Fort Smith Board of Directors Study Session - August 11, 2026
Fort Smith Board of Directors Study Session - August 11, 2026
The Fort Smith Board of Directors held a study session on August 11, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting covered a second-quarter budget review, the 2026 prioritized water capital improvement plan (Phase II), water-related operational issues (fill stations, Parrot Island billing, unauthorized use), a potential change from CCF to gallon water metering, and regulations for data centers. The session also included a citizens forum and motions for future agenda items.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Shane McKinney reported a water bill spike after a meter change (46,000 gallons) and criticized the city's lack of proactive communication; also alleged a building inspector retaliated against a contractor due to association with him.
- Miranda Casein expressed three concerns about data centers: strain on water infrastructure, rising electricity bills for residents (noting Fort Smith ranks 6th in U.S. poverty), and noise pollution affecting wildlife.
- Eric Wideman urged a more welcoming atmosphere at meetings, suggesting a greeter and informational printouts with QR codes; also asked about progress on the Coma water bill (outstanding ~$464,000).
- Stephen Cox requested a study session on Flock cameras, citing surveillance concerns and potential future misuse.
- Jason Skirbitz claimed Parrot Island was underbilled for 16 months (not just 3–4 in 2025), warned of hybrid CCF/gallon billing causing errors, and urged caution on Flock cameras and data centers.
- Joe Elskin highlighted financial risks of data centers (special purpose vehicle financing), air pollution from generators (citing 59 generators at Memphis Colossus II producing 2,500 tons of NOx and 4,000 tons of CO annually), and recommended a five-mile setback.
- Crystal Cadelli proposed a senior hardship provision for Project Concern, allowing those 65+ with essential expenses exceeding 60% of income to qualify for assistance.
- Patrick McGuire presented evidence of over 200 invoices paid outside 30-day window (some from 2022), and questioned payments to child support entities (garnishments) and to Parrot Island ($2,082) and Lee Kemp ($247.40).
- Quentin Cunningham alleged a sitting director (later identified as Christina Catsavis) forwarded sensitive municipal information to an unvetted third party; a heated exchange ensued with Director Catsavis defending her actions as sharing public information. The citizen has filed an Arkansas Ethics Commission complaint.
- Glenn Forte complained about a speeding ticket issued by an officer parked in a Dollar General lot with obstructing vegetation.
Discussion Items
- Item 1: Second Quarter Budget Review (April–June 2026) – CFO Andy Richards presented. General fund: revenues up ~4% YoY, expenditures down 18%; fund balance $24.4 million (37.5% contingency, projected year-end 30.7%). Street maintenance: stable at 70% reserve. Water & sewer: 8.5% revenue increase ($2.7M), 24% expenditure increase due to debt service timing; working capital $32.1M (44.3% reserve); estimated debt service coverage ratio 143.7% (actual) vs 99.5% projected (to improve by year-end). Solid waste: 22% revenue increase, 50% reserve. Richards recommended transferring $8.5 million from water & sewer operating to capital improvement fund for water projects, pending board approval. Board discussed police/fire cuts saving ~$700,000. Policy prohibits interdepartmental transfers without board appropriation.
- Item 2: 2026 Prioritized Capital Improvement Plan for Water – Phase II – Engineering Director Todd Mittge presented seven projects totaling $7.1 million in city obligations plus $27.9 million in grants: (1) Luce Water Tank painting/repairs ($2.25M), (2) Country Club Tank ($500k), (3) Pense Tank ($250k), (4) Neighborhood Water System Improvements ($600k city + $3M federal earmark from Rep. Womack), (5) Emergency Neighborhood Water System Improvements ($1M), (6) Transmission Line Phase 5 ($2M city + $12.9M pending OLDCC grant), (7) Transmission Line Phase 2A1 ($500k city + $12M from Sen. Bozeman). Discussion included tank cleaning rotations (10–20 years) and potential advertising on tanks to offset costs. Motion to place on August 18 regular agenda for approval, seconded.
- Item 3: Water Fill Stations, Parrot Island Billing, Unauthorized Water Use – Fill stations: The Lake Fort Smith station operates on the honor system; 72 unique users called, and cameras show 78% pay. Staff recommends coin-operated dispensers ($10,300 total, recoverable in ~1 year). Proposed rate: $5 for 250 gallons. Director Rego cautioned against harming rural residents dependent on the station. Parrot Island: Meter was inoperable from summer 2025 to October 13, 2025, resulting in low bills ($40/month). Corrected; current bill ~$5,050. Hydrant meter recorded 948 ccf for pool fill (not billed). Director Catsavis noted Creekmore Park pool gets free water, questioning consistency. Unauthorized use: Bypasses found and removed at several large-meter sites; staff discovered bypasses turned on twice (April/May and October 2025). Potential theft discussed. Board directed administration to propose formal rate structure for fill stations.
