chair this evening's meeting.

But uh nominate Kevin Settle.

Okay.

Any other nominations?

All in favor of Kevin.

Good afternoon or good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the night study session.

Uh we will uh do a little pivot tonight.

We're waiting on some people for item number one, so we'll go to item number two review of the draft community uh block development block grant and home investment partnership for five-year consolidated plan twenty twenty-six twenty twenty thirty.

Jeff.

Thank you.

As discussed, I'm looking for Candace.

There she comes.

All right.

This item is review of the draft community development block grant and home investment partnership fund, the five-year consolidated plan for twenty twenty-six to twenty thirty, the program year twenty twenty-six action plan and the citizen participation plan is required by U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for participating in these programs.

Good evening.

This year marks the end of our or the beginning of our 2026 through 2020 2030 draft five-year plan.

The review and comment ended on June 17th, and pending your approval that will be submitted to HUD on July 10th.

This plan completed the preparation of the consolidated plan, the 2026 Annual Action Plan, and the citizen participation plan as required by HUD.

And I'm happy to answer any questions regarding the plan.

Thank you very much, Candice.

To the board, any questions?

Uh Director Kemp.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Kabucci, thank you for being here.

How many eligible residents are currently waiting for owner-occupied rehab assistance?

Do we have like a list that's still like in in waiting process?

We don't really have a waiting list.

Normally there's maybe a two-month waiting period, and that's just for uh housing assistance board approval and just to get bids out.

So no, we we don't have a long waiting list.

Is there still uh nonprofit groups looking to come in and help the process?

I know like world changers has come forward before.

Is there still talk of you the groups like that coming to utilize and help support?

Uh actually this week completed the end of world changers work that they did within the city, and uh we haven't heard of any other groups that are interested, but we're still working on that.

So okay, thank you.

Any other director will have a comment?

All right, seeing none, that was pretty easy.

Uh we need two uh two directors to make a motion second to put this on the uh July 7th meeting.

So moved.

I'll say it.

Director Kemp and Director Good.

Thank you very much, Candace.

Appreciate your time and effort.

Thanks for the team.

Alright, uh, we will go back to item number one, a discussion uh regarding proposal legislation regarding community notification of hospital services, and I'd like to ask uh representative Jay Richardson who is here to please join us up at the uh desk up here and we can talk through it.

And thank you for being here, Jay.

Appreciate it.

This first item uh isn't well.

This this item is a discussion regarding potential legislation related to hospitals providing community notice before closing or significantly reducing care services.

This has come about due to recent announcements from Baptist Health regarding reduction of services and staff at its fort Smith campus.

At the direction of the board, staff invited all area legislators to this evening's study session.

We're graciously joined this evening by Representative Jay Richardson for this discussion.

With that introduction, I'll defer to the board for further discussion.

Directors go ahead.

I'm the one that brought it up.

And um, you know, initially when I brought this up, I was moved because we were seeing the labor and delivery was closing.

Um Baptist told us those would be the only layoffs for I believe 90 days.

Then we saw they they did not make good on that promise.

They went forward with closing um you critical core services such as uh the cancer treatment center and um and other things, and we've talked to a doctor um that's at Baptist that said he'd gone from in his clinic on uh Mondays having about 40 patients this week he had zero.

And um, so I proposed this 180 day notification period.

Other states are doing something similar.

We're seeing um legislation coming out of California and Maine.

I realize the 180 days is ambitious, but I thought that's some place to start.

I think if we're if we're closing um or if they're closing critical service lines and critical care, that people should have the ability to prepare.

Uh they should be made aware so they have the ability to prepare.

And um, so I I initially wanted to send a letter advocating to all of our state legislatures to um to push something similar forward.

Do you know if the you said there it was proposed legislation for California and Maine?

So you don't know if it's been if it's passed legislation.

California has passed.

I believe when I checked last that Maine was still pending, and I believe California was 120 days, and I think Maine was 90.

Okay, and my understanding is that you're just wanting you're wanting legislation to identify or to uh hold accountable to to institutions for notifying citizens within 180 days if they choose to leave.

Yes, for notifying the public, notifying their patients.

So if they if they're going to shut down and and I got this idea from a doctor and he was a retired doctor, and he felt like this would be something that would be really beneficial to the public as a whole to say if if you're a hospital health care system and you're shutting down a major service line such as cardiology, um nephrology, uh osteopathic, that you have to provide some sort of notification period because what we've seen, especially with labor and delivery, is we had um women that were pregnant were unsure where they were going to deliver.

I've had um a resident who reached out to me and said, I'm I'm taking chemo at Baptist.

Where am I going to get my chemo?

I mean that they just shut it down like that.

I mean, that's not a call I ever want to get.

And it's not something really I'm qualified to provide an answer to.

And so I thought when this came up, I thought, gosh, that's a good idea to to set a standard for notification.

Because I think what what I've witnessed around the reduction with Baptists is that it's been hard to get information.

Um I think even at the state level, you've you've probably uh had some trouble receiving information.

I'm told even at the federal level, they're having trouble getting information from Baptists past just a few carefully crafted talking points, and so um I think this is something that would be uh beneficial to everyone in the state.

Um this is uh a health care system that touches everyone in the state, and I think that um it may not be as hard to get other uh members of of your legislative body on board.

Uh it's not just a Fort Smith issue.

No, I think it's a state issue, and we're seeing more and more hospitals closing across the state, so I think your point is valid.

Um I think one thing that I would take into consideration or ask you to or maybe you can give me insight in this, what what would be the pushback for a piece of legislation for that, right?

There's always a pro and a con to everything.

What have you heard as a pushback for 180 day rent notification in other states or even in conversations with people that you've had?

One of the pushbacks I've heard is that if the doctors decide to leave, then they can't provide that notification.

Um if you have one doctor, you know, if your cardiology department is one doctor and they decide to leave, um, you can't provide that, but I'm sure we could work in some sort of um uh amendment into the legislation that would provide for that.

I don't think that's unforeseeable.

And that's basically is that like a HIPAA law or something that they a doctor can't notify, do you know anything about that?

And I'm only asking because I have absolutely no idea.

That's why I'm asking.

I don't.

I I I'm not familiar with the HIPAA laws uh in relation to that.

But that'd be so like the doctor maybe is moving to another state or something, and he needs got a contract that will be up in or that'll start in two months.

And so he doesn't necessarily have the 120 day.

So typically, I think what happens what I'm learning.

Um typically I think what happens is that most healthcare systems before they're bringing you in, they're gonna vet you for 90 days.

And so I think 90 days is about typical.

Um, but uh that is the pushback I've heard on it is that if we have one doctor staffing a whole department, now I would imagine most health care systems would want if they have one doctor staffing a department, they would want to replace that doctor and keep that department viable.

So I mean I I I said 180 days is kind of a jumping off point for negotiation.

If 90 is more reasonable, then I I would be fine with 90.

If 60 is the best we can do to get this passed, I would take that just something that gives people an opportunity to say, hey, my doctor's leaving, or this service is shutting down.

Because I know with family members I have that have had medical issues, it's not that easy to go get a new doctor.

If you're a new patient, you may have to be on a waiting list for three or four or six months before you can be seen.

This would give people an opportunity to have a head start on establishing care with the new provider.

Thank you.

And I don't necessarily want to stop what you've got going on here, but what are the what are the current warn notices?

I know we did receive a warn notice.

What's the current that's only if 50 or more people.

Only a 50.

Yeah.

What's the what's the timeline on it?

60 days.

60 days.

So it's 60 days.

It's if it's more than 50 people.

So I think Baptists got around that a couple times.

I know they did give a warrant notice in one instance, but not in all.

