Fort Smith Board to consider sanitation charges, capital project plan – Talk Business & Politics

Fort Smith Board of Directors to Review Proposals Aligning with Sustainable Development Goals

Ordinance for Sustainable Infrastructure and Governance (SDGs 9, 11, 16)

The Fort Smith Board of Directors is scheduled to review a proposed ordinance aimed at strengthening institutional frameworks for major capital projects. This initiative directly supports the objectives of several Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by promoting transparent, accountable, and sustainable infrastructure development.

The ordinance, proposed by Director Christina Catsavis, establishes a formal review process for new capital projects with an estimated cost of $500,000 or more. The proposal is a strategic response to past fiscal challenges, such as the significant cost overruns associated with the Parrot Island Waterpark project, and seeks to embed principles of responsible financial management and participatory decision-making (SDG 16.6, 16.7) into the city’s governance.

Key Provisions for Enhanced Accountability and Sustainable Planning

1. Study Session Requirement: To ensure inclusive and participatory planning (SDG 11), any major capital project must first be presented at a public study session before appearing on a voting agenda.
2. Mandatory Waiting Period: A minimum seven-day period between the study session and a formal vote is required to allow for public and board deliberation.
3. Required Presentation Materials: In line with SDG 16’s emphasis on transparency, staff presentations must include comprehensive details on project scope, cost estimates, funding sources, operational impacts, and alternatives considered.
4. Limited Emergency Exception: An exception is permitted only for certified emergencies threatening public health or safety, requiring a two-thirds board approval.
5. Accountability and Oversight: An annual compliance review by the internal auditor will be conducted to ensure the institution remains effective and accountable.

Rate Adjustments for Sustainable Waste Management (SDGs 6, 11, 12)

A proposal to adjust rates for specific sanitation services will be considered to ensure the long-term financial viability of the city’s solid waste management system. This measure is critical for advancing SDG 11.6, which aims to reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities through effective waste management, and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), by funding the infrastructure for environmentally sound waste disposal.

The proposed rate changes, which do not affect residential users, are projected to generate approximately $3.75 million in new annual revenue. According to Duane McDonald, Director of Solid Waste Services, this revenue is necessary to cover escalating operational costs, fund future capital needs, and meet landfill construction and closure requirements. Proper landfill management is essential for protecting local water resources, contributing to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

Proposed Rate Structure for Enhanced Service Sustainability

• Commercial Disposal: The rate would increase from $36 to $50 per ton.
• Specialized Waste: Asbestos disposal rates would rise from $100 to $120 per cubic yard, with a new rate of $60 per ton for waste requiring special handling.
• Vehicle-Based Disposal: The rate for waste from a pick-up truck would increase from $20 to $25 per vehicle.
• Service Fees: A new $15 charge would be implemented for return trips to collect residential trash not set out on schedule, encouraging responsible household waste practices (SDG 12). Industrial roll-off container haul charges would rise from $160 to $200.

Furthermore, the proposal includes an annual rate indexation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), capped at 5%, to ensure that the solid waste service remains a resilient and financially sustainable municipal operation for the future.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article highlights issues related to municipal governance, public finance, and sanitation services, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The proposed ordinance to review large capital projects directly relates to building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at the local level. The entire motivation for the ordinance, stemming from a project that tripled in cost from “$2.1 million” to over “$6.3 million,” underscores the need for stronger governance and oversight.
   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article’s focus on solid waste management and the financial sustainability of sanitation services is central to creating sustainable cities. The proposed rate increases for landfill use and trash collection are mechanisms to ensure the city can manage its waste effectively, a key component of urban infrastructure.
   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: This goal is connected through the theme of solid waste management. The proposed rate changes for “commercial trash disposal,” “industrial roll-off container haul charge,” and other services are part of the broader system of managing waste generated by consumption and production activities within the city.
   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The specific mention of increasing the disposal rate for hazardous materials like asbestos directly links to public health. Proper management and disposal of such waste are crucial for preventing pollution and protecting citizens from related illnesses.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s discussion of governance and waste management, the following specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The proposed ordinance is a direct attempt to achieve this target. Its provisions, such as the “Study session requirement,” a “Mandatory waiting period,” and “Accountability and oversight” through an internal auditor, are all designed to make the city’s process for approving large capital projects more transparent and accountable.
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. The proposal to increase sanitation service charges is aimed at funding the city’s solid waste operations, including “landfill construction/closure requirements.” By ensuring the financial viability of these services, the city is working towards the effective management of municipal waste, which is a core component of this target.
   • Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse. The article mentions a fee to “return to pick up residential trash or recycling,” which confirms the existence of a recycling program. The financial structuring of waste services, while focused on revenue, is an essential part of a comprehensive strategy that supports waste reduction and recycling efforts.
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. This target is addressed by the specific proposal to increase the “asbestos disposal rate” and create a new rate for “waste requiring special handling.” This demonstrates a system for managing hazardous waste, thereby preventing soil and water contamination and protecting public health.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article contains several explicit and implied indicators that can measure progress towards the identified targets:

   • For Target 16.6: A direct indicator is mentioned in the ordinance proposal under “Accountability and oversight.” The requirement that the “internal auditor will conduct an annual compliance review and report findings” creates a measurable indicator: the annual report on compliance with the capital projects ordinance. This report would serve as a direct measure of institutional accountability.
   • For Target 11.6: A key financial indicator is the amount of revenue generated to support waste management services. The article explicitly states that the proposed rate adjustments “would generate an estimated $3,753,100 in additional revenue for solid waste services.” This figure serves as a quantifiable indicator of the city’s investment in maintaining and improving its waste management infrastructure.
   • For Target 12.5: While the article does not provide waste volume data, the existence of differentiated rates for various waste streams (e.g., commercial trash at “$50 a ton,” asbestos at “$120 a cubic yard”) implies a system for tracking different types of waste. The volume of materials collected for recycling versus landfill disposal could be used as an indicator to measure progress in waste reduction and recycling.
   • For Target 3.9: An implied indicator is the volume of hazardous materials managed safely. The specific rates for “asbestos disposal” and “waste requiring special handling” suggest that the city tracks these materials. The amount of such waste processed according to safety regulations would be a direct indicator of the city’s efforts to mitigate health risks from hazardous pollution.

SDG Analysis Summary Table

Source: talkbusiness.net