Fort Smith Board Study Session: Consent Decree, Mosquito Control, and Fiscal Policies - February 24, 2026
Fort Smith Board of Directors Study Session - February 24, 2026
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.
Discussion Items
Consent Decree Modification
- The board reviewed a proposed modification to the federal consent decree on wastewater. Special counsel Paul Calamita (Aqua Law) explained the modification would extend the compliance deadline by 11.5 years (to 2038) and improve the dispute resolution process by adding a "shot clock" for federal agencies. The modification also removes the previous requirement that sewer rates reach 2.5% of median household income before seeking an extension.
- Director Christina Katsavos expressed concerns about new language stating the city's failure to provide adequate funding is not a defense for noncompliance, and about the 3.5% annual rate increase baseline not being a cap. She questioned whether the city was getting the best deal given a changing regulatory climate.
- Director Neil Martin asked about stipulated penalties; Mr. Calamita noted the city has paid penalties for a subset of overflows but no penalties for being late, and the modification allows a clearer path to challenge penalties before Judge Holmes.
- Directors Rigo, Camp, and Good expressed support, citing the need for additional time and improved flexibility. Director Camp emphasized the importance of the new dispute resolution mechanism.
- Director Katsavos also raised questions about potential changes to the Clean Water Act and the Waters of the United States rule, and about the possibility of congressional directed spending affecting the timeline.
- The board moved to place the consent decree modification on the next regular meeting agenda for a vote. The motion was seconded and carried.
Mosquito Fogging Operations
- The board discussed reinstating the city's mosquito fogging program, discontinued in 2025 due to budget cuts. Director Rigo noted strong public support for the program, citing 372 requests for spraying versus 36 requests to stop since 2019.
- Director Good expressed support for bringing back the program, noting that the department could maintain a balanced budget. Director Settle suggested a later start time (10 p.m.) and a published schedule to allow residents to prepare.
- Director Neil Martin opposed the program due to lack of data on effectiveness and potential harm to non-target insects. He noted that mosquito-borne illness data is limited and that the program was cut without data on its benefits.
- Matt Meeker, Director of Public Works, noted that the city has leftover chemicals and can reinstate the program without additional budget impact. He also discussed challenges with opt-out requests and driver compliance.
- The board voted to place the mosquito fogging item on the March 17 voting meeting agenda for consideration. The motion was seconded and carried.
Fiscal Performance Policies
- Chief Financial Officer Andy Richards presented historical fund balance data for the general fund, street maintenance fund, water and sewer fund, and solid waste fund, adjusted for inflation. He showed trends from 2010 to 2025.
- Director Settle proposed adding an upper cap to the city's reserve policies, arguing that excessive fund balances mean taxpayers are overpaying. He suggested a rolling two-year threshold above 50-60% should trigger spending or tax cuts. He also proposed rebates or rate reductions for water/sewer funds.
- Directors Rigo and Camp supported the idea of adding a ceiling. The board directed staff to bring back options for amending the fiscal policies to include upper limits.
Audit Provisions for Third-Party Contracts
- Director Settle requested that the city conduct audits of the convention center operator, similar to the recent audit of the water park. He noted the city provides $750,000 annually to the convention center and that the contract includes audit provisions.
- City Attorney Jeff Dingman confirmed the contract requires annual certified audits but will verify what has been received. The board directed staff to investigate the cost and scope of an agreed-upon procedures audit for the convention center and to bring it back for consideration.
Water Conservation Measures
- Director Neil Martin raised concerns about enforcement of the city's water conservation ordinance, noting that no citations have ever been issued under Section 25-142 despite widespread violations during last summer's conservation period.
- Lance McAvoy, Director of Water Resources, explained that the ordinance requires a court citation, and no city department has the capacity to enforce it. He noted that the biggest water users during peak demand were irrigation systems, not car washes.
- Director Settle proposed using technology to throttle water meters for outside wholesale customers and for repeat violators, rather than relying on fines. Director Rigo emphasized communication and community engagement as a first step.
- The board discussed potential incentives and flow restriction devices. No formal action was taken, but staff was asked to research enforcement options used by other cities.
Standardized Wholesale Water Agreement
- Staff presented a draft standardized non-retail wholesale surplus water agreement to replace multiple expired contracts with outside water customers. The seven current agreements range from 1959 to 2019, and none have been updated.
- Director Camp expressed frustration that seven agreements had expired without action, calling it unacceptable. He supported the standardization.
- Director Settle asked about capital cost sharing for shared infrastructure (e.g., treatment plants, transmission lines). Mr. McAvoy confirmed the agreement includes provisions for restricting usage during high demand and a tiered surcharge for high unaccounted-for water. The board discussed adding language to require sharing of capital costs for system upgrades.
- The board generally supported the draft but asked for further refinement to include capital cost sharing and flow restriction provisions.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Decree Modification: Board voted to place the modification on the next regular meeting agenda for a final vote.
- Mosquito Fogging: Board voted to place reinstatement on the March 17 voting meeting agenda.
- Fiscal Policies: Staff directed to bring back options for adding an upper cap to reserve fund policies.
- Audit Provisions: Staff directed to investigate audit of the convention center operator and report back.
- Water Conservation: No formal action; staff to research enforcement options.
- Wholesale Water Agreement: Staff to revise the draft to include capital cost sharing and flow restriction provisions before final adoption.
- City Administrator Recruitment: Director Martin made a motion to place a contract with Colin Benzinger for national recruitment on the consent agenda for the next regular meeting. The motion was seconded.
- Other: Director Rigo requested pricing for solar-paneled flashing crosswalk signs on B Street and a replacement flag at Sister Park. Staff to follow up.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com