Two you say two different ones.

How many different people I believe they've gone through three um three iterations?

I think the first one was was not didn't meet the threshold.

But then the two subsequent ones both did.

Okay.

So my understanding of the Warren Act was that it was intended to be if there's going to be a cumulative total of 50.

And what I've been told is they waited on that time for that timeline to pass so that it wasn't adding to the cumulative total.

I don't know all the specifics on that, but 50 is the bar.

The threshold.

Well, that sounds like something that we can.

I mean, I'm I'm happy to talk to you guys more and maybe even work to get some legislation proposed for us to kind of talk through and work out.

I've done that with uh city clerk on some other pieces of legislation in the past.

So uh I'm happy to take it and work on it and then get back to you guys and get your feedback if that works.

I can't promise you anything, but I happily be happy to get it started.

I sure do appreciate your willingness to be here and your um your willingness to move it forward, and I would be happy to work with you in any capacity.

Thank you so much, Jeff.

No, I just to add a little bit to the worn notice discussion.

I mean, that is that is a workforce type of protection, not necessarily a health care protection.

So this this approaches, I mean, the idea we're talking about here approaches that um approaches that whole scenario from a reduction of health care services from a different angle.

Okay, any any other comments?

Uh Director Kemp?

Yes.

Uh Representative Richardson, thank you so much for being here tonight.

I think another part to bring into that conversation would be um legislation for Arkansas to think about the insurance payouts to hospitals.

I mean, I think uh we're one of the lower states in that regard, and I think that hinders a financial conversation for hospitals, which is what we're seeing in the other parts of the state of Arkansas, uh, with the hospital conversations as well.

From what I have read on the internet, I know little on the topic.

And when you speak insurance, you're referring to uh reimbursement rates?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

We're one of the worst in the in the country.

Yeah, and so I I think you know this is systemic of something even greater, I guess is my point.

And I think that's something to get upstream and look at and see what you guys can do.

Well, I know the gals can pull together, yeah.

Definitely being identified for the next general session.

Yes.

I appreciate all your state legislators, the work you all do, uh, the men and women that stand in those roles, and I think that's a conversation to have as well.

And since you're here this night, just want to make that point.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Uh Director Crossavis.

Does that mean House Bill 1930 may be coming back around again in the next session?

No, I'm gonna tell you, you have to tell me what House Bill.

I mean, I thousands of bills come through.

I can't remember the numbers.

I know you do.

That was the bill that said you would um take an average of all the states around Arkansas, their Medicaid Medicare reimbursements average those out, and that would become the new minimum.

Yes, okay.

So that from what I'm hearing that that's going to be brought back up again with a few modifications, but yes, okay, thank you.

Any other comments uh Director Good?

Thank you, Director Suttle.

Um Representative Richardson just want to thank you for being here.

Um, and I know the board has heard you say, and we've already had the discussion that this is more than a forceman's problem, it's much more than an Arkansas problem.

This is a nationwide problem, and there's lots of factors that play into this.

Um initially I I didn't have any kind of one way or another support of a letter because you know, one thing we don't want to do is to try to tell a uh a private business how to run their business, uh even though they're providing a service to the community, and we expect that you know we wouldn't tell uh FedEx, you know, how to you know run their business.

So, but also in that same vein, as Director Christina Cassette was pointed to, you know, the services provided by the hospital are needed, and and we do want to thank Mercy for picking up the Slack.

Uh so whenever there are um departments that are closing, you know, we've noticed that Mercy has stepped up or individual doctors have stepped up to take new patients.

So we want to thank Mercy and doing that as well.

But also understand that you're on the uh health committee.

Um, so thank you for serving in that role as well, and uh just to remind our our board that Representative Richardson is is positioned very well to champion this force.

So, you know, if we want to come to him or in the other legislatures, of course, you know, we'll do our due diligence to provide information that that they need, but I'm sure they and their staff will do the same.

So thank you for being here.

Yes, sir.

Director Cassavis, go ahead.

Just one final thought.

You know, for me, I was able to make the distinction between a you know private business like FedEx or a hospital as they have tax-exempt status, they're not paying property taxes, things like that.

And so I think that that does give uh the public uh you know the right to say we're gonna push back on that a little bit, and we want to we want to set a new standard.

Thank you.

Uh thank you very much, uh Representative Richardson.

Do you have any final comments you'd like to convey to the board before we finish up here?

No, sir.

I'm available for whatever you guys need and happy to work on this project.

We appreciate your time and effort.

Thank you so much for coming in.

Thank you.

All right, we'll go to item number three, uh discussion about the pro-Phoenix CAD RMS mobile replacement solutions for the River Valley Communication Center.

Jeff?

Yeah, this this item is a discussion of the proposed action to replace the CAD RMS mobile system for uh emergency services dispatch with a solution by Central Square.

In February 2026, the city has discovered a breach by the existing vendor Pro Phoenix that it violated both the terms of the city's contract with the vendor and with the FBI's criminal justice information services security policy.

As a result, the city has identified a path for pivoting to a different vendor for this service.

Dr.

West Milan, director of public safety communications, will further address this item.

Thank you, Administrator Dingman.

The in March of 23, we had a uh, excuse me, in the summer of 2022, we had an extensive evaluation period uh of uh several vendors for a new CAD RMS system.

In March in 2023, the City of Fort Smith entered into an agreement with ProPhoenix to provide the CAD RMS mobile and jail software systems for public safety in Fort Smith and Sebastian County.

This agreement was a culmination of extensive selection process, including police, fire, and 911 dispatch.

This software is utilized by the VAR VCC police and fire departments with the intention of scaling up to a countywide public safety solution in light of consolidation.

I lost my okay.

We went live with the software in September of 2025 and began incorporating the system for all county agencies in February of this year.

At this same time in February, we discovered an issue in which staff with ProPhoenix violated our CGI's security policy.

The issue was a breach of the city's agreement with ProPhoenix and could threaten the functionality of the RBCC and the police department's use of the Arkansas Crime Information Center or ACIC.

Immediately, all access to the system by ProPhoenix support staff was terminated until ACIC could review the explanation given by ProPhoenix.

To be certain there was no data loss involved with the breach of our agreement.

Ultimately, ACIC allowed the vendor to continue to operate, but they mandated additional actions the city must take to ensure a similar incidence would not be repeated.

The solution creates a significant administrative burden to the city that we argue is solely due to the actions taken by ProPhoenix.

Nevertheless, the situation is such that we can no longer use the software in light of the breach of agree of their agreement.

We have notified Pro-Phoenix that they are in breach and that the city will be terminating our agreement.

Further, the vendor was notified we are seeking a refund of the money we've spent thus far in the implementation of the software, an amount totaling approximately 1.2 million dollars.

Our attorney, Mr.

Rowe, is here if we have any questions about that aspect of it.

In light of this fact, we have been without support for our CAD mobile RMS software and cannot expand into the needed unified system of a countywide 911 emergency communication system.

During the evaluation process in 2022, the final two vendors to provide a CAD RMS system were the Pro-Phoenix and Central Square.

The two vendors scored the same among a sizable demonstration committee made up of dispatchers, police officers, and firefighters.

We asked both to return for a second evaluation, and the score again was exactly the same.

The tiebreaker was the fact that ProPhoenix was the only software that incorporated a fire agency record system.

Ultimately, the fire department elected not to use the record system in the summer of 2025.

Thus, upon notification of the breach, and once we were notified Pro-Phoenix that we would be terminating the contract in the late April, I began working with Central Square for a solution to replace it.

The ProSuite system that they gave us is the exact same software and requirements that we need for police fire and dispatch services.

