Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Smith board rejects $2.2 million truck wash bay, citing budget and ROI concerns
Summary
After staff said about $3 million had been accumulated in a sinking fund for a truck wash bay plus equipment, the board voted down the resolution 0–7 amid questions about return on investment, potential job impacts and competing capital needs.
The Fort Smith Board of Directors on Nov. 4 rejected a Solid Waste Services proposal to build a dedicated wash bay for landfill and sanitation trucks, citing budget concerns and unclear return on investment.
Duane McDonald, Director of Solid Waste Services, told the board the city had set aside roughly $3 million in a sinking fund for equipment replacement and projects, and that the wash bay building cost was about $1.6 million with roughly $500,000 more estimated for equipment — a combined total near $2.2 million. McDonald said some equipment purchases could be made through cooperative purchasing to get better pricing.
Public commenter Richard Medford said he was not opposed to the project but urged staging the work because an immediate $1.6 million building expense would worsen the city’s fiscal position. "I just would like to see it staged out because the deficit we're in money wise ... it's a deficit for us to go into," Medford said.
Directors pressed staff for a quantifiable return on investment. Director Christina Kasab asked whether the work could be done by hand and whether automation would eliminate positions; McDonald replied it was not anticipated to eliminate jobs but would reduce the time truck drivers spend washing vehicles and make the work possible in winter.
Other directors warned that although a sinking fund exists, money in that account has designated purposes — including upcoming landfill cell closure and construction — and cautioned against "hollowing out" reserves to avoid rate adjustments later. Director Rigo and others urged transparency about what funds are allocated for and long‑term budgeting implications.
When the clerk called the roll, the motion to adopt the resolution was defeated 0 in favor and 7 opposed.
The board’s discussion also flagged a possible future gate-rate increase for landfill tonnage as one option staff may bring forward to shore up operating revenues; staff said a gate-rate ordinance may be proposed at a future meeting.
