Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 1/13/26
At the Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 1-13-26, the Board heard an update from RDG Planning and Design about the masterplanning that is being done for the former Acme Brick property.
RDG said that the guiding principles for the planning for the project have been
Flood water mitigation
Designing with nature
Low maintenance
Uniqueness of place
Accessibility
Economic benefit
RDG has come up with 3 concepts. Concept #1 includes only flood control and features 2 detention basins that will be dry unless there has been rain and will mitigate flood waters in the event of a 100 year storm and includes aggregate pathways needed for maintenance.
Concept #2 includes a dry basin on the east side and a wet basin on the west side that would be a lake even when it is not raining and would also include parks amenities. Potential amenities include an “adventure island” play area on an island in the lake, open air shelters, outdoor performance or classroom areas, a zipline, bike trails, and a pump track. The lake could be stocked with fish and used for kayaks and canoes.
Concept #3 includes the ideas from Concept #2 but also allows for private development on the east side along Old Greenwood, and on the south end on 13-15 acres off of Country Club, and multi-family housing on the west side.
In RDG’s meetings with stakeholders and community leaders, there was a preference for Concept 2, a hesitancy to sell any of the land, and little to no interest in private housing.
At the Community Open House meeting, Concept 2 was preferred and a wet basin was strongly preferred.
In the online survey results as of 1-8-26, 19% preferred Concept 1, 53% preferred Concept 2, and 28% preferred Concept #3. The survey is still open and taking responses.
The next phase of the masterplanning after the full report on this phase is completed and delivered to the Board by the end of January will include 3 additional public engagements, an operational model and pro forma, and overall cost.
Director Martin expressed that flood mitigation is his priority and said that he “wants to see the data behind” the flood information. RDG assured that all 3 of the concepts will meet the 100 year storm flood mitigation standards.
Director Good talked about the flood mitigation being good for reducing flooding on the north side of town. He asked the cost of Concept 1. A representative from Halff Associates answered $5 million-$6 million. Director Good agreed that flood mitigation is top priority. He mentioned that park amenities would help fight the problem of “nothing to do.” He said that the City has to “invest in some of the want-tos as well” as the “have tos.”
Director Kemp asked about the area in which flooding would be reduced by the projects at the site. RDG answered from the park to the Park Avenue and Kinkead area, and that it also would help in some areas all the way to the river, but those would be less noticeable. Director Kemp asked about grants for Concept 2. RDG said that part of the intent of the masterplanning process is to provide info, illustrations, and evidence of community support that would be helpful to the City in seeking grants. He said that similar projects have seen “tremendous success” in finding grants in other places.
Director George Catsavis expressed his concerns about the lack of need for having another park so near Creekmore. Also he said “We can’t keep spending millions and millions of dollars.” Parks Director Deuster said of her department “We’re not advocating for building a park.” but acknowledged that the results of the community engagement during the masterplanning process indicate that that is “what citizens want.” She said “I know we can’t afford this.” but said that the masterplanning can be thought of in terms of planning for the future.
Director Christina Catsavis said that when the initial purchase of the site was being discussed that it was her understanding that the City would purchase the land but that a private foundation would provide the funding for the development. She asked if that foundation funding had been applied for yet. Acting City Administrator Dingman said that the plan was to consolidate all of the planned amenities into a “big ask” of a foundation and that that proposal has not been assembled or submitted yet. He said that the masterplan and costs identified by it could be “folded into that type of ask.” Director Christina Catsavis asked about state funding for the development. Dingman said that there has been “some discussion.” Deuster said that representatives from both the State and the Walton Foundation have toured the site and both are looking for a water feature. She said that a State outdoor recreation grant may be possible to apply for that could be for up to a million dollars.
Director Rego acknowledged that flood mitigation is a “noble purpose” but also mentioned that there is not likely to be any philanthropist interest in donating for flood mitigation only. He suggested also considering something between Concept 1 and Concept 2 like dry basins but also low maintenance amenities like bike trails.
Director Settle mentioned that the flooding mitigation is “long overdue.” He expressed concerns about the safety of a water feature. He asked about using the dry basins for other uses like soccer fields when there is not rainwater in them. RDG said that that is not currently proposed. Director Settle mentioned the bike trails in Northwest Arkansas and talked about that “We are in a race to improve our city.” and having to compete for workers means a need for amenities to attract them.
