Barling Board nixes annexation idea

Submitted by The City Wire Staff on Wed, 02/13/2013 - 11:53am

story by Ryan Saylor
rsaylor@thecitywife.com

A proposal floated at the Feb. 5 Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting that would annex land into Fort Smith city limits on the east side of Barling will not become anything more than an idea.

According to Jerry Barling, mayor of the city of Barling, a meeting of the city's board of directors resulted in a resounding vote of 'no' on the plan floated by Fort Smith Vice Mayor Kevin Settle.

"The board is not in favor of it at all. We voted to table it and never bring it back up again," Barling said. "It's a dead issue for us."

Settle had originally proposed the possible annexation as a way for Barling residents to see development near the intersection of Arkansas Highway 22 and the future Interstate 49 while a ballot issue that would have allowed alcohol sales in the city is challenged in court.

He said Tuesday that once the legal challenge to the ballot issue were resolved or if Barling officials had asked for the land to be returned, the city of Fort Smith would have been happy to do so.

"It was out of the box thinking and something that would allow Barling a resolution just to get the project going," he said. "If they can get the problem resolved, I have no problem with letting them have their property back."

The proposal would not have only benefited the city of Barling, according to Settle.

"(I was) just trying to get something to create jobs for the River Valley," Settle said. "(I was) just trying to do something to help our neighbors."

But Barling did not see it that way.

"Would you want to give up a potential interstate exchange plus other lands?" he asked. "It's not a good deal for our community."

Advertisement:

Barling added that the proposal, if serious, was not conducted in a transparent fashion for the city of Barling.

"It was a shock to us," he said, adding that no one had mentioned the proposal to any officials in the city of Barling before Settle announced his desire to explore the annexation at the Feb. 5 meeting.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Exporting non-transparency

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/13/2013 - 12:19pm.

Help our neighbors? Who does Kevin Settle think he is fooling? It seems that Mr. Settle thinks everyone besides him is stupid. Lucky for the City of Barling that the Fort Smith BOD has no jurisdiction over Barling. Mr. Settle is an embarrassment for the Fort Smith Region.
  • reply

So here's an idea. Have Fort

Submitted by Shiggy on Wed, 02/13/2013 - 2:08pm.

So here's an idea. Have Fort Smith annex a extremely small portion of the land. Whatever the developers would be happy with for alcohol sales. Keep the majority of the development in Barling. On the part that Fort Smith would annex, let the two cities share tax revenue. Then have a condition be made that if the alcohol legal issue for Barling is resolved the land is reannexed into Barling, no questions asked. Don't know what the legalities would be for both cities, but I do know that the River Valley needs to act with a regional approach to economic development instead of every city trying the lone wolf approach. Oh well, it's Barling's loss. If they want to remain a podunk town there isn't much that can be done for them.
So here's an idea. Have Fort Smith annex a extremely small portion of the land. Whatever the developers would be happy with for alcohol sales. Keep the majority of the development in Barling. On the part that Fort Smith would annex, let the two cities share tax revenue. Then have a condition be made that if the alcohol legal issue for Barling is resolved the land is reannexed into Barling, no questions asked. Don't know what the legalities would be for both cities, but I do know that the River Valley needs to act with a regional approach to economic development instead of every city trying the lone wolf approach. Oh well, it's Barling's loss. If they want to ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Actually it's Fort Smith

Submitted by RegulationNation on Wed, 02/13/2013 - 7:57pm.

Actually it's Fort Smith attempting to grow but it's some 1950's law that has this started in the first place. Some "holier than thou" attitude to keep the citizens of Barling capable of governing their own town rather than people from, say, Greenwood telling Barling how to govern itself. Barling is right to brush off Fort Smith. The city leaders of Fort Smith are traditionally a disastrous disease holding back the possibilities of the area. Although how many local doctors have been on the BoD the last 10 years...and then look at the growth of Mercy and other physician facilities. Personal agenda much? They do not have the best interest for growth of the area in mind and I don't trust this annexation talk and their agenda. They simply cannot be trusted to eventually "give the land back" and, to be honest, would probably secretly fund opposition to any attempt to rid our area of the sorry excuse for a law from the 1950's disallowing Barling to govern and decide for themselves.
Actually it's Fort Smith attempting to grow but it's some 1950's law that has this started in the first place. Some "holier than thou" attitude to keep the citizens of Barling capable of governing their own town rather than people from, say, Greenwood telling Barling how to govern itself. Barling is right to brush off Fort Smith. The city leaders of Fort Smith are traditionally a disastrous disease holding back the possibilities of the area. Although how many local doctors have been on the BoD the last 10 years...and then look at the growth of Mercy and other physician facilities. Personal agenda much? They do not have the best interest for growth of the ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Fort Smith is its own region

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 02/15/2013 - 2:09am.