Also the jail services and this scale up to a countywide system.

They are able to provide the exact same services, and is the central square is already a vendor within the city.

Further, Central Square is a member of the is a member of the Source Well purchasing consortium to satisfy procurement uh requirements for this system.

We cannot due to the due to the breach with Central or with Pro Phoenix.

We cannot wait for the negotiations to become uh final before we start looking at a new system.

We have given you a proposal to be brought back in July 7th, regular board meeting that outlines this uh new contract with Central Square.

I'll be going to the 911 board on Thursday and requesting an allocation of funds from the reserve balance that I have in my 911 fund in order to cover the cost of this.

This is being done so we can move forward with implementation of a new CAD and RMS system in light of this issue.

We've been lucky so far that we have been continuing to use this system without the support that we need, but we can no longer do this.

So, in light of negotiations with Pro Phoenix, I'm asking the the 911 board to authorize this allocation so we can move forward with this contract with Central Square.

They tell me it's about a six to eighteen month implementation phase for this.

Um given how soon it has been since we implemented this system.

I already have exactly what they need.

So I'm hoping to have this up and running by very soon, if not by the end of this year, very early in next year.

So that's where we're at.

Um this situation uh is very unfortunate, and we are uh we're dealing with it.

We're we're making the best out of this this situation.

So with that, I I've got any questions.

I have several staff here if there are any other questions if you have.

I thank you very much for uh coming in and speaking to us about this.

The only thing I'm gonna ask is if a question gets asked that could impact a potential lawsuit for ProPhoenix.

Please let us know that we can't answer that question.

Thank you.

I do not want to do anything that could impact that.

Going forward, I hope the board understands that too as a group.

So for that, we'll start with Director Christina Cassavis.

My question is for Colby.

I think he's here.

Colby Rowe represents Dalian Woods, the city's attorney.

Thank you, Colby, for being here.

Yes.

Good evening.

Good evening.

What is the timeline on a breach of contract lawsuit, something like this look like?

How long until we would be able to recover the funds?

Well, that depends I mean if it if it proceeds to litigation, uh, it's hard to anticipate a timeline.

You know, civil civil litigation can proceed slowly, meaning it's not uncommon for it to take years.

Okay.

Um so that's it's hard for me to to anticipate.

I mean, there's there's no litigation right now filed, of course.

I mean, we're not even to that point, uh, but it'd be hard to anticipate that I can't tell you this would all be wrapped up by January of 28th.

I mean, I just don't know.

So, what what are the steps?

Just mediation first and then the steps are as as uh Wes indicated we have given notice to ProPhoenix of the the problem, and and so they're aware, and we've indicated that the city seeks to terminate the deal uh and request its money back.

Now, of course, the board's gonna have to approve that.

And in fact, the letter to ProPhoenix that we sent at the end of April said we we want your response.

You know what?

What is your position on this?

And uh they have not responded.

They do have counsel at Little Rock that I've spoken to a couple of times.

Uh they've told me they're going to get us a response, but it hasn't happened yet.

Uh so I anticipate that ProPhoenix at some point, hopefully in the next week or two, is going to say what their position on this is, but we don't have it yet.

So as far as to answer your question, you know, the city needs to determine how it wants to proceed.

You want to go central square and go down that road, um, and that's fine.

That's the policy question, and then the question is what do we do about you know getting money back?

If our position is we're owed money back from Pro Phoenix and it will be the city's position.

How do you do that?

And of course, you try to work it out without filing any lawsuits, and the board would approve whatever it is.

If they make some offered, the board can discuss that and decide if they want to take that.

Uh if not, you can't reach a deal, then then it ended up in litigation.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, Director Martin, then Director Good after that.

Director Hood Martin, and then Director Good.

Neil, you're up.

Thought I heard a different pronunciation there.

Um Colby, um, you've read the the contract language.

I've read I mean the contract is voluminous, but I I've I understand what the obligations are, so yes.

You feel pretty solid about our uh, you know, what the breach of the agreement and that that's there's no doubt that the agreement requires ProPhoenix to comply with all CGIS is that the CGIS and security protocols, and there's no doubt that there's been a breach of that.

Okay.

You know, what where it may end is, you know, how this came to the city's attention is as Wes indicated was ACIC notified the city of this breach, this problem.

And of course, we then notified ProPhoenix.

Uh and and ProPhoenix has tried to fashion a mechanism to satisfy ACIC that yeah, we can continue to do business with the Fort Smith, and here's here's what we've got in place to satisfy these concerns.

And I think ACIC will accept that, but in order for the city to continue to use ProPhoenix, ACIC is going to require a bunch of more controls on the city to use this vendor that's caused this issue.

And so it that gets to a practical impact of we're we're now going down a road to do certain things that we didn't anticipate when we entered this deal and and wouldn't have entered into this deal had we known that.

So I I think the language is clear that because they had to do something, they haven't done it, and the ramifications that you know that we can argue about those, but I think the city's position is is good.

Okay, very good.

Um Mr.

Mylam, um in terms of 911 funds, how much are available?

Right now, there should be about 2.3 million in that fund.

2.3 million.

And going with Central Square, um, what do you think the costs would be three hundred and eighty thousand dollars?

Three hundred and eighty, that's so.

That's a that's the one-time cost, yes, sir.

All right.

Um so obviously that's significantly less than 2.3 million.

So okay, just wanted to make sure.

Um okay, thank you.

Uh Director Good.

Thank you, Director Settlement.

Dr.

Milam, um, thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for all the great information.

And of course, this is a very unfortunate um situation.

But um, excuse me, good grief.

Um, but want to thank you for your expertise in the in the matter.

And uh I'm I I'm very confident that with the lawsuit coming that we will be able to well just me personally uh think that we'll be able to recover some of them some of the funds that we're taking from the 911 uh funds that you have identified.

So I'm very comfortable with this, and uh again it's unfortunate, but we have to move forward.

We have to have this equipment.

Thank you.

Uh Director Kemp.

Thank you, Director Settle.

Uh Dr.

Mylam, the question I have, I guess, is will the 379,000 be the full implementation cost, or are there any other additional things that you're gonna need potentially to bring that process to full full usage?

That is the full cost that would be for this year now.

Now this cost includes service and maintenance fees for the next four years.

But the position that we put ourselves with Central Square is they have a given us quite a bit of incentives.

Uh if you'll notice on the proposal, there's quite a bit of incentives and the incentives include uh the service and license fees, the subscription fees for the next four years, to the point that it's actually less expensive than ProPhoenix.

Uh Pro Phoenix, the every year we were to pay an increase of five percent on our subscription fees.

Central Square has come back and says in 2026 you will only pay this implementation cost.

They will not raise our subscription fees at all next year, and then the next three years they'll only raise it two percent, and then year six and beyond, we will then look at that contract as it's five percent of in that way.

So within the five-year cost, this is actually a uh significant reduction of what we would have already paid with Pro Phoenix.

Right, thank you.

No, no, nothing for me.

Uh you waved it, you said you wanted to speak.

Well, I was wanted to wanted to say what I thought you, or what I think you said earlier, so we can do that privately.

Director Christinica Savans.

Um, we had some money set aside for um a match if we were to be awarded the congressionally directed spending from Bozeman's office.

Can you remind me what that we how much that was?

Yes, we applied to Senator Bozeman's office for three million for radios, and it required a 20%.

I think Chris is here, I think it was a 20% match at around 750,000.

150,000, okay.

So we we were denied we were that's that was on the understanding that we were denied that, yes.

So we we had that 750 banked.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the board?

Uh director good.

Just a comment.

Um Dr.

Milan, when um when Mr.