Director Good agreed about the importance of amenities. He suggested that the City reach out to The Gathering Place in Tulsa and see how their funding worked. He voiced his support for Concept 2 because of its potential for philanthropic support.
The Board conducted their annual review of the Board of Directors Best Practices Document. This list of non-binding guidance suggestions includes things like a code of conduct and ethics and the responsibilities for the Board of Directors.
Director Christina Catsavis proposed edits. She proposed removing language about the Board being mindful of limited staff resources when requesting information. She proposed strengthening language about the appearance of impropriety, suggesting that language be added about Directors disclosing things that may have an appearance of impropriety before participating in discussions.
Director Kemp asked about the forms submitted to the State Ethics Commission annually by all Directors disclosing things that may be a conflict of interest already covering the concerns about impropriety. Director Christina Catsavis said that her suggestion is to go beyond the conflicts of interest dealt with by the Ethics Commission to also include things where there are connections that might only create the “appearance” of impropriety. She voiced concerns about appearances of impropriety contributing to “erosion of public trust.”
There was no motion to put any edits on a future agenda for a vote so no action will be taken and no changes will be made to the Best Practices Document.
The Board discussed carrying over $310,000 in unspent funds from the 2025 budget for replacing the siding and improving the parking area at Miss Laura’s Museum into the 2026 budget. That and other budget carry overs from 2025 to 2026 would come to the Board for approval at a meeting in February.
Director Martin asked about the total carryovers planned to be requested citywide. Dingman said that requests from the departments are due on Friday so he does not have a total yet. He expressed concerns about carryovers working against the goal of balanced budget saying “We have to be very careful.”
Director Christina Catsavis asked if the siding damage was from the hailstorm and if it is covered by insurance. A representative from Miss Laura’s answered that it is not from hail but from years of wear and tear.
Director Kemp suggested potentially using a composite material instead of wood to reduce the future maintenance costs. He said that in talking with a local contractor about the project he was told a price that was “not a scary price” for composite.
Dingman said that the carryover would not impact the balance budget at all.
Miss Laura’s said that the best quote they’ve received so far on the siding and exterior repairs including decorative molding is for $109,000. Director Kemp said that that quote is better than the estimate he had heard.
The Board discussed breaking a sewer repair contract involving 30,000 ft of sewer line and 190 manholes into two smaller projects instead of one large project and rebidding the projects. The previous lowest bid from Timco for $17,745,767.50 was 60% higher than the engineer’s estimate for the project.
Director Martin said of the original bids that were so much higher than the estimates “This shouldn’t even have made it to the Board.”
Director Settle suggested breaking the project into 3 projects instead of only 2.
Director Christina Catsavis asked when the projects would go out for bids, advocating for being mindful of not exceeding local contractors’ capacity. Engineering Director Mittge said that it would take 90-100 days to put out bid packages and they would not be all put out at once.
Director Martin suggested that in the future the bids for consent decree sewer projects be spaced out further to avoid exceeding local capacity winding up with only high bids from out of state companies.
The Board did not intensively discuss breaking a sewer repair contract involving 12,640 ft of sewer line and 130 manholes into two smaller projects instead of one large project and rebidding the project where the previous lowest bid from Morgan for $9,111,352 was 75% higher than the engineer’s estimate for the project because the heart of that issue was already well covered in discussion of the similar situation with Timco.
The Board discussed whether or not to lease the County’s half of Parrot Island waterpark for $1 per year, resulting in the City having sole control over and responsibility and liability for the park. This issue was discussed and tabled at the 8-6-24 meeting, 8-20-24 meeting, 9-3-24 meeting, 11-19-24 meeting, and the 12-16-25 meeting.
They also discussed auditing the water park. Dingman said that especially with potential for new management of the park an audit “is appropriate.” Internal Auditor Strange said that there was “lengthy discussion” about the matter at the Audit Committee meeting. The suggestion from the Audit Committee meeting discussion was to instead of going right to doing a full audit that it would be faster, more flexible, and more cost effective to instead start with Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP) in which the exact questions to be answered and procedures to follow would be developed in-house and then the asking of the questions and compiling of the report would be done by the City’s regular external auditors, Forvis Mazars. The AUP process would not inhibit conducting a full audit or a forensic audit if that is still desired after the AUP.
