Fort Smith Board approves $4.2 million for waterpark slides; tables vote on lease plan
The Fort Smith Board of Directors on Tuesday (Sept. 3) voted four to three to spend $4.2 million to purchase a five-slide complex for the Parrot Island Waterpark that will be installed when the city can afford installation.
The board also voted to table discussion of any lease agreement with Sebastian County regarding the waterpark until such time a better lease can be negotiated.
The idea of the county leasing their share of the waterpark to the city came about because of the waterslides – a connected slide complex that includes two tube slides, two mat racers and one body slide. The Sebastian County Quorum Court voted against the expenditure at its regular board meeting July 16 and again at a special meeting July 25.
There was much discussion Tuesday about the practicality of the slides when the city needs to spend so much money on a water transmission line from the Lake Fort Smith Water Treatment Facility and consent decree work.
“I believed that we were all under the impression that if the county did not approve their portion, this would die,” Director Christina Catsivis said of funding the slides.
Other directors believed the addition would be a good investment in the city and that investments have to continue to be made in the city.
“We can always keep things as they are, but there are times, we have to fight to do things to make things better,” said Director André Good. “We invest in ourselves and our city’s future. We can maneuver both things – the consent decree and transmission line and improve our city.”
The Board did draw the line at being completely responsible for Parrot Island. The Sebastian County Quorum Court on Aug. 21 approved an ordinance that gives the county judge authority to complete a Parrot Island Waterpark lease agreement with the City of Fort Smith.
The waterpark in the Ben Geren Regional Park opened in 2015. Sebastian County and the city have had a joint venture agreement with the waterpark and have since 2015 shared the capital costs for the facility.
The lease agreement presented to the board made the city solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the park. The city would be responsible for all costs associated with operations, maintenance and improvements of the park and will be entitled to take “any and all actions it deems prudent or necessary, without notice to or approval of the County, relative to the operations, maintenance and improvements” of the park, the lease states.
The lease agreement also made the city responsible for destruction of the park if and when it ceased to exist and did not guarantee there would be additional parking available if it was needed for the park’s growth.
“I don’t think we can enter into the lease with the terms they have there. As it is, they are still responsible for half of the maintenance,” Director Lavon Morton said. “This is just not a very good lease.”
Directors agreed to table discussion on a possible lease until City Administrator Carl Geffken could meet with Sebastian County officials and work out a different agreement.
There was much discussion on whether the county will have to be responsible for maintenance of amenities they did not approve if everything stays as it is under the original park partnership. Colby Roe, who acts as an attorney for the city, said the city would argue that the current lease agreement requires the county to split the cost of maintenance. He said the county would argue that they did not approve of the expansion, so they are not responsible for maintaining it.