Woolmack was here and and met us at the police station to uh tour the the facilities upstairs, uh has he come back with any type of or him and his staff come back with anything promising by way of uh funding from his no by the time uh we had our conversation the funding opportunity for this year had lapsed.

Um he was uh supportive of the application we made to uh Bozeman's office um and that there was going to be some challenges with it, and he understood that so likely for us to do anything with Walmack, we'll have to try again this year.

He had made a recommendation, he had brought up some person's name that he'd worked previously with.

Have we made contact with that person?

We it was the Rogers Fire Chief, correct, and he was he suggested that I reach out to him uh about building designs and building plans.

Okay.

And I have his number.

I have not called him yet, it's on my computer monitor to call him.

I've been real busy with consolidation and this CAD situation, I really haven't got to it.

Plus, we until we have really the funding to start really seriously looking at a new facility.

I I'm not gonna bother him just yet, but he is definitely on my list of call, yes sir.

Good deal.

Thank you.

I'll just say to that point that uh director good made.

I mean, that a lot of the a lot of that work with the congressional delegation is a long game, and so the more the more touch points we have with them I mean it may not pay off for us this year, but we'll we'll apply at some point in the future, and they'll remember that.

Uh the only question I have is uh the issue that occurred has it occurred just with us or has it occurred in other places also?

Only those to my knowledge, us.

Are we the only one in the state of Arkansas that uses Pro Phoenix?

We are interesting.

Okay.

Uh do we have any concern with Central Square having the same issue?

No, none.

In fact, that was the first question.

I I mean I had to ask the public.

Okay.

So we're so what are most uh I guess the obvious question, what is everybody else to use in the state of Arkansas?

What software?

It's a mix.

I know Benton County uses Central Square.

I think Pulaski County uses Central Square.

Um there's you know, depending on where you're at, and you got to understand too that Central Square is a conglomerate, you know.

Uh in 1998, when we put in our legacy system, it was PSSI.

Okay.

And then Zerker bought PSSI, and then TriTech bought Zerker, and then Central Square bought um Tri-Tech.

Okay.

So, you know, some agencies there they're on Central Square, but it's the Zerker product.

Okay.

We're on Central Square and it's the Tri-Tech product.

I'd say we were on Central Square with the PSSI product, and they said, What?

So, thank you very much.

Uh Director George Cassettes.

So uh what's did Central Square not bid on this from the get-go?

They did.

That's the the evaluation they did bid on this and scored the same as Pro Phoenix.

Exact same.

Exact same.

In fact, we brought them back for a second evaluation and they scored the same again.

It was it was right down the middle.

I mean, both with the evaluation process that we did, they scored exactly the same.

So how was that who made the decision to go with Pro Phoenix?

Well, we did.

I did.

The 911 board.

Yeah, well, it's the city.

The reason that we did that is because the ProPhoenix was the only one with a dedicated fire solution.

Okay.

And that's the only reason we went with Pro Phoenix.

So uh are we gonna stay with them until the settlement's made?

With ProPhoenix?

Yes.

Lord, I hope not.

But if we move forward, if if we move forward with the contract on July 7th, I'm gonna start building that just as quick as I can.

So I'm worried about if they could come back legally on their contract against the city.

If they feel like they're they've been wronged, in other words.

Oh, I don't think so.

You don't think so?

I do not.

No, we're alleging that they're in breach of contract, which makes their product no longer usable.

Yeah.

Would that be an accurate that is correct?

So how do we switch over?

What's the pro head of what do we do here?

Okay.

So we sign the contract.

The board's gonna have to approve this, right?

Yes, okay.

In fact, I'm bringing this the proposal I have I'll be bringing before this board on July the 7th.

Okay.

So once that's signed, we have a meeting.

Um they tell us that the usual time is between six and eighteen months to fix.

Um however, um we have all had really recent experience in setting up a new CAD system.

So all the information they have I already they need, I already have it.

I don't have to go around hunting it.

I've got all the users information, I've got uh the it's not gonna take long.

Okay, but it is gonna take some time because then we have to train and then we have to you know, and I'm this time I'm countywide, so I'll be doing other agencies as well.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Uh well and uh director Neil Martin.

Just just from a I guess project management perspective.

Um, we'll be on Pro Phoenix until we're adequate adequately up and running and tested and all of that with that's correct.

Central Square.

So we won't we won't make that cut over until we've checked all the boxes and everybody's in agreement that's correct.

The functionality works exactly like we expect it to.

That's correct.

Okay, and part of the cost on this proposal includes the data conversion.

So Central Square is going to take all the stuff we put into ProPhoenix up to this point and convert it into their system.

So it's going to move right into that system.

And we have to.

I'm sorry.

Well, no, keep going, keep going.

I should say we have to um continue using ProPhoenix until we go live on the new system.

Um, and obviously, this is probably going to come into any type of negotiation because we're still using it.

Okay.

But that's that's that we still have to wait on Pro Phoenix response before we move forward.

And um, we've put controls in place to mitigate our issue.

So we shouldn't expect that to uh we shouldn't expect that again, but we can the we can still use the system, um we still have adequate functionality.

Um what we've had some issues, okay, but luckily you you have employed an incredible staff of experts in computer networking and the public safety software that we've been able to figure out the problems in-house.

Okay, that's not to say that but I'm not even gonna say that.

But um, it's kind of like the Q, it's like saying the Q word in dispatch, you don't you don't do that?

Right, that's good.

So it's good to know.

We've been doing good with it so far.

Okay, and we it's a buy-banner of necessity, but this is kind of why I'm pushing this now.

Is the quicker that we get this contract, the quicker we can get moving, the quicker we get off of this problem.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the board?

We'll need two directors to put this on the July 7th board meeting.

Um, I'll say, Director Kemp and Director, thank you, Dr.

Milan.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here.

Item number four is discussion of agreement for the housing authority, the city of Fort Smith for Bailey Hill redevelopment.

Jeff?

Thank you.

This item is discussion regarding an agreement with the Fort Smith Housing Authority to provide financial assistance associated with the Bailey Hill redevelopment project.

This item was tabled at last week's regular meeting pending study session discussion.

This concept originated in 2012 upon the city's transfer of the former Bailey Hill reservoir property to the Fort Smith Housing Authority for redevelopment as residential housing.

For several years, the city has carried funds in its capital improvement plan for streets, bridges, and drainage to contribute towards the street and storm drainage needs of this development.

And at this moment, uh director of engineering Todd Mitke uh will further address this item.

What Todd?

Thank you.

Going back to 2012, this was first brought to the board, and it originally talked about a property donation of the Bailey Hill reservoir to the Fort Smith Housing Authority, and uh in line with a funding request, which this is uh the study session today to concludes.

But for some reason, after October 2nd, 2012, there was no record of the discussions of funds anymore, but it went on to the CIP in 2024 and 2025 when the Bailey Hill development was getting close to being necessary.

So I was unable to find any ratification from the city board of directors that they voted on anything other than the CIPs, which are talking about the considerable investment uh considerable investment of one million dollars resolutions R-19723 and R-2000 or 220-24 both had them on the CIPs, so uh as a commitment to the Fort Smith Housing Authority, but today I want to answer what limited knowledge I have going back these 14 years and the um the history of it, and we also have Mitch Minnick from the Fort Smith Housing Authority to ask uh answer any questions.

Well, I want to address one thing.

So you can't find the file that we voted on this because I think Director Good myself and director Savas were on the board, and I I'm about 90 percent 99% sure we did vote to convey this over to Housing Authority.

You you did vote to donate the property.

Okay, and on I thought you said we couldn't find that.

So well, the property donation, but not the fund donation of a million dollars.