Director Christina Catsavis said that she originally wanted a full financial audit, but that since the AUP is quicker and wouldn’t stand in the way of having a full audit conducted if necessary she would support it. She said that it would be “premature” to consider taking over the park without an audit first.
Audit Committee Chair Enfield said that the AUP is a “starting point to get us the answers we need and want as quickly as possible.”
Director Martin asked if the AUP could result in a feeling of whether the park is being run appropriately or not. Enfield said that it could.
Director Kemp voiced concerns about unpaid invoices, procedures for real time reports, and delayed payments for invoices. He said that the audit or AUP is probably not about “wild embezzlement” but rather “about a lack of healthy procedures.”
Of leasing the park, Director Kemp suggested that the County pay the City a buyout including at least a 50/50 buyout of the demolition costs at the end of the park’s lifespan and 50/50 buyout of the repairs for the couplings. He suggested that if they cannot agree to paying real dollars for the buyout at this time that they might be able to just make a commitment on paper that they “will be there for us.”
Director Rego asked for clarification when the existing contract with the county expires. Dingman clarified 2032. Director Rego asked what the benefit would be to 100% ownership of the park by the City over shared ownership. Director Settle answered that the City would have the opportunity to sell wine and beer at the park, increasing revenues, if the county were not involved. Director Settle mentioned that the County voted 11-2 to offer to hand the facility over to Fort Smith. Director Rego said that he would need a “very compelling reason” to release the County from its obligation.
Director Good mentioned that expansion was a part of the initial conversations with the County about the waterpark when it was first being discussed and that expansion has always been a part of the plan.
Director Christina Catsavis voiced her concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs. She also mentioned that the park concession sales are not as profitable as they should be. She suggested if alcohol were to be sold that it would need to be limited because when it is sold at the Convention Center customers are typically there for only a couple of hours but that alcohol all day in the sun could be a risk. She mentioned that the need to limit alcohol sales might also make those sales not as profitable as anticipated. She also pointed out that a permit would still be needed to sell alcohol.
Director Martin said that he would need to see more data on the potential revenue from alcohol sales. He voiced his support for demanding a buyout. He suggested a potential buyout price of $1 million to $2 million and suggested that if they could not afford the buyout upfront that the County could pay a half million up front then gradually pay off the remainder. He suggested that the lease be changed to include that the City will be able to expand the park and not be stopped by the county. He said that the proposed lease agreement as it is currently written is “not acceptable.”
Director Settle said that the park was originally estimated to lose $150,000 per year (half of that loss to be covered by the City and half by the County) but that it has made over a million dollars. He also said of the lack of auditing having been done of the facility’s operations “It’s the City’s choice not to do the audit, not Parrot Island.”
Director Good said that he liked the idea of having a “partner” in the park, but noted that the County is no longer in favor of being a partner on the park. He mentioned that kids love the park and “People find value in the park.”
Director Kemp said that the City is in the “favorable position” for negotiation on the lease contract. Director Christina Catsavis said that she doesn’t want to change the terms of the lease and wants to hold the County to their existing contract.
The Board discussed renewal of the contract with American Resort Management to manage Parrot Island water park. Since this issue was tabled at the 12-16-25 meeting and the agreement with ARM expired on 12-31-25, the City of Fort Smith and the County have entered a temporary agreement with ARM to allow them to continue to manage the park through 3-31-26, but issued a Request for Proposals and received 5 responses. Those 5 responses will be reviewed by a panel of City and County officials and staff.
Director Kemp voiced his support for acting quickly on the proposals to have management in place in time for any change to not get in the way of the 2026 operating season.
Director George Catsavis asked if an entity wanted to buy the park if that would be considered. Dingman said that the County and City would need to consider it together as co-owners and that it “would depend on the offer.” He said that interest in buying the park has been expressed in the past but was not entertained. Director George Catsavis mentioned that at one time a company was very interested and former City Administrator Geffken said that he was negotiating with them but that nothing has been heard about that since. Director George Catsavis said that private business “would be more efficient.”
The Board discussed costs for installation of the additional water slides purchased for Parrot Island water park. Recently 2 bids were received for the installation. The lower bid at $2,828,810 that did not include costs related to the pool pump so it would not have delivered a complete project and would be well above the remaining $655,000 of the $4.2 million planned for the purchase and installation of the slides. The other higher bid at $3,134,000 did not exclude the pump.
