Disagreement heard on need for citizen committee for 1% street tax program

Discussion of a proposal to create a citizen committee to provide input into the city’s capital improvement plan became somewhat testy at Tuesday’s (June 9) Fort Smith Board of Directors study session, with a city department head pushing back against Board members who want the committee.

Talk of a citizen committee to help prioritize infrastructure spending first arose during the recent runup to the May 12 special election to renew the city’s 1% sales tax for street, bridge and drainage work. That tax generates around $20 million a year, and was renewed by almost 80% of those who voted in the special election.

Since 1985, the money has been spent based upon priorities set in a five-year “Capital Improvement Program” (CIP) developed by city staff and approved by the Board. In a memo from Deputy City Administrator Jeff Dingman to City Administrator Ray Gosack, the purpose of the proposed committee “would be to serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors regarding prioritization of capital improvement projects funded by the 1% sales tax dedicated to streets, bridges and associated drainage.”

Dingman said the seven-member committee would not have input on special economic development projects.

“Site selectors and companies evaluating investment in Fort Smith periodically solicit incentive packages from cities, and quite often public infrastructure improvements funded by the 1% sales tax revenues are including in that mix. This process, while still requiring approval from the Board, would necessarily operate outside the scope of the CIP Advisory Committee,” Dingman wrote in the memo.

Stan Snodgrass, director of engineering for the city, addressed the Board and opposed creation of the committee. He said the CIP already receives much input from the Board and the public, and added that working with a committee is “another layer that we have to go through” and could cause delays in getting the plan to the Board.

“I don’t see that we’re going to gain more public input by having a committee,” Snodgrass said, adding that it will add a “huge amount of time and effort” to city staff to coordinate with a committee.

Snodgrass noted in a memo on the issue that public input is already a big part of the effort to update the plan each year.

“Citizen input including 12 Town Hall meetings, 4 Ward meetings and 2 citizen’s academy meetings annually. We also receive numerous phone calls, emails, office visits, etc. from citizens.”

Director Tracy Pennartz disagreed with Snodgrass, telling him that the “attitude you have expressed” is all the more reason for a citizen committee to help oversee the process. She said the public does not get to have input in the process prior to the CIP being unveiled to the Board.

“It’s never a mistake to receive public input from our citizens,” Pennartz said.

She said the committee may cause more work on the front end, but in the long run will give the public more access and input.

Directors André Good and Mike Lorenz also supported the idea of a citizens committee. Good said “no one is wanting to step on staff’s toes,” but a committee will provide a way for more citizen education about the millions spent each year on infrastructure.

Director Don Hutchings came to Snodgrass’ defense, saying the committee is “more micromanaging” and will add “another layer and time delays” on the process.

“This is what is wrong with government,” Hutchings said of creating a committee to address an issue he said is not a problem.

The Board is set to vote June 16 on an ordinance creating the committee.