County budget concerns may impact aquatics park vote

Uncertainty surrounding the county budget has once again put the future of the Ben Geren Aquatic Center in doubt.

The reason for the characterization is that members of the Sebastian County Quorum Court have raised concerns about the county's finances in coming years. They are not sure the county can afford to not only pay half of the cost of the aquatic center, agreed upon through an interlocal agreement with the city of Fort Smith and coming up for a third and final reading at tomorrow's (March 19) Quorum Court meeting, but also whether the county can afford to lend the city more than $400,000 to provide additional attractions at the proposed center at Ben Geren Park.

Documents provided to The City Wire by County Judge David Hudson's office paints the picture of why some members of the Court have expressed concern.

A document entitled "General Fund 2012 Actual Cashflow and General Fund Estimated 2013-2014 Cashflow,” shows projected cashflow in 2015 beginning to go negative starting in April of that year.

The month of March 2015 details the beginning of the bleak outlook in the months to follow. According to the document, which Hudson said is a "rough draft and working papers," the county is projected to take in revenue of $1.281 million, while expenditures account for $2.78 million. Combined with a beginning balance of $1.307 million and other smaller amounts of revenue and expenses, the county is projected to start the month of April 2015 with a beginning balance of -$250,422.

The losses continue to mount throughout the rest of the year, with the beginning balance in October 2015 listed as $2.424 million in the red. Only in December 2015 does the loss narrow dramatically, dropping to a beginning balance of -$317,679.

When the initial request for the cashflow documents was made on March 13, Hudson said by telephone that the cashflow projections for 2013, 2014 and 2015 were a work in progress.

"It's a rough draft and working papers. If you're quoting numbers, you better qualify as such," he said.

Hudson said the document was never intended to become public, but members of the court requested the document as he and his staff were in the middle of a county budget analysis.

"They wanted copies with it. It was a work in progress," he said.

Included in documents Hudson provided to The City Wire and the Quorum Court is another document, still listed as a "draft," that paints a less dramatic financial picture for the county.

While it does not project a multi-million dollar deficit, the document still shows the county posting deficits from the County General Fund in September 2015 and October 2015. The September deficit is projected to be -$239,772 while the October deficit is -$45,060. The document does not show projected revenues or expenditures or how the figures were calculated.

Justice of the Peace Linda Murry, who has served as the comptroller and treasurer for Sebastian County, said the projected budget deficits have caused her concern about whether the county is in the financial position to fund its portion of the aquatic center.

"I feel like we're in worst financial shape than the city is," she said.

"It's possible that it's not viable for the county. We're still looking at some more numbers."

JP Danny Aldridge said members of the court would need two things prior to tomorrow's meeting of the Court to determine whether to vote for third reading of the aquatics center project or table a vote for 60 days — the cashflow documents and new conceptual drawings of the aquatics center requested at the last regularly scheduled Quorum Court meeting in February.

"If we don't have both of those, even though the judge doesn't want it to happen, I'm going to request that we table it for 60 days so we can get the numbers and the drawings and have time to do it," he said. "It will get us off the building schedule. They'll have to make it up somewhere else. But we need correct information in order to make valid judgements."

With concerns expressed about the county budget, and whether the aquatics center is now affordable, Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack expressed surprise and frustration today (March 18).

"The county indicated (a year and a half ago) that they had $4 million for the project," he said. "I'm surprised to hear that they may not have that available. That's why the city approached the citizens. It's concerning to now find out after we've asked the city to approve it's share that the county may not have its share available."

Should the project fail to pass the Court on the third and final reading, Gosack said the city had options — build its own scaled-down aquatics center with the $4 million in bonds already issued for its share of the project or abandon the project altogether. There is also a third option, according to Gosack.

"The third option would be to consider legal recourse to force the county's performance and that's certainly not a desirable option," he said.

Gosack said the city trusted the county was good for the money when approached to partner on the project.

"We trusted them. They told us they had $4 million," he said. "When the county came to us and said they had $4 million available for the water park, we trusted that they would have it available at the time of construction."

Hudson said he still believes the court will approve the aquatics center projects. He said the documents provided will not stop the county from making good on its agreement with the city.

"To connect the cashflows to the demise of our agreement with the city to enter into this construction program, I don't see that this does that," Hudson said. "We have a third reading of the basic agreement for the aquatics project on the agenda for Tuesday night. That agreement was approved early in 2012. After it was approved, we entered into it between the city and county. The city used that agreement to move forward with the project. I consider that a binding agreement to move forward with the project. I don't know how we cannot continue with our commitment."

Aldridge and Murry would not comment on whether they would vote for or against the project.

"I'm still listening to the facts. That's what I will go on the record with," Murry said.