Local company Royal Ridge Construction has offered a proposal that would cost $1,059,934.12 for the plumbing, fittings, and concrete foundations and an additional $680,000 for pumphouse and electrical work, for a grand total of $1,739,934.12. That proposal would still leave an estimated $600,000 in work that would need to be done by other companies. The grand total for the Royal Ridge work and the work from other companies that would be needed to get the slides installed and operational would be $2,339,935. That price would not include fencing, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. Those items are estimated to cost an additional $350,000. With adding together the $655,000 remaining and using the interest from the account for the sales tax for Parks capital projects, the amount available from those sources for the project would be $924,935. To move forward with the Royal Ridge proposal would require awarding the contract to Royal Ridge no-bid instead of going through the normal bidding process.
Director Rego mentioned that paying for the installation of the slides would drop the general fund reserve balance from 34% to 31%. He expressed his view that any sale of the slides should at least recoup the over $3 million already spent on them and that he is not interested in selling them at a loss. He asked if the City has been seriously approached by anyone interested in purchasing the slides. Dingman said that they have not.
Director Christina Catsavis wondered why with the slides being presented as being such a big discount and great value why nobody is currently interested in buying them. She said that ARM said that they would try to find a buyer for them at an industry conference they attended. Dingman said that ARM was not successful in finding a buyer.
Director Good said that there is no interest in the slides now because they’ve been unloaded and sitting out for 2 years. He also mentioned that delays drive up the price of installation.
Director Kemp mentioned that it would be “prudent” if the slides are to be installed soon to be quick about it to be mindful of coordinating with the specialty contractors including pool contractors whose busy season starts in April/May.
Director Christina Catsavis voiced concerns about the amount of parking for the extra customer capacity created by the expansion.
Director Rego said that taking funding for the installation out of the Parks CIP budget would have a bigger negative impact than taking it out of the general fund.
Director George Catsavis wondered “Do y’all not think we were mislead from the get-go on this?” He also said “We went on a spending spree last year and it’s catching up to us.” and “I can’t support any of this.”
Director Kemp wondered with the total cost to have the new slides installed and operational ending up being around $7 million what their total value would be after they were installed and up and running.
Director Christina Catsavis reminded that the City will be finishing the 2025 budget year in the red.
The Board will vote on whether or not to proceed with the Royal Ridge proposal with the funding needed after the already allocated funds and Parks account interest coming from the general fund at next week’s meeting.
During the Citizens Forum section of the meeting, Tom Waggley spoke and expressed concerns about traffic control safety procedures he saw not being followed while he was an employee of the City of Fort Smith. He also mentioned that when he worked for the City of Dallas, Dallas made construction companies that wish to block the roadway or sidewalk submit traffic control plans and pay rent to the City during the closure. He suggested this as something for Fort Smith to consider.
Daniel Williams spoke and voiced opposition to selling alcohol at the water park. He also voiced concerns about local school shutdowns and also the Arkoma unpaid bills for sewer services. He praised the reduction in water leaks.
Chris Cadelli spoke and suggested that the Citizens Forum be moved to the beginning of the first study session meeting of the month instead of held at the end of the meeting. He also voiced his support for engaging with a national firm to search for applicants for City Administrator.
Krystal Cadelli spoke and mentioned that infrastructure needs greatly exceed the general fund reserve balance available. She suggested that the money for water slides should come from the parks budget. She expressed concerns about the affordability of household water bills.
Glen Forte spoke and voiced dissatisfaction with businesses that store their forklifts on the sidewalks. He also expressed concerns about dog waste in his driveway and on his street, and a former neighbor who engaged in criminal and nuisance activity. He voiced his desire for greater enforcement regarding animals.
Jo Elsken spoke and expressed concerns about the 15% blanket budget cuts from all departments. She expressed opposition to the cuts to Transit, especially to the TAP program that provides free tickets to be distributed by non-profits to their clients. She also mentioned that new government grants for brownfield sites just dropped and suggested that perhaps they might be able to be used for the ACME property.
Charlie Hartsfield spoke and expressed his preference for Concept 1, storm water mitigation only, for the ACME property.
Casey Millspaugh spoke regarding the water slides. He said Geffken “lied” on the slides. He expressed concerns about the costs of the slides and their installation. He suggested selling the slides.