So on 10 to 12, uh October 2nd, 2012, the resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a quick clean deed for conveying the Bailey Hill Reservoir property to the Fort Smith Housing Authority was approved.

Five in favor, two opposed.

The two opposed were Katzavis and Mary, and that was House Resolution or City Resolution R-212-12.

Uh there was also some study sessions afterwards that no quorum was present, um so it wasn't discussed, but it basically dropped off the radar for another dozen years.

Okay, thank you.

Anything you want to add before we get any board member have questions for Todd or Mitch?

Yeah, I have a question.

Uh Director Cassavis, George.

So we donated that property.

Yeah, we did in 2012.

You voted against it.

Yeah, I know who's a mayor back then.

Uh Sandy, Bear Sanders.

Remember, that was the old reservoir was the old uh was it Todd.

I don't know if you can answer this, but we're so they're asking for a million dollars.

Yes, sir.

For infrastructure.

Where's the million dollars going to come from?

It would come from the roadway fund from the what was a one percent roadway tax, and it's now been one percent street tax.

Yes, sir.

Nope, oh, oh.

Now it's five eighths.

Five eight.

Five eighth cent of the the street sales tax used to be one cent, it's now five eighths.

So one million out of that.

Yes, sir.

You know, talk about uh uh it did you know we're here we are in budget cuts.

We've cut our police, we've cut our fire.

I know this is probably different money, it's different money.

Different money, yeah.

But uh I'm having an issue with this.

I'm sorry, but I just you know, million bucks, million bucks.

I would love to have Mitch Minnick come up and he has a history of uh yeah, I understanding, but I agree.

Uh it is a lot of money, but it is too low income housing, and it is different than other developments in town.

So uh full for-profit development, let's say in Chaffee Crossing wouldn't be eligible for this, they're not low-income housing, but this was has the history of the average income enforcement, $61,000.

And to qualify, you have to make 80% of that to be able to.

Is that right, Mitch?

Mitch Smith, with the housing authority, you might come up and is that correct?

That's correct.

The 80% of the area meeting income, which is 24 of these homes, 61,000 for a family of four.

Where did that bigger come from?

That's from uh the federal government from HUD.

61 families sound kind of high.

Family of four.

Family of four.

Oh, family of four.

Yes, that's for a family of four.

So if they qualify, then they're eligible to purchase these homes.

Correct.

Will they play property tax on them?

Yes, they will.

Well, the housing authority was tax exempt.

Our rental developments are, but this is a homeownership project.

So they'll pay taxes like everybody else.

Correct.

So once the infrastructure work is completed, then we'll start home construction, and that home construction will be completed by the housing authority, and then we will sell the homes to qualified buyers that are at or below that 80% area median income.

And at that point, the homes will be back on the property rolls.

Okay, so will this be open to bids for contractors?

So we're just a particular contractor.

We have an in-house construction team.

Who's that?

Uh, is it a company?

It's the housing authority.

Housing has our construction team?

Yes, it's our non-profit uh compass realty and construction group.

Yes, we have a lot.

We have a nonprofit construction and real estate team, yes.

What do you mean nonprofit?

They build stuff and don't make no money.

It's a 501c3 nonprofit, and all uh revenue that that company makes goes back into the furtherance of affordable housing.

Okay, thank you.

I'm done.

Uh Director Kemp.

Yeah, I think just for the residents that are here watching online.

I mean, we were given this information.

Can we have them go over this?

I think it's gonna answer a lot of questions.

Sure.

And then I think it'd be better to then take questions because I know uh in conversation I've had, but I still think you brought this and I haven't seen this.

So I think it'd be good for you to go over this.

Thank you.

Does Josh have this at all?

Or you don't have okay.

I it'd be nice to put it up on the screen, but if we don't have we don't have it, I'll put it out on Facebook later.

And I can provide it so that it can be posted.

Absolutely.

Go ahead, Mitch.

Thank you.

So I did give you all uh a few different documents.

Um the first is just a handout that gives a broad overview of the project itself.

Uh the housing authority itself, our agency.

You know, we are a local public body, much like the city, and organized under the Arkansas Housing Authority Act, uh, of the state of Arkansas, and our purpose is to further affordable housing.

Uh we do that in several different ways.

Uh one of those are the rental developments that we have that we own and manage.

We have 534 units of rental housing uh that have been constructed uh through the low-income housing tax credit program uh as well as uh the former public housing property at Nelson Hall homes that's been converted into uh section eight um project-based housing.

Umits comprise our our rental projects.

Uh we have future rental projects planned uh in the city as well, uh and then we operate the federal rental assistance program, section eight, uh, for the entire county of Sebastian, and then we have what we're here talking about today uh is our homeownership program that we have, and uh that program has been in operation since 1999.

Uh and I'll come back to that and talk a little bit more about that, but first, about Bailey, uh Bailey Hill.

As Todd mentioned, that property was donated originally uh in 2012 uh to the housing authority for a future affordable housing development.

Uh the initial concept plan was for it to be part of a scattered site rental development.

And so it would not have been subject to property tax if that had panned out.

But we were not successful in receiving funding for that scattered site development.

The state agency that administers the low-income housing tax credit program.

They changed their qualified allocation plan, the rules for their program that made it where scattered sites were not no longer eligible if they had a mixture of tax credit and market rate units.

So we were not eligible for this particular development for rental housing anymore.

In 2015, we came back to the city board during the CIP discussions and proposed that the funds that were set aside originally for Bailey Hill in the CIP.

We asked if we could shift those to another development.

And so we asked at that time that we be allowed to come back when and if we had a development plan in place for Bailey Hill.

We in 2021, I believe it was roughly the time frame, we were notified that the property was considered a brown field by the environmental protection agency, which basically means that it's a potential hazard to the community.

And so with that information, that made the project eligible for CDBG funding for community development block grant funding.

And so we applied for for that funding and were successful in receiving that.

And with the funding in place to help demolish the reservoir and start to get the site prepared, we approached the city staff about reinstating the partnership with the engineering department for the funding to come from the 1% at the time, street tax.

And in the fall of 2023 for the CIP for 24, it was put back into the CIP that was adopted by the board for 2024 through 2029 and then readopted for the 25 through 2030 CIP.

It was 80 plus years old when you know we first received it.

It was a safety hazard.

I'm glad to report that we were able to complete the first phase of the project and get that demolished.

No city funds were utilized in the first phase of this project.

When we received the donation, we did not receive any city funds along with the donation.

We received a commitment from the city that they would participate with the street tax for the infrastructure.

There was not any funds at that time given to the housing authority for this project.

Phase one of the project, it was a total of approximately $780,000.

436,000 of that came from the Housing Authority, and 343,000 came from the CDBG funds, the federal CDBG dollars.

That consisted of demolishing the reservoir, earthwork, erosion control, and relocation of the tornado warning siren that is on and now adjacent to to the property.

Can you put slide 557 up, please?

Thanks.

Go ahead.

Phase two, which is the work that's commencing right now, that the street money would be utilized for, that will take care of streets and drainage improvements for the existing South S Street that runs along the property, and then new street improvements, and the that schedule the schedule is split into three separate schedules.

And from CDBG.

We applied for and received approximately $139,000 of CDBG funds for utility improvements, and then the balance of that work approximately $341,000 will come from the housing authority from other funds.

Can we go to $564, please?

Thanks.

What this will enable to happen, you know, what will the project be once this is completed?

The third phase of this project that we will not be requesting any funds from the city for will be construction of 34 homes that will be sold to income qualifying buyers, they will go and get a first mortgage from a generally a local lending institution, and then we work with them to help them procure uh subsidy to help bring the cost of the home to them down to whatever they qualify for for that first mortgage.