- Item 4: Changing Water Meter from CCF to Gallons – Staff memo recommended against immediate change due to: existing meters cannot be converted, hybrid billing would cause complexity and potential errors, and full meter replacement would take years and require financing. Board took no action; discussion acknowledged staff recommendation to retain CCF.
- Item 5: Data Centers Regulations – Current ordinance (2023) allows data centers by conditional use in I-1 and by right in I-2/I-3. Staff recommended zoning text amendment to require development plan approval (board and planning commission review) and potentially additional regulations (noise, water usage, setbacks). Director Settle proposed a four-times residential water surcharge for data centers inside and outside city. Director G. Catsavis sought board approval for any meter larger than 2 inches on contract systems. Standardized water user agreements (under development) include flow limiters and board approval for large connections. Board directed staff to prepare ordinance amendments.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to place Water CIP Phase II on August 18 regular agenda for approval (passed).
- Motion to have city administration propose a rate structure for bulk water fill stations (consensus).
- Motion to place data center zoning amendments (development plan requirement and other regulations) on a future agenda (implicit direction to staff).
- Motion (by Director Settle) to put a proposition for change of government on the November 3, 2026 ballot, contingent on petition verification (deadline August 25). Seconded.
- Motion (by Director Good) to hold an executive session at the August 18 meeting to review an employment agreement for Jeff Dingman as city administrator, with a resolution to confirm. Seconded.
- Directive to staff to research options for elevated water rates for data centers (both inside and outside city limits).
- No action on changing water metering from CCF to gallons (staff recommendation to retain current system).
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, and welcome to the Fort Middle City Board of Directors study session on this August eleventh of twenty twenty six. As you know, our meetings are being televised live. First is Shane McKinney, and each one have five minutes. The first time the water meter was changed, which just happened to him yesterday. He contacts the water department. Well, it must be usage. We did the calculation. That's 46,000 gallons. Um that's more gallons than minutes in a month. There's no way that he's got a leak like that. Uh it's a big flat property, you would definitely know it. This is Shane, do you know if he got a phone call from the city? He did not before the auto draft occurred. It just came out of his account. Okay. Um again, this is something that we could do proactively. And over and over again, I talk about proactive communication on things that impact citizens or businesses or other folks. Um our city doesn't have that down yet. It's kind of the basis of customer service that you would expect from any business that you're doing business with. And we are doing business with our citizens. Our water department is a business service. We should have a good customer-centric policy. It is not hard to put in a policy that says if your water bill more than doubles, it doesn't auto-draft this month until we've had a conversation. That would be a great policy. Um that could eliminate most of these things from happening. And if you contact them and they say, Yeah, I filled up a swimming pool, that's why it's up, then you're okay. If they say, hey, what's going on? At least we didn't uh bill somebody because he's he's gonna be okay. But what if this was my grandmother? What if this was somebody that couldn't afford that? This could uh mean put somebody in a serious, serious financial bind. Um again, I think that proactive communication is really, really important, and I think our citizens would be very grateful uh when I've designed technology around building systems in the past. Those were the kinds of things we put into place is just metrics that say has this changed? Um and also this is more evidence that our water meters aren't working correctly. Do you do you have an address you could share with us? Uh I could do that offline. Yeah, that's cool. I I know that there are policies and procedures in how they handle that exact scenario. So I want to see if that's if that was actually followed. Okay, well, it was exactly the first month after the meter change, and he already checked his online usage again, and it's showing double the usage still, so it's gonna be another 65 units uh for a one-bedroom place for his next bill. A second thing I wanted to talk about is our building inspectors. Um I have a friend who's working on a property in town. I'm gonna do a video on it probably tomorrow. It's one of the cleanest uh properties I've seen from a rental perspective, one of the cleanest jobs ever. Um, one of his contractors didn't call in an inspection correctly before a rough-in occurred, and now they're trying to throw him under the bus. You have to open up all the walls. It's gonna cost them a fortune to fix this. Um, and also it's gonna keep a house that would be available this week to some family to move into off the market for another month. Um it's very clearly the kind of thing that we can handle with just a simple go in, take a look, but instead they're wanting to push this to the extreme. And why?
openpublica.com