Fort Smith board to consider another ordinance related to waterslide spending

Fort Smith Director Christina Catsavis wants the city’s board of directors to approve another ordinance related to what has been a controversial and costly expansion of Parrot Island Waterpark. At least two city directors aren’t sure the ordinance is necessary.

Catsavis, who is running for mayor, has proposed an ordinance “establishing accountability, disclosure, and standards for third party intermediaries in city transactions.” The ordinance notes that “recent transactions have revealed deficiencies” in how the city interacts with third parties “without a clear contractual role.”

The recent transaction and related third party involves American Resort Management (ARM), the Grand Prairie, Texas-based company that has managed Parrot Island since it opened in 2015.

The water park, located at Ben Geren Regional Park, is owned by Sebastian County and the city. Its initial construction cost was shared jointly by the county and the city.

The Fort Smith board initially voted in July 2024 to spend $2.1 million on the slides and installation, with Sebastian County expected to also spend $2.1 million. The Sebastian County Quorum Court voted against buying the slides. The Fort Smith board voted in September 2024 to pick up the other $2.1 million and continue with purchase and installation of the slides.

It was learned in October 2025 that the cost to install the five slides would push beyond the $4.2 million approved for the project. The board then voted Jan. 20 on a $2.689 million plan to finish the project, with Fort Smith-based Royal Ridge Construction awarded the work outside of the competitive bidding process. A lawsuit has been filed seeking to block installation of the slides.

Catsavis said initial cost estimates from ARM about the waterslides proved to be misleading. She said her proposed ordinance would have either provided more financial clarity or could allow the city to seek “legal recourse” against ARM for costs that far exceeded the initial estimates.

She said Tuesday (Feb. 10) during a board study session that her goal is “to eliminate conditions” that resulted in the Parrot Island waterslide cost overrun.

“We should not be doing anything on a handshake agreement,” she said.

Directors Lee Kemp and Kevin Settle pushed back, with Settle asking Catsavis to provide another example of where the ordinance would be used. He said the waterslide expansion is a “one-off issue” not requiring another ordinance. Catsavis disagreed, saying she can’t think of another example, “but I couldn’t have envisioned” the Parrot Island waterslide issue years ago.

Kemp said Catsavis’ proposed ordinance is “running the risk of overcorrecting,” adding that initial estimates are “inherently fluid” because plans change. He said the ordinance could discourage reputable firms from working with the city if they fear any change in costs or plans outside of their control could put them in legal jeopardy.

Catsavis immediately countered Kemp, noting that any reputable firm would not have a problem with contractual transparency.

“Director Kemp, you clearly don’t understand how business works,” Catsavis said.

Director André Good placed the blame more on city administration than ARM, saying the city should have conducted more due diligence. He said the city, then under the direction of City Administrator Carl Geffken, “dropped the ball.”

Catsavis was able to win board approval in November of an ordinance that sets guidelines for how the city proceeds with one-time capital projects over $100,000. Key provisions of the ordinance include at least a seven calendar-day gap between the date of the study session presentation and any formal vote to approve the project; city staff must provide scope, cost estimates, funding sources, operational impacts, and alternatives considered; an exception being only for true emergencies threatening public health or safety, certified by the city administrator; and the internal auditor will conduct an annual compliance review and report findings to the Audit Advisory Committee and the board.

Catsavis’ new proposed ordinance will be on the next board voting agenda.