So just as an example, if the home cost 200,000, then they qualified for a mortgage of 170,000, then we would work with them to locate that subsidy amount, that $30,000 that helps buy down that purchase price to what their affordable mortgage is.

Where does the subsidy come from?

A variety of sources.

Sometimes the lenders have down payment assistance programs.

Crawford Sebastian Community Development Council here locally has a down payment assistance program that our buyers are generally approved for, and then it can also come from an owner's subsidy from us, where we can we can say if they're $10,000 short, then we can do a $10,000 soft second mortgage and forgive that over a period of five, seven, ten years so that they can afford the home now, and we put a deed restriction on the property so that if they were to sell the home during that affordability period, that uh anything that hasn't been forgiven yet would have to be repaid.

So, so you guys are the builder.

You're building not at a profit, and the homes are still 200,000.

That's the cost to construct the home, yes.

Yes.

How large are these homes?

Uh they're two and three-bedroom houses.

Now the $200,000 is just a general estimation for a sales price, not for the construction price, because what we do, we do not want to artificially deflate the real estate market.

So we sell the homes at whatever you know the market rate is, and then we use those subsidies to buy down what the eventual purchaser will have as their mortgage.

So what happens when the original purchaser wants to sell?

They they are a private, you know, private landowner at that point.

So if they want to sell, they have every right to do that.

If they are still within the affordability period, then when that uh transaction goes to the closing company, there will be a deed restriction on the property, and they would have to get a release of that deed restriction and mortgage from the housing authority.

And if they're past the affordability period, then they get the release and they're able to sell that home as anyone else would be able to to sell their home.

But if they're within that affordability period, then there's going to be a portion of that subsidy that they will have to repay before they receive any proceeds from the sale.

And how long is the affordability period?

Uh it can be anywhere from five years up to 20 years.

It depends on the amount of subsidy.

Okay, thank you.

Absolutely.

Um these 34 homes, as I mentioned when uh Director George Get Savis asked, they will be added to the tax rolls, and so we'll be taking a piece of property that uh, as far as I know, that reservoir was constructed back in um I believe the 1930s, and so it's been off the tax rolls for at least that long.

And we'll be putting 34 new homes onto the tax rolls as well as 34 new homes uh onto the city's utility infrastructure.

And so when we talk about what the city's you know return on investment is for this investment in affordable housing in our community, looking at just a one year's time frame, we're taking a non-revenue-producing piece of land and creating 34 revenue-producing pieces of land.

We're taking 34 new homes that would generate approximately 58,500 of new property taxes a year, 34 new homes that would generate approximately 36,700 of new utility revenue a year based off of uh the current water and sewer rates, and then we would have 34 homes that would have homeowners occupying them in the city of Fort Smith.

The long-term returns, extrapolating that out, a 30-year generation of property taxes that just to the city of Fort Smith would be 242,000 over 30 years.

That's just the city's portion of the property tax.

That does not include the county's portion or uh the school district's portion of property taxes from the millage, and a 30-year generation of new utility revenues of approximately 1.1 million dollars.

And I'd be happy to take some questions now.

Uh, Director Kemp.

Thank you, Director Settle.

Uh, do you have any pictures of the property before demolition?

And like pictures after now?

I don't with me, but we do have those those uh those pictures, and I can absolutely share those with the board.

Yeah, and I think the other thing just walking through to make it sure that the details would be clear on the record is making sure that one that residents will get to see this the slide uh hand up here that you're talking and referencing.

Especially just emphasizing the affordability requirements, the timeline, you know, how infrastructure funding will be managed uh through the process, meaning just beyond even what the city does, what you guys will do, and then you know how we can track those final outcomes, and even if there was a date to allow the housing authority to come back and having that on record just to come back and share uh the actual outcome and how long that process has been and a part of it.

Uh those are just some thoughts that I want to bring forward.

Yes, we'd be happy to give regular regular updates to the board on the progress of uh of the project, especially through you know, through phase three in the home construction, absolutely.

Any other director have any comments or questions?

I've got a few questions myself.

Uh Director Neil Martin.

This is for Todd first.

Todd, um, what was actually on the CIP?

Do you recall?

Uh I know you weren't here.

I do not know the precise language other than a million dollars for Bailey Hill Reservoir uh utility and could you get that structure?

Could you get that for us?

Yes.

Um, and Director Martin, I know you didn't ask me, but but I can give you that information if you'd like.

Okay.

I I would I would I'd just like to see what the actual language was.

Sure.

Um I know we could probably go back into the CI.

I've got the CIPs that I could look at, but um I'd just like to see that.

And Todd, do you have any idea?

Well, and and and I'll open this to Mitch too, but I'm gonna ask Todd first.

Um, do you know why it was removed?

I know you're new and you're you you're getting a lot of historical questions, but do you know why it was removed?

I do not, and there's two memos from Ray Gossek, the uh city minister at the time, one of them on 927 12.

Is that is that on our our packet at all, or is it just okay?

Well, I'm actually it's not it's not in our packet.

I think he's got it okay.

It is not, I'm sorry, okay.

But it looks like the city intended to participate, but the the language in his memo on uh September 27th, 2012 said the city also is considering participating in the funding of the street and storm drainage infrastructure through its five-year capital improvement plan.

Another memo uh talks about the actual request, and uh this looks like it was for the study session.

The second request is for the board to consider designation of infrastructure funding from the one percent sales tax for street drainage to support this project on both parcels as support of the 2014 capital improvement program.

Funds would be used to build the streets and storm drainage facilities similar to the city's participation in the North Point projects of 06-10.

The city's participation in two phases of that project totaled nearly 1.6 million dollars at this time.

North point two.

Yes, sir, north point.

It was south of it was south of um North Point.

Uh, just the other development site.

I I know that I have record of October 25th of 22.

We discussed it.

Um, my notes say demolition and site cleanup is funded, but we we had a study session on the I believe it's a study session on the Bailey Hill Reservoir.

Um I see we talked about it on April of 22 as well as a part of the C D BG funds.

Yes.

And 22 looks like the first time that I noted that we ever talked about it or that I talked about it as being a member of the board, so yes, that's when it that's when we brought it back to the city because of the availability of the CDBG funds for the demolition, and what restarted the conversations about uh the CIP and 2023 is when we worked with the engineering department and they included it in the CIP and it was presented to the board as one of the projects in the CIP at that time the funding was budgeted for 500,000 in 2025 and 500,000 in 2026.

Okay, splitting up that million.

Yes.

Okay, and then in 2024, as we were completing phase one of the site work and the demolition, uh, the city requested that we uh include I'm sorry, it was 2025.

The city requested that we include uh street improvements that were necessary along South S Street, which is the street that runs um east-west adjacent to the property.

Uh they requested that we add those improvements to our project because they were going to already be in the CIP, and since they were associated with our project, uh the city staff wanted them to be under one contract.

So Todd, that's important.

I would like you to make sure just kind of do some research on that component right there of South S Street, and was there anything in our in our notes or any in our plans that just kind of validate what uh Mr.

Minnick said.

So I want to I want to look at that.

If there's if there's a project to to work on South S Street, I want to I kind of want to know about it.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Not just looking for validation.

I'd like to, if you don't mind, Director Martin.

I'm not done, but yeah, go ahead.

That was one of the questions I have is can you put together what the cost of that million dollars, what would it be towards the South East and South 16th piece?

Certainly.

Certainly.

I think that's important to know.

Uh it is it's very important.

Go ahead.

I'm very important.

And if you have any technical questions about the design of the work, we have our engineers here, Hawkins Weir, getting a breakout of that is something that we can absolutely get, what the South S Street portion and what the new street work, what that is, we can absolutely get that.

