Fort Smith Board of Directors Study Session – May 26, 2026
Fort Smith Board of Directors Study Session – May 26, 2026
The Fort Smith Board of Directors held a study session on May 26, 2026, to discuss three main agenda items: a proposed wholesale wastewater service agreement with the town of Arcoma, an engineering services contract for upgrades to the Mazard Water Reclamation Facility, and the city's injury leave policy for employees injured on the job. The meeting included presentations from city staff, representatives from Garver LLC and Hawkins Weir, and a representative from the Choctaw Nation's water resources team.
Discussion Items
1. Wastewater Service Agreement with Arcoma
City staff presented a proposed five-year agreement with Arcoma for wholesale wastewater treatment at a rate of $3.60 per CCF with a 3.5% annual increase. The rate was developed with assistance from the Choctaw Nation, which served as a third-party advisor. The agreement would also establish a payment plan for Arcoma's past due amount of $141,132.47 (calculated at the proposed rate), with staff recommending that late fees and penalties be waived. Directors expressed concerns about the rate differential between Fort Smith residents ($9.05 per CCF) and the proposed wholesale rate. Director Settle argued that the lower rate removed Arcoma's incentive to build its own wastewater system and could set a precedent for other wholesale customers like Barling. Director Martin questioned whether the rate adequately covered costs related to the city's consent decree and infrastructure needs. Staff clarified that the rate includes a 10% return on investment and accounts for Arcoma's inflow and infiltration (I&I) but not Fort Smith's I&I. Director Kemp noted that Arcoma residents likely face higher total sewer bills due to their own base fees and I&I costs. The board requested additional data comparing Arcoma's residential bills to Fort Smith's, and directed staff to consider a shorter agreement term (e.g., three years) and to consult with state and federal regulatory agencies (EPA, DOJ, ADEQ) on the rate structure.
2. Engineering Services Agreement with Garver LLC
City staff reviewed a proposed not-to-exceed $8.575 million fixed-fee agreement with Garver LLC for design and engineering services for the Mazard Water Reclamation Facility improvements (Project 25-15-81). The project is estimated at $150 million in construction costs, and the engineering fee represents approximately 5.6–6% of that cost, below the typical 10%. The agreement is based on hourly rates with a cap, and work includes surveys, geotechnical studies, permitting, and design for a construction manager at risk (CMAR) delivery method. Garver representatives noted that the fee includes value-engineering savings and that they were already absorbing costs such as ADH review fees inadvertently omitted from the scope. The board requested a Gantt chart with design and construction milestones. A motion to place the agreement on the next regular meeting agenda for action was approved.
3. Injury Leave Policy for City Employees
Director of Human Resources Eric Garvin reviewed the current policy: employees receive 30 days of paid injury leave, after which they receive workers' compensation at 66% of wages, with the option to use accrued sick or vacation leave to supplement to 100%. In the case of critical injuries—such as a police officer recently shot in the line of duty—the board expressed strong dissatisfaction with requiring employees to use personal leave for extended recovery periods. Directors Kemp, Settle, and Martin argued that the policy should treat critical, life-threatening injuries differently, and that it should apply to all city employees, not just uniformed personnel. The board directed staff to draft a revised policy that would provide continued full pay for employees with critical, duty-related injuries (e.g., gunshot wounds, severe burns) without requiring use of accrued leave, and to bring the revised policy for a vote before the end of June.
Key Outcomes
- The board directed administration to refine the Arcoma wastewater agreement incorporating board feedback (shorter term, additional data on residential bills, regulatory consultation) and to return to a future study session.
- The Garver engineering services agreement was placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting (June 1 or 2) for a vote.
- Staff was directed to draft a revised injury leave policy for critical, duty-related injuries, inclusive of all city employees, and to present it for board vote before the end of June.
