Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 6/17/25

At the Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 6-17-25 with Director Rego absent, the Board voted unanimously to make maximum base charges for ambulance services within Fort Smith mirror the State’s Act 867 that sets the fees at a maximum of 325% of the Medicare ambulance schedule. This will eliminate the need to continue adjusting specific dollar amounts in the future.

The Board voted against both of two options for a new agreement to continue to provide sewer services to Arkoma. Option A would have resulted in a total charge to Arkoma of $3.48 per CCF ($3.06 for the cost of wastewater treatment, the 3.5% rate increase being charged to Fort Smith residents since 6-1-25, and a 10% Return on Investment as allowed by State law). Option A would recover the basic cost of wastewater treatment. Option B would have resulted in a total charge of $5.68 per CCF ($3.06 for the cost of wastewater treatment, the 3.5% rate increase being charged to Fort Smith residents since 6-1-25, and a 10% Return on Investment as allowed by State law, plus an inflow and infiltration (I/I) peaking surcharge of $1.93). During negotiation discussions between Fort Smith and Arkoma no consensus was able to be reached. Arkoma did not agree to either of the proposed options.

Acting City Director Dingman said that Administration recommended Option A over Option B because the I/I is “too difficult to quantify.”

Director George Catsavis asked about the past due balance owed by Arkoma to Fort Smith for sewer services. Dingman said that it was currently over $149,000 and that with the proposed agreements it would be due 8/31/25. Director George Catsavis asked about the developer who had offered to pay that delinquent bill on Arkoma’s behalf. Dingman said that the developer might pay it, but that they want an agreement regarding water and sewer services in place first.

Director Kemp expressed support for Option A and called it “defensible in court.”

Director Good asked about the difficulty calculating I/I. Dingman said that calculating it system wide is easy but that calculating the specific part to assign to Arkoma is difficult. Director Good voiced his support for Option A. He acknowledged “The I/I problem is a problem” but voiced his view that incentivizing Arkoma to improve their system is “not our goal” and that he supports a “rate that is no only fair, but they can pay” but “not for citizens of Fort Smith to subsidize them.”

Director Martin mentioned that “Fort Smith is charged for I/I. Arkoma is not.” under Option A.

Arkoma Mayor Johnson said that Arkoma plans to “aggressively pursue” grants and financing to improve their system. He mentioned that Arkoma only contributes 1.27% of Fort Smith’s sewer volume and said that they are not creating “significant inflow” into the system.

Director Christina Catsavia said that she is “not unsympathetic to the people of Arkoma” , but expressed her desire for Arkoma to have a “new plan in place” to address their water loss problems. Mayor Johnson said that addressing the issue is “absolutely a priority.”

Director Settle asked how much wastewater was sent to Fort Smith by Arkoma in 2024. Utilities Director McAvoy answered 122,848 CCFs. Director Settle suggested that instead of a 5 year agreement, it should be an agreement for a maximum of 2 years to allow Arkoma to come up with a different solution for their wastewater including possibly building their own treatment plant. He expressed concerns about businesses and residents in Fort Smith but nearby to Arkoma paying more than Arkoma. He mentioned that Fort Smith citizens voted for sales taxes for sewer work. He spoke against both options, instead voicing his desire to “go full rate and let the courts decide.”

Director Christina Catsavis mentioned that with the low rate that Arkoma has been being charged having for years not been enough to cover the cost of providing the services that Fort Smith has been subsidizing them for a long time. She asked if there was a way to recoup any of that money. City Attorney Rowe said that the money can not be recouped since there was an agreement and cannot be recouped even for the period after the original agreement was expired and services were still being provided at the old agreement’s rate.

Director Good mentioned comparing his own household’s utility bill to a bill from a household with similar usage in Arkoma and that the Arkoma total bill was higher than his bill. He said “I would not want to be paying what they’re paying.”

The Board voted on Option A and it was defeated with only Director George Catsavis, Director Good, and Director Kemp voting in favor of it. The Board then voted on Option B and it was defeated with only Director Kemp voting in favor of it.

Since the Board did not vote in favor of Option A or Option B, a rate of $8.75 per CCF (matching the rate charged to Fort Smith customers) will go into effect 6-22-25.

The Board voted against giving the Board of Directors responsibility and authority over hiring, firing, and discipline of City department heads. That authority/responsibility is currently the authority/responsibility of the City (except for the Director of Internal Audit that serves directly under the Board of Directors). The City Administrator has held that responsibility since 2013, before which it was the responsibility of the Board.

7 of the 8 cities in Arkansas that have a City Administrator/City Manager form of government (the exception being Barling), all have the City Administrator in authority/responsibility over the hiring, firing, and discipline of department heads (like Fort Smith currently does) .

Chris Cadelli spoke in support of giving the Board the responsibility. He questioned how it might work in practice while expressing concerns about the hiring for the City Administrator and the Director of Internal Audit positions that are both the responsibility of the Board currently not having been accomplished yet with the Director of Internal Audit having been vacant for over a year. However, he spoke in favor of the change citing its potential to eliminate a “toxic environment” and saying “change might be a good thing.”

Krystal Cadelli spoke in support of giving the Board the responsibility. However, she did voice concerns about the problems with filling the Director of Internal Audit vacancy. She encouraged the Board to address the Acting City Administrator’s actions where “protocol was broken” during the hiring process for the Director of Internal Audit that was hired then quickly fired.

Sandy Sander spoke in opposition to giving the Board the responsibility. He suggested that the City hire a City Administrator with full authority. He expressed concerns that the result of giving the power to the Board would be that the City “would be run as a political scramble.” He voiced concerns about each department head having “seven supervisors” and about there being difficulties with consistency, with hiring unqualified people, and with pressure for department heads to align with political agendas.