Okay.

And can you talk with me about this particular property?

Why, you know, if if we donated a G, why couldn't we have donated it to um ERC or um or Justin Green Custom Homes?

I know I don't think he does neighborhoods, but I think he certainly he does it.

Why we could have given it to him, he could have developed it.

Why uh why why is it deemed why did we make a decision back in 2012 to give it to the Fort Smith Housing Authority?

Sure.

Uh I would the first thing I would say is that the property had sat there for 20 plus years as a decommissioned water reservoir, that nothing could be done with the property until that reservoir was demolished.

Um my personal opinion is that a private home developer seen the amount of infrastructure work that was necessary, not just to demo that structure, but also to then prepare the site, the amount of fill that had to be brought back into the prop uh the property to get it ready for uh site development is something that is not uh it's cost prohibitive for a private developer because a private developer, yes, they are in this to provide homes, but they're also in this to make a profit, and we are not in this to make a profit.

We have a mission to further affordable housing, and any profits, any revenues that we receive over our expenses, we are able to plow that back in and reinvest in our community in affordable housing assets.

So you're saying that they couldn't have afforded without without government assistance, without federal government assistance, I guess you said CDBG funds and well CDBG and Fort Smith Housing Authority Housing Authority funds.

Oh it's really $780,000 to demolish demolish the.

So when I say Fort Smith Housing Authority funds, you know, we operate our rental developments, and then we administer the Section 8 program.

We are able to take those management fees, and you know, we don't have shareholders that receive dividends of what our profits are.

So when we have profits, we are able to then plan to reinvest those into the community.

So when I say we spent 436,000 of housing authority funds, that's what I'm referring to.

So you know, a private developer, I don't believe that they would take you know 436,000 of their profit to invest in this site given the constraints that were there, because in addition to that, you know, those profits that we were able to use, we had to also use the CDBG funds.

And you know, those are not available for a for-profit company.

You know, they are for nonprofits and government entities.

If um a private develop if we gave a million dollars to a private developer, would this be cost prohibitive or would it would that be advantageous to that private developer to then move forward on this on this to develop this property?

Just as an example, uh, if the if the full million dollars was attributed to the new streets that needed to be constructed in the drainage.

Uh, it would be approximately $30,000 per lot.

Uh the market rate just for the streets would be $30,000 for per lot.

That's right.

Okay.

So the market rate price of a lot where you know where we have historically developed on the north side and the central part of Fort Smith, that's just for the streets.

That doesn't include the utility infrastructure, that does not include what was spent to demolish the reservoir.

And so to answer your question, no, I don't believe that it would be financially advantageous for a private developer given all of the collective site preparation costs that were necessary with the site.

So it was $780,000 to demolish the thing.

So that's somewhere north of $30,000 a lot.

Like if you added the $700, if you added the $700, nearly $800,000 to demolish the reservoir when you when you mentioned $30,000, that was just for streets.

So that was just the million dollars of street funds.

Okay, so add another uh $780,000.

You're looking at uh, you're looking at what per lot.

I don't have a calculator in front of me, so don't get me lying.

50,000 bucks a uh a lot of that might have a quick yeah, okay, okay, okay.

Um, okay.

When a private developer develops property, do they pay for streets?

Do they pay for sewer, they pay for water?

Is the city give any?

I guess I could look at talk.

Does the city give any anything to a private developer?

No, I'm not aware of any, but maybe you no.

And residential developments we have on economic some economic development projects we have used the street bridges and drainage fund to extend build street for uh economic development incentive.

Okay.

What about for habitat for humanity?

Um I'm sorry.

I'm good for now.

I might come back.

And the director, uh Director Kemp.

Yeah, I think Drick.

So to your point, Director Martin, I can appreciate the comparison and thinking through the cost.

You know, I think a point of clarity though would be I don't know if a private developer is going to help 34 families.

Well, it won't be 34 because it's a percentage, so being fair to the process, uh some homes can be sold to anyone, and some of those homes will be at a threshold of qualifying residents.

So can you speak to that first?

Yes.

So 24 of the homes will be sold to families that are at or below the 80% area median income mark, which for a household of four in Fort Smith is $61,450 a year.

What uh what we are willing to commit to uh is the other 10 lots that we would make those available to people that are 80% up to 120 percent uh of the area meeting income.

So we would still have a an income guideline and income requirement attached with them to ensure that you know there is a level of affordability that's still attached with these.

Our goal of our homeownership program since we started it back in 1999 has been to help families that are, you know, they make too much money to receive federal rental assistance.

The guidelines for that is are 50% of the area median income.

So you know a family of four that makes more than 34,600, they cannot qualify for rental assistance.

But more than likely they cannot qualify to purchase a home on their own without being able to uh receive some help with that some subsidy assistance down payment assistance whatever it may be.

And so that's where we try to serve the people that have incomes between that 50% area median income and then historically we've been able to serve people all the way up to that 120% mark with some programs and then our main program is the 50% to 80%.

Yeah so I think you're taking an obsolete facility site making long unused property to a productive use helping people get into affordable housing without hurting the fair market price value I don't see how a private developer wants to be involved in that especially at Fortunate housing authorities standing that up as their mission.

And furthermore I mean you guys have taken your meaningful steps to fulfill your part of the agreement you know for me I would like to see us put this at like a regular meeting at the back of August giving you time to answer board questions put together the the trail where there's no mysteries to this and bring the full transparency to you know all the things that are concerned of it certainly and making sure that it's clear that you know that's a it's a Fort Smith Housing Authority project I mean to me that's where I'd like to see the process.

Any other comments or questions directors?

So we only do this for the housing authority we don't do it for Habitat for Humanity or other organizations like that providing this sort of assistance.

I would say we've not been approached for that and for that and and typically the Habitat for humanity as I'm familiar with it they don't necessarily do this type of development where they're doing multiple lots at the same time for a neighborhood type of development one or two at a time kind of thing but I mean I'd say you know with the the history of this particular project and this particular site is unique as it as it's come about but not to say that you know not I would say no we haven't done that for habitat for humanity but we've also not been approached with a project a project like this where they've taken on the development of a derelict site frankly I mean I know it's taken a number of years for us to get there but uh see my that but we haven't we haven't done that for any other any other project we haven't done it for the housing authority before either so my understanding is that this was not budgeted for in the 26 budget is that correct yeah it was inadvertently omitted from the CIP in 2026 when after students not grass had retired so what is that due to the budget to take a million dollars out well if we are the downstream effects from that it wouldn't have that big of an effect because with our staffing and the uh streets drainage side we're not able to fully build our program from the 2026 CIP at this time anyway we're doing our best to get the projects out but we have over 40 million dollars I believe in the street tax bank account so to speak that we have to use on streets and drainage so it would come out of that but it would come out of a future project somewhere.

Because with the reallocation you know the the funds for for that are are lower and um and then to take a million dollars out, you know, that that does concern me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christina.

Uh anybody else, uh Director Good?

Thank you, Director Silver.

Um, Director sabis you'd ask a question about any other agencies um that receive money uh like this for these particular projects.

I know years ago there was another organization that received home funds from the from the CDBG, and it I was trying to get with Maggie.

Sorry, Miss Rice, Ms.

Rice, uh, to get the name of the organization, it was Linda Han, but they were a church-run organization that did similar work to receive the funding for similar projects, but just on a much smaller scale.

But since then they they've been defunct and have gone under.

But there are have been other organizations that qualify for this type of funding, and we they have received funding such as this.

And I would say as far as the CDBG funding, I mean that that's what the intention is.

That's those are federal dollars.

