The Fort Smith Board of Directors held a study session on February 24, 2026, to discuss several key issues including a proposed consent decree modification, reinstatement of mosquito fogging, fiscal performance policies, audit provisions for third-party contracts, water conservation enforcement, and a standardized wholesale water agreement. The board also made motions to place items on future agendas and directed staff to investigate various matters.
Oh, I'm sorry. That picture should be one more extra. Good evening and welcome to the force of the city board of directors' study session on this February twenty-fourth of twenty twenty-six. This time we'll go right to the agenda for uh director Christina, you're recognized. Um you want me to kick it off? So our um reviewing our proposed consent decree modification. Um Jeff, I'm wondering why this is brought to us today when the AG's office has not had time to review it. They have rey have reviewed it. It got back to the d the Department of Justice late last week and that and they sent it to us on Friday. We got it from uh the attorney at the Department of Justice through Mr. Calamita. Okay. Because it sounded like in some of the reporting I read that they were still reviewing it at the AG's office. And and they may still have comments to make to it, but I believe that they have uh at least have informed the Department of Justice that they were finished with review and it was it was appropriate to send to us. So what what I'm wondering and what I want some clarity on is when um when I talked to ADEQ did we satisfy the conditions required under Article Nine to obtain the five year extension? Because when I when I spoke with ADEQ, they said there were some necessary steps the city was supposed to take that we never did. So is do we have a formal court order modifying the decree to 2032? We do not. And that's part of the discussion that's centered around the modification. And Mr. Calamita, I think, will address that. But I think that Judge Holmes had at one point indicated that he believed that we did satisfy the requirements to to trigger the five-year extension piece, but it has never been formalized until this is the first formal approach towards modification through the court order. Because my my understanding, and I remember Director Morton spoke about this a lot when he was on the board was that we had been given five years, but they never adjusted the schedule. They never adjusted the timeline. So I was under the impression we had that five-year extension. I'm wondering if anyone else on the board was under that impression as well. I knew that we had that the DOJ said or the Judge said yes, but I knew it wasn't finalized, and so we were still under the old 12-year number. That's correct. Okay. So on the um the changes to Article 9, the new language, I'll tell you what concerns me is the new language that says defendants' failure to provide adequate funding shall not be a defense to any failure to comply with this agreement and order. And then you go on to the next paragraph 59. It says the three and a half um yearly increase is a baseline. That's not a cap. They're asking us to use our taxing authority, rate increases. Um, I I think we need to preserve some mechanism for schedule reconsideration based on financial circumstances. We don't know what the next decade is going to hold. So that um that's something of concern to me. And um let's see. Um, you know, we're losing our ability to negotiate based on one extension. So when I look at it, we're paying outside council $800 an hour. We're in a different regulatory climate than when we entered into this decree. Uh we have an administration that seems to be friendly. They're sc scaling back aggressive enforcement in other contexts. So I'm wondering, is this really the best deal we can get? Because I feel like we're we're caught with a false choice here. We're not close to completing the work. We need more time, but our residents can't bear the burden of these increases. Uh you know, I'm wondering what what is someone's bill going to look like in 2030 or 2035. Well, and I think I think a portion of that, the language that's included in the modification indicates that you know, rates could are part of that structure, but any other uh any other revenues that we might identify uh toward to go towards those improvements can be attributed as well and not require those rate increases. And I think that language was was intentionally included.