Director Christina Catsavis mentioned having visited with department heads when she first joined the Board and hearing from them that they were uncomfortable meeting with her because of fear of “repercussions” from the City Administrator and that there is a culture of “fear” of relationships between department heads and members of the Board and an “Us versus Them” mentality with “people feeling like they were being silenced.” She said that giving the Board the authority is “not about micromanagement” but “about checks and balances.” She said the goal is “to empower department heads.”

Director Good said that “some of the stuff, we need to put behind us” like that former City Administrator Geffken is gone. Director Christina Catsavis said that the culture he created still exists. Director Good said that playing politics with Board members would not “strengthen the culture of trust” and that giving the Board the power “will create confusion with staff” and that the Board’s “heavy handed influence” would lead to “poor morale.”

Director Kemp suggested instead that the Board having the power could be an emergency conditional policy where a supermajority of the Board could intervene in the rare instances where it is necessary. He mentioned that during the recent Director of Internal Audit hiring issue that no one on the Board motioned for anyone to be terminated. He said that the Board already has the power to make their wishes known through a Vote of No Confidence. He suggested instituting annual reviews of department heads from their staff and of the City Administrator from the department heads He voiced his desire to see communication and collaboration between the Board and the department heads improved.

Director Good mentioned that the City Administrator has more data to work with and also mentioned the limited time that the Board has to devote to the issue.

Director Martin mentioned having heard feedback from CEOs that said of giving the Board the authority, “Don’t do this.”

Director Settle said that 10 years ago he was on the other side of the issue, in favor of the Board having the authority, but now he thinks that the City Administrator should have the authority. He said that the department heads are doing an excellent job and that the City “should keep it like it is.” He mentioned that the Board does not know the ins and outs of day to day operations like the City Administrator does.

Director Christina Catsavis said that the “Board is not ceremonial.” She said that CEOs like the current system because they can call the City Administrator and bypass the Board.

Director Good spoke in favor of continuing the current system because “continued stability” is needed.

Mayor McGill spoke in favor of keeping the authority with the City Administrator. He said that having the Board involved in operational matters risks “blurring the essential lines between government and management.” He mentioned that corporations and universities have a similar structure. He said that the City Administrator being closest to the daily workings helps make their decisions efficient and objective and that the Board should “hold leadership accountable, not do their job.”

The Board voted and the change was defeated with only Director George Catsavis and Director Christina Catsavis voting in favor of it, so the responsibility for hiring and firing department heads will remain with the City Administrator.

The Board voted unanimously to add an additional $235,067.75 to the existing contract with Forsgren for consent decree sewer work to include repair of additional line segments and manholes that have been discovered to be in need of repair.

The Board voted unanimously to apply for two different federal grants for the police department. One is a Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program grant that would be used to hire 5 full-time officers for a Community Violence Intervention Team. The grant would be for a total of $1,166,992.20 with Fort Smith being responsible for a local contribution of $291,748.05

The other is a Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act grant that would be used for two years of an officer wellness initiative including peer support training, clinical partnerships, chaplain training, gym access, office space for the volunteer psychiatrist, and a wellness app. The grant total would be $181,160 and would not require any local contribution.

Director Martin asked if the officers hired for the Community Violence Intervention Team would be different from the other officers and how they would be assigned. Police Chief Baker said that there would be no difference with the other officers and that they would be assigned more “incident specific”, “data driven”, and “focused on specific problems we’re seeing.”

The Board voted to contract with Denali Water Solutions for $334,248 for the removal and disposal of sludge from the Lee Creek water treatment plant’s Southeast lagoon. The bid from Denali was the only bid received.

Jo Elsken spoke and expressed concerns that the Denali bid was the only bid received and about the 32% increase in cost over the similar project last year as a result of additional costs caused by rain.

Director Settle asked about the issues with Denali in Crawford County where their projects with agricultural waste caused a bad smell in Fort Smith. McAvoy said that the waste removed from the lagoons at the water treatment plants consists “primarily of dirt, some polymer, and a little bit of lime” and does not present the potential for foul odor that the agricultural wastes do.

Director Settle suggested that it might be cheaper long-term to move lagoon cleanouts in-house instead of paying an outside company. McAvoy agreed to investigate the costs of purchasing the necessary land, equipment, and permits to do it in-house.

Of the single bid, McAvoy said that last year there were two bidders, but the one that wasn’t Denali last year was double Denali’s price. He said that the normal bidding process was used but the lagoon projects are too small for most other companies that do that sort of work to be interested in bidding on.

The Board voted in favor of the contract with only Director Christina Catsavis and Director George Catsavis voting against it.

The Board voted unanimously to purchase 2 replacement and 1 additional transit vans for the Transit’s demand response service. The total cost will be $313,221, but 80% of that cost will be reimbursed by the federal government.

During the Executive Session, Brent Hagy was appointed to the Airport Commission. Lavon Morton was appointed to the Audit Advisory Committee. Thomas Bonkofsy was appointed to the Community Development Advisory Committe. Dewey Young, Darrell Clark, and Maria Miller were reappointed and Rhonda Hays was appointed to the Fort Smith Municipal Employees Benevolent Fund Board of Advisors. Chris Chaney was appointed to the Future Fort Smith Committee. Sandi Sanders was appointed to the Library Board of Trustees. Megan Raynor was reappointed to the Property Owners Appeal Board. Amy Whittington and Lee Easley were reappointed and Micheal Johns was appointed to the Sales Tax Review Committee. Melissa Woodall (author of this summary) was reappointed and Melissa Bixby was appointed to the Transit Advisory Commission.