Uh you know, this is coming out of our budget, so that uh, you know, that gives me a little a little pause.

But I, you know, I'm I'm fully supportive of using using the CDBG funds uh for those intended purposes, which are typically intended to keep people in their homes.

I can agree with that, and and I also want to remind the board that this at the time was a safety issue as well as a blight issue.

So this was a service being being provided, and again, you know, unlike a private uh real estate company that that might want to have property like this, are they willing to invest in the dilapidated property, invest in uh the rehabilitation, the field, all the other work that's gonna go into it to make it profitable?

And again, I'm thinking out of the presentations that we've had from realtors um and the CDBG, particularly with home funds.

You know, the desire of the state for these funds are to um have properties for these people that fit into that uh income-based category, and this answers that question for city and state.

Uh I've got a few questions myself at the board.

Is okay, Mitch?

When did you take over the housing authority and who was before you?

I'm trying to remember.

Ken Pyle was the director immediately, prior to and I've been the uh the director of the CEO since 2014, I believe.

Okay, 17 years.

Um so I already talked about the South West, trying to get a breakdown there.

I'd like to have that.

Uh can you also get a breakdown of what uh Director Savis spoke about uh how big a house is gonna be, what's there gonna be two bedrooms, what's there gonna be three bedrooms?

Uh can you get that breakdown to us?

Certainly.

Uh my biggest question is um can more than one person buy a house, or is it all is it only one person could buy one house?

No, it would be restricted to one homeowner, you know, per lot.

Is there anything that restricts a homeowner from lease uh renting it back out?

So if they buy it for a subsidy and they turn around and want to lease it for a higher amount, can they do that?

There will be uh within the deed restrictions a restriction against sub-leasing.

I get that, but how are you gonna force something if it's somebody's personal property?

The best that we can do is that with uh you know with that deed restriction, we can you know require that they give us uh documentation each year that it is their primary residence.

Okay, is there any way we can and maybe it's something you have to talk to our attorney and your attorney?

Can we put some sort of claw back in there to where the city could claw back their dollars uh over a period of time so we could get our investment back if that was so choosing of the board?

So put a like a deed restriction kind of similar to what we would do for a subsidy?

Yes, sir.

I think we could definitely look into that, yes.

I I uh maybe that's something the board might be more applicable to.

I'd be happy to look into that.

Something especially if you find out what the South S and South 16 cost is, it might be something about easier to because I feeling if you're gonna sell them, somebody's gonna get a uh 10 years or 15 years later, they'll sell them and there'll be a price will be slightly higher.

How do we call our the our money back into it?

So uh Director Kemp.

Thank you, Director.

So just to the spirit of what I'm hearing in that conversation as well, is there any conversation of the city just readjusting?

And I know that we asked them to take on additional scope of street work because it's next to the property, but is there a way just to adjust the scope of work and only take on the the sheer necessity for the neighborhood?

If I understand this correct, you guys did that out as as showing good faith to the process.

And I think I think that's what um both Director Martin and Director Settle uh were getting at in asking me to get the breakout of what South S and the new streets and drainage for the development.

And I'm taking it a step further, which is considered just completely pulling it out and then not having South S at this time.

Well, I want to see what that like it was on the CIP and there's some drainage work on the CIP to alleviate an issue.

I'd like to see if if now you're gonna have development there, and you could potentially exacerbate the any kind of drainage issue.

So I'd like to I'd like to see what that looks like before.

I get your point, but I'd like to see what that looks like before um making that in and or agreeing to that, but also I mean I like what director said, Director says, I think what what you're saying is if we if we had a million dollars, if we gave a million dollars and the street and drainage work was half a million, we would try to recoup the other half million from Fort Smith Housing.

That's what I was thinking is whatever the minus the South Sale 16th upgrades would be.

What's the cost of that street divided by 34 houses?

How do you put a call back in there?

So that way the city could get their investment back.

But just ask the question, is it legal?

Can we do that?

Um I think it is because I think some cities are doing that.

Um but I'd ask them to go back and answer those questions, and so that's what's looking at.

Happy to do that.

Okay, any other comments or questions for the board?

So it sounds like the housing authorities got some work to do, and then they'll bring it back to us in the uh the future yeah, nothing's on the agenda.

Do we do we need to kick that to a study session or can we do we put that on a regular meeting?

Regular meeting, and I would make a suggestion.

You mentioned the end of August, looking at the clock calendar, August 18th.

Yeah.

Does that give you enough time, Mr.

Minut?

Yes, it would.

And it also gives the board time if you have any other questions personally or from citizens that we want to make it.

Is that a motion and second?

I'll make that motion.

I'll make a second.

Okay.

But so are we going to get this information to us the Thursday before the meeting?

Or is there any way we can get this sooner?

Yes.

I'd like to so what what you said is we can get it earlier.

Yes, we can commit to compiling the information and getting it to the board as soon as possible in advance of that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

So the board item four is the preliminary agenda for the July 7th meeting.

We'll not meeting next week.

Any comments on that?

Uh that's what I was gonna ask too.

So go ahead and talk about that.

Uh so just as reminders, we have the board strategic workshop this Friday, June the 26th at 8 30 a.m.

The Regions Bank Building, 7th floor 524 Garrison.

Uh secondly, we have uh no study session or meeting scheduled for next week, June 30th.

This is as the fifth Tuesday of the week in the week of the the fourth of July holiday.

Our next meeting is the regular meeting scheduled for July the 7th.

Is everybody planning on being there Friday?

I don't know how to be late.

I can't be there at 8 30.

I'd drop my daughter off at summer camp at nine.

I could be there within a few minutes of that, but there's no early drop off.

I'm trying to find out, make sure that we got enough requorum.

So I'll come.

And that was my question, I guess.

Was you know, I'm I'm happy to do Friday and I can be there, but to the spirit of what we were trying to do in general to this date was to get us all together.

I mean, is there any wisdom of saying is there a date in August that would get every board member?

Did you make it work?

Just in response to that, we mean we had uh the this workshop in August last year, and it was mentioned with that one that we should have it earlier.

Uh, what part of August did we do last year?

I couldn't remember.

I believe it was the 22nd, if I remember right.

I thought we only did these every other year, because my second year on the board we didn't do one.

That it well, I mean, perhaps, but the discussion was next year.

Let's do it earlier in the year.

So I mean, have we done anything with the one last year?

I mean, the we did we did adopt the mission statement and value statements.

The project priorities we didn't necessarily adopt, but we have we did work through those concepts as we worked through the budget for this year.

So wishes of the board, that's what I'm asking.

Do we want to meet Friday or do we want to I mean I personally would like to see that there's a date that we were all together?

Uh and that's achievable.

Uh in August that we could be accommodating to the uh to members of the board I just you know I don't know if we could even send three available options to you know acting city administrator and then surely one of those would would pin down all directors uh that'd be something I would think would be advantageous for us.

My understanding was this was a date that worked for everyone um I was I was not I suppose clear on times but I'm available after nine so Jared's not available now I agree with Christina because I was you know this was the date that we agreed on I actually requested off work I mean I could change it if necessary but you know I've already made it at nine since it gives Christina some time or nine fifteen so she's she can make it be the full participant yeah I'm good with that as well I'm already I'm already planning I have directors is that good for you let's start at 9 15 on Friday then George can you make it not by nine fifteen but I'll be there okay all right that's not the ribbon cutting right up there ribbon cutting where we cut ribbons on it okay can we get four members to agree to the nine fifteen all right four members to the nine fifteen director good and myself Martin and myself thank you all right so we'll start 915 on Friday okay with that no other business for the board a motion to adjourn.

Some of second all favor side aye