- A brief discussion about a forklift left by a contractor at the water park concluded the meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening and welcome to the city of Board of Register Study session. These meetings are being recorded for the purpose of our residents who may not be able to be with us in person this evening. Thank you, Mayor. The first item this evening relates to ongoing discussion we are having with the town of Arcoma related to an agreement for the treatment of wholesale wastewater services. After our coma and Fort Smith failed to reach an agreement last summer, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma offered to use their water resources team as a third party advisor. And if the board of directors agrees, then we will work to finalize an agreement that both that both governing bodies will approve. Much as our regular wastewater rate ordinance provides. This rate was reviewed and supported by the Choctaw team's independent analyst. A term of five years for the agreement with provisions for early termination if our coma establishes a proper wastewater treatment system of its own before the term expires. A determination of an amount owed for services and not paid as of the effective date of the agreement as calculated with the rates included in this agreement. The agreement provides that a payment plan for this amount owed shall be established as part of the agreement and continue until the amount owed is paid, even if the service agreement terminates early. It is to Fort Smith's benefit that our coma handle its own wastewater. So staff proposes that any late fees or penalties not be included in the amount established as owed. This would be similar treatment to the stipulated penalties that we currently that we often discuss related to our consent decree. With us tonight, our representatives, I think from Marcoma. I think I saw someone from our coma. And we have representatives from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their water resources team to perhaps answer any questions as to their role in this process. We also have several staff persons, Andy Richards, Lance McAvoy, myself, Maggie, to uh respond to any of the board's questions as well. With that introduction, staff will defer to board's discussion on this item. Okay, thank you very much, and thank all of our guests for being here this evening. Uh any discussion from the board on the proposal. Oh, yeah, definitely. You want me to start asking questions? Yes, sir. All right, can I get Andy up here? So Andy, as you're walking up, I had to I had to refresh myself, and I'm just gonna get I'm gonna get the discussion started. Um I went back to our meeting that we had on June 10th of 2025 at UAFS, and in that discussion, you said the the cost to treat a CCF of wastewater is three dollars and thirty-six cents, is that correct? And is that math still work with you know after a year? Yeah, I think the yeah, so we came up with that's with that's without the uh that's without the INI adjustment or anything. Is that that's right? Okay, so I guess as I'm as I'm sitting here thinking through this, and and and we're talking about a negotiated rate of $3.60. So there's a a slight um increase in terms of uh costs, uh there's there's return on investment there or ROI is what I think is what was in the packet from between $360 and $336. So there would be a difference there of of that amount. My question is that $336, that's what it costs to treat a CCF of sewer, but then that's that's as it sits today, as the existing infrastructure and to pay for all that existing infrastructure, three dollars and thirty-six cents. My question is with this consent decree and the dollars that we're paying for the consent decree. Does that not need to take does that not need to factor in what we're charging our coma? So our our citizens are paying nine dollars and four cents of CCF, right? Right, so and we're that nine dollars and four cents is paying for a large infrastructure project to get us in compliance with the consent decree, along with sales tax and all those other things. Is three dollars and sixty cents enough? To me, it doesn't sound like that's covering our coma's costs for the consent decree and the additional dollars needed for this 600 800 million dollar consent decree. Does that make sense? Yeah. Well, I mean, for one thing, I mean, the can the consent degree is not funded out of our operating revenues. This basically this rate, um, you know, I use the same kind of methodology and got very close to what our current nine dollars and five cents are for our residential and all of our sewer customers, basically, so this I use the same methodology gets similar results for that. Um we do have the 10% ROI factored in to account for um additional capital costs and maintenance uh or future capital. Andy, I hate to interrupt here, but don't we have a bond that's related to consent decree work that we've funded in 2018 that everybody's paying off a rates? So back to Neil's point, the rate is paying off a bond to consent decree work is done. It's paying off that current bond, yeah. I mean, but that part that that debt service is part of the calculation that it's it's part of the 336. Okay, um and again, this doesn't account for I and I, is that correct?
openpublica.com