Gosack ‘surprised’ at county vote on water park

On Tuesday night, by vote of 7-6, the Sebastian County Quorum Court decided against moving forward on the Ben Geren Aquatics Facility. City Administrator Ray Gosack told The City Wire on Wednesday (Jan. 25) that a rejection by the county does not mean the project is doomed.

Confirming that ballots were already printed and that it would go to the voters in March regardless of what the quorum court decides, Gosack said the best thing voters can do is to vote for approval.

"If the people of Fort Smith want this to happen, then they should vote for it in March. The city and county could come to an agreement five months later, and we'd be in a position to move forward," Gosack said.

Gosack said he had not communicated with Sebastian County Judge David Hudson as of Wednesday afternoon, but that, "We're all serving the same citizens, and we both agree we need to do what is right for them."

Still, Gosack said, the city's ability to invest in Ben Geren Park will not exist if an agreement between county and city cannot be reached. He added it would be "easier to get voter support if we can reach an agreement prior to the polls."

‘SOMEWHAT SURPRISED’
Gosack admitted to being "somewhat surprised," by the quorum court's move to nix the suspension of rules for second and third reading in support of the Ben Geren Aquatics Facility.

"In the latter months of 2011, we had three joint meetings, and in those meetings in November and December, these issues could have been raised, but weren't. They could have been raised afterward but weren't,” he said.

One of the issues quorum court members had voiced concern about was that the county would annex land to the city in order to make the aquatics facility and accompanying two softball fields a reality. Gosack wanted to clarify the difference between annexation and ownership.

"There is no connection between annexation and ownership. Because the land is annexed to us, that doesn't mean we have ownership. Now the city needs ownership interest if spending city funds, and we're looking at building two new softball fields and equally sharing profits or losses in the aquatics facility. The city will pay. While the county will operate the fields, we will reimburse them any costs associated with that as well. It's all spelled out in the agreement," Gosack said.

OWNERSHIP INTEREST
Gosack continued: "For any public entity to invest, it has to have an ownership interest. It would be the same for the county if it was in our position."

Gosack was also "somewhat surprised" by the vote because, he said, the county originally approached the city with the initiative, and the city board of directors agreed.

"At no time during the joint meetings was there discussion about payment for the land. In fact, the land was originally given to the county by the federal government to be used as a public park, so the county never actually bought the land either," Gosack said.

Gosack also pointed out what he felt was an inaccuracy in a comment from court member Shawn Looper, who on Tuesday night said, “I would point out one thing. The city charged us $650,000 for the land for this courthouse. I like to have partners, but I like to have equal partners."

Referring to the 2005 transaction, Gosack said, "There had been an error on the part of the county wherein the city had never been billed for its share of maintenance for the building dating back five years when we used to occupy a portion of it. Then, the county billed us all at once when they noticed the error."

The land appraisal was "around $600,000," Gosack added, but no money ever changed hands because the quorum court forgave the maintenance costs, which "were around the same amount."

STILL OPTIMISTIC
In spite of Tuesday's setback, however, Gosack remained optimistic about future plans for the aquatics facility.

"The city approved it last week, and I believe we can address the land ownership issue. If we abandon aquatics, and the likelihood of that is minuscule, we would have no reason for ownership of that land. We cannot address the county's revenue concerns, but I'm confident we can address this issue," Gosack said.

At the end of Tuesday's meeting, Judge Hudson hoped to have a special meeting in "the first part of next week," but said it's now looking "more like the first week of February due to court member availabilities." 

Judge Hudson, in a Wednesday afternoon phone interview, said he "wanted to honor the 13 members of the quorum court by making sure this meeting was in accordance with their availabilities."

When asked if there were any individual issues that could stand in the way of approval and how he planned to address them, Hudson said, "We haven't had all 13 support the agreement from the beginning. Whether we end up with nine or seven, I don't know. But it's up to the quorum court members to vote on their convictions. I feel like there are a lot of advantages for a joint venture in the long term to share in this facility. Typically, these services do not break even, and to minimize the operating losses through a joint venture, I feel, is good stewardship of county resources."

Hudson continued: "Tax payers pay taxes to support both the city and the county, and I feel those funds can be spent more effectively and efficiently if we have as many inter-local agreements as possible. We both serve the same citizens. It's just good business. So the process before me, before the special meeting, is to start speaking with the city and with quorum court members about why this is good for everyone."

Concerning the issue raised by Looper about the county attorney not having a hand in drafting the agreement, Hudson wanted to clarify. "My office and Ray's (Gosack) office had multiple meetings and modified that document throughout the process. The agreement points were developed by us working together. City Attorney Rick Wade's role was simply to make sure we were working under law to meet Arkansas Code for inter-local agreements."

Gosack said Hudson's description of the process used in drafting the agreement was an accurate one and that "any thought Rick (Wade) was developing specific points of the agreement is false."