....and the region outside of the Fort Smith City limits would do just fine without Fort Smith. Fort Smith is throwing it weight around....even as it economy gets lighter.
  • reply

You Must Be Joking

Submitted by Joe Fred Bob (not verified) on Tue, 02/19/2013 - 10:42pm.

Seriously? You are clearly from the Barling Government (see comments below). This was someone from Fort Smith having a GREAT idea to help out pathetic Barling. Someone was thinking outside the box and coming up with an idea of how to help growth in the region. People complain about no growth in this area but when someone comes up with a good idea, narrow minded people can think of nothing to do but criticize Fort Smith. The people in this region is why this region does not grow.
  • reply

In-Growth, not Out-growth

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/20/2013 - 10:23pm.

"People complain about no growth in this area" Take care of Fort Smith City proper before overextending. Fix the blight and abandoned "areas" in Ft. Smith before going off on expeditions beyond the city limits.
  • reply

Barling is Dumb

Submitted by Joe Fred Bob (not verified) on Tue, 02/19/2013 - 12:25pm.

Okay, someone suggests an idea that is good for Barling and they dismiss it out of hand. Barling's city government is a joke. This was a great idea. Barling will kill itself over time. There's no doubt about that.
  • reply

Most good ideas for someone else..

Submitted by Generation4 on Wed, 02/20/2013 - 10:22am.

..are viewed as just that. Ft Smith cooked its goose a long time ago with Barling by supplying so much of what it needs, otherwise it would have asked. Why mess with a cow when you can buy the milk cheaper?
  • reply

Barling Schools

Submitted by Barling Schools (not verified) on Wed, 02/20/2013 - 2:56pm.

You are absolutely correct. Did you know that the only school in Barling, the elementary school, is actually funded and run by the Fort Smith School District. Furthermore, all junior high and high school students in Barling attend Fort Smith junior and senior high schools.
  • reply

School Districts are separate from city governments.

Submitted by Bradley Martin on Thu, 02/21/2013 - 11:32am.

School Districts are separate taxing bodies from the city governments. The fort Smith School district covers Barling and much of the south side of Fort Smith is in the Greenwood school district.
  • reply

The issue

Submitted by The issue (not verified) on Thu, 02/21/2013 - 2:49pm.

You have completely missed the issue Bradley. Your response indicates that you "can't see the forest because you are focused on a particular tree." The issue is not what form of government (i.e. municipality, special district, etc.) The issue is that this is yet another example of the City of Barling riding on the shoulders of the taxpayers of Fort Smith. Barling does not have the population or tax base necessary to generate sufficient revenues to build an elementary school, a junior high, and a senior high. If not for the generosity of the Fort Smith taxpayer's, these Barling students would be going to County Line schools. Fort Smith is interested in the type of regional development that has spurred great growth in NWA. Barling, on the hand, is only interested in remaining its own little island which is detrimentally effecting the growth of our region. These outlying communities like Barling that rely on Fort Smith for its schools, water supply, hospital care, etc. need to become part of the team so we can have the economic growth we all so desparately want and need.
  • reply

Someone Gets It

Submitted by Joe Fred Bob (not verified) on Sun, 02/24/2013 - 10:23pm.

Finally, someone with an intelligent comment. Thank you! This is it exactly. They are hindering growth and then people who claim to want growth in this area condemn the Fort Smith government for trying to cause growth. People in the River Valley area are just not too bright.
  • reply

hello joe

Submitted by happy times on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 9:24am.

we may as well suppy all their water free if we forget to send them a bill! schools are paid for with real estate taxes so all the bedroom communities are paying their share of school costs.
  • reply

Not Quite

Submitted by Not Quite (not verified) on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 12:41pm.

Could Barling possibly have the elementary, junior high and high school quality facilities that they have if not for Fort Smith. Based on the current millage rate and the total assessed property values in Barling, Barling cannot even generate enough tax dollars to build an adequately equipped high school, much less a high school the caliber of Southside.
  • reply