Fort Smith directors hear plan for 8‑court indoor sports center, authorize pursuit of MOU

The Fort Smith Board of Directors on Feb. 25 heard a presentation on a proposed indoor sports tourism strategy and an accompanying plan for an 8‑court indoor sports facility and agreed to allow staff to pursue a nonbinding memorandum of understanding (MOU) with private partners to further develop the proposal.

The presentation was led by Ashley Backert, executive director of the Fort Smith Convention & Visitors Bureau, and consultants from Huddle Up Group and Synergy Sports. Backert said the proposal grew from a 2022 facility study and work assigned by the AMP (the city’s A&P/occupancy tax commission) to find a pathway forward. “Every time that person and their group... travel to participate in an event, they are giving that community their money,” Backert said, urging the board to consider capturing that visitor spending in Fort Smith.

Huddle Up Group founder John Schmieder outlined the sports‑tourism index his firm built to benchmark Fort Smith against peer destinations and said the community’s largest gap is year‑round indoor hardwood courts. “Facilities are king,” Schmieder said, summarizing feedback from national event owners that place facilities, destination access, operator capacity and event history as the primary selection criteria. Synergy Sports owner Jason Boudreaux presented possible facility footprints, operations plans and a preliminary financial model that projects the facility could generate roughly $1,200,000 in net operating income annually over a 10‑year horizon in the firm’s scenario.

Consultants described a typical public‑private partnership (P3) approach in which private capital constructs the facility and leases it back to the city under an annual appropriation lease with long renewal terms. Boudreaux said private funding stacks would typically combine low‑cost debt, tax‑exempt bonds and equity, and that the private partners and operator receive fees while the city retains ownership and control of public uses. The consultants said construction cost examples in the presentation were on the order of $30–$35 million as a working estimate; Synergy said it would return with exact numbers if the city directed the next steps.

Consultants and Backert said the initial operating subsidy typically comes from A&P (occupancy) tax revenue and naming rights or sponsorship reserve accounts assembled during development; Backert explained that the CVB’s work is paid from visitor taxes rather than city general funds. The presentation noted an example A&P redirect in the materials (an initial 75% redirect of A&P receipts to support the early subsidy in model scenarios) and repeated that no city appropriation or binding commitment was being requested at the Feb. 25 study session.

Directors asked questions about governance, financing and site selection. Director Rigo requested clarity on the AMP commission’s role; Backert replied that AMP revenues “strictly come from the visitors,” describing the 3% occupancy tax as the funding source for the CVB’s marketing and event‑attraction efforts. Director Goode and others pressed consultants on the durability of the financial model; Schmieder and Boudreaux said their operating projections for existing projects have historically been within about 10% of actual results and that the firms have long‑term operational stakes in delivered projects.

Several directors raised location and scale questions. Director Neil Martin asked for more detail on construction funding and the identity of private partners; Boudreaux said the private financing would be structured from a mix of partners and instruments rather than a single private‑equity firm. Director Settle, a youth‑sports parent, urged consideration of how the site would connect to other sports assets and suggested tying indoor courts to park amenities; several directors said they wanted alternatives to the single site shown in the concept renderings and asked the team to provide pros and cons of multiple locations.

Backert closed the presentation by asking for the board’s permission to bring a resolution to a regular meeting authorizing the city administrator to enter a nonbinding MOU with Synergy Sports, the AMP and CAB Holdings to continue feasibility work, site talks, and cost refinement. Director Rigo moved to add that resolution to the board’s regular meeting agenda for a future voting meeting in March; the motion was seconded. No funding allocation was requested or approved at the study session. The motion was recorded as a request to place the MOU authorization resolution on a future agenda so staff and the consultants can pursue more detailed due diligence and return with a vetted business plan.

The next steps described by the team included (1) completing detailed construction and funding estimates, (2) evaluating several candidate sites, (3) assembling sponsorship and naming‑rights commitments and (4) beginning early outreach to event rights holders so tournament organizers can plan rotations if the facility moves forward. The consultants said a best‑case development timeline would place construction later in 2026 with potential operation as early as 2027, contingent on board direction and successful site and financing work.

What’s next: the board’s regular meeting agenda will include a resolution to authorize the city administrator to negotiate a nonbinding MOU with Synergy Sports, the AMP and CAB Holdings to advance the project. If the board approves that MOU in a future vote, the consultants said they would return with firm costs, a recommended site analysis and a full business plan for the board’s consideration.