Quorum Court vote raises doubts with Aquatic park

Sebastian County Quorum Court members failed to reach an agreement on the oft-debated Ben Geren Park Aquatics Facility Tuesday night (Jan. 24) at the monthly meeting. However, the deal could stay afloat pending a special meeting for sometime next week — the date of which has not been set.

By vote of 7-6, quorum court members voted against suspending the rules for a second and third reading, thus complicating the City of Fort Smith’s effort to place the aquatics facility on the ballot for a March 2012 vote. The major contention among those, who disapproved, was that the agreement, authored by City Attorney Rick Wade, favored the city’s interests over the county’s.

The Fort Smith Board of Directors have already agreed to a plan to build two softball complexes totaling approximately $2.8 million, and supporting 50% of an about $8 million aquatics park at Ben Geren. City and county officials estimate operation of the aquatics facility will project a total loss of $125,000 each year, to be divided equally by the two entities. The city’s participation is contingent upon voter approval of the 1% sales tax extension. The election has been set for March 13.

Of particular concern was that should the aquatics facility fail, the land deeded for the project would remain in city ownership. Court member Dickie Robertson wanted to see the land revert back to care of the county should the aquatics facility “not work out,” he said. Others agreed.

Court member Shawn Looper added that he was concerned about entering into the agreement upon Judge David Hudson’s admission that the county attorney had no part in drafting or reviewing the agreement.

“Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we had Dan (Shue) look at it?” Looper asked.

Court member Linda Murry noted her concern was the $4 million contribution covering the county’s cost in the project “was not there.”

Murry continued: “We have $3.3 million set aside thus far. We’ll need the additional revenue to come in to make up the rest. That’s my concern, that we don’t have that $4 million yet. We could do something, but we don’t have to go to the extent of a $4 million facility.”

Murry suggested “maybe a pool with some recreation to it,” but didn’t like the idea of depleting the county’s capital improvements for the facility.

Court member Johnny Hobbs agreed.

“Recreation for the young people is a great idea, but we’re coming to possibly the end of our 1% sales tax. If this were the beginning of a 10-year cycle, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. Being at the end and depleting our money, the timing just doesn’t seem right to me.”

Hobbs continued: “If this (tax extension) doesn’t pass, with the anti-tax mood we’re seeing, we’re in big trouble.”

Court members Bob Schwartz and Leo Faulkner strongly disagreed with the vote.

“About half the voters (on the quorum court), who just voted no, weren’t even at all the joint meetings with the city. But that’s their opinion, and they’ll be up for reelection, and if the people like what they did, they’ll vote for them. If they don’t, they won’t,” Faulkner said.

Schwartz erupted: “I think this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard of. We’re fortunate to do what we do and that we can do it. We just let Fort Smith down.”

Fort Smith Vice-Mayor Kevin Settle was in attendance at the event. Following the vote, he felt like he should reserve comment until the quorum court returned from a five-minute recess. After the announcement of another special meeting with a review by the county attorney, Settle had no comment.

Looper expanded on what he believed was an unfair partnership.

“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. I’ve got problems with the agreement before you ever get to spending $4 million. We’re entering into joint ownership. We’re deeding the city half of all this land and sharing on an equal basis with all the responsibilities.”

Hudson noted that the city could not legally enter into the agreement without annexation of the land, but Murry wondered if there couldn’t be some financial compensation for the land the county will give up.

“I do think in any business arrangement there could be some compensation for the county. We’re in essence paying far more than half with the annexation of the land. Couldn’t the value of the land be adjusted in some way?” Murray asked.

Hudson noted that while a date has not yet been set for the special meeting, it would “probably be Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday,” pending participation from City Attorney Wade and City Administrator Ray Gosack.

LAVACA NOISE
Also Tuesday night, the citizens of Lavaca brought a petition of more than 100 signatures before the county to consider regulating usage of firearms in unincorporated areas of the county and regulating noise, such as a motocross track located in a rural area of the county.

“Two issues we think are being violated: paramount is the noise and second is the property value,” citizen spokesman Paul Howard said, regarding a motocross track located a few miles outside of Lavaca.

Howard continued: “The noise is so loud it can be heard over a mile and a half from the racetrack. Those of us living close-by are unable to enjoy our homes and property. They’re doing this as often as three days per week. People of the community work all week and look forward to enjoying their homes on a weekend. People retire and move there for the peace and quiet. We’ve got several elderly people, who have lived there for 50 or 60 years, who can no longer enjoy their homes. It is incomprehensible to us this is allowed to take away and change so many people’s standard of living.”

Judge Hudson advised that the county will engage the City of Lavaca in finding a solution to the problem, but he said “it is my understanding that ordinances regulating matters of this nature are problematic and may be difficult to enforce.”

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Sebastian County Quorum Court will take place Feb. 21.