Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 2/24/26
At the Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting held 2-24-26, with Director Christina Catsavis leaving an hour into the 2.5 hour meeting due to illness, the Board discussed a modification to the consent decree that would allow for 11.5 more years to complete the consent decree sewer work. The modification agreement has been approved by the federal and state government and awaits approval from the Board.
The existing consent decree completion deadline is January 1, 2027. An extension to 2032 was informally approved by a judge, but was never formalized.
Director Christina Catsavis voiced her concerns about language in the agreement about the lack of funding not being a defense for non-compliance. She expressed worry about losing the ability to negotiate in exchange for the extension. She wondered out loud “Is this the best deal we can get?”
Attorney Calamita with Aqualaw who has is the City’s legal representation for the consent decree said that the language about lack of funding is “in every single federal consent decree that’s out there” and that it is “not the hill to die on.” He said that we “desperately need the modification.” He said that it is a “very good modification that will put us back in compliance.” He said that it is a “fair schedule” and that it “gives us a good chance of being successful.”
He mentioned that there is opportunity in the future to move from federal to state enforcement of the consent decree, with two of the three main factors required for that already being met (having funding for the projects and the State being willing to take on the enforcement). The remaining factor required that is not yet met is having demonstrated “durable compliance.” He said that the modification would bring Fort Smith into compliance again, so in a year or two they could be considered for transfer to the state enforcement which he called “much more appropriate.”
Director Christina Catsavis mentioned that the DOJ is only looking at sanitary sewer overflow numbers and ignoring all of the other progress Fort Smith has been making on consent decree work. Calamita agreed that the DOJ are “not easily impressed” and don’t give credit for improvement efforts made. Director Christina Catsavis said that she is “worried this new agreement feels more restrictive.”
Director Martin asked about the stipulated penalties. Calamita said that Fort Smith has paid for a subset of the penalties, mostly for about half or less of the ones related to sanitary sewer overflows that aren’t tied to floods, but has not paid for any related to being late. He said that approving the modification and being in compliance for a year or two could result in the unpaid stipulated penalties being withdrawn. Director Martin asked if signing the modification agreement would mean that the penalties could all be assessed and the City left without any recourse. Calamita answered that the stipulated penalties are already in the consent decree and would be no different with the modification. If penalties were demanded to be paid that were not appropriate, the case could be brought to court to dispute them. Director Martin asked if the stipulated penalties could be paid out of the bonds. Calamita answered that they could not. Director Martin mentioned that that would mean if the “highly unlikely” high penalties were demanded that they would have to come from rate revenues or from the general fund.
Director Rego mentioned with the 2027 deadline in place there is not a lot of “leverage on our end.” He asked how likely the DOJ would be to reduce the stipulated penalties if the Board does not accept the modification. Calamita said that if the agreement is not approved the DOJ “will feel like they need to get your attention” and may hit Fort Smith with a “significant stipulated penalty demand.”
Director Kemp asked if the agreement would retain the right for disputes. Calamita assured that it would but said that with the additional time and more flexibility to prioritize work that come from the modification that he is “not anticipating a lot of disputes.” Director Kemp voiced his support for the extended time and flexibility. He expressed his desire to be finished by year 9.
Director Good asked if the City’s relationship with ADEQ has improved. Calamita said that the relationship with ADEQ is “excellent” and that the relationships with the DOJ and EPA are “improved.”
Director Settle asked if there was a way in the agreement to pause if a project’s bid costs are way over the estimate. Calamita said that the agencies generally allow for trade-offs to reduce costs, but if they didn’t that a dispute could be filed and taken to court. Director Settle asked if Congress makes changes to the Clean Water Act if the agreement would remain tied to the current Clean Water Act or would be changed to reflect the changes. Calamita said that the Clean Water Act prohibits raw sewage discharges and that the doesn’t see that changing, but said that future beneficial changes could benefit the City or the City could go to court to request that they do. Director Settle expressed support for the modification. He asked if Congressional Directed Spending was received or if Congress voted to give every consent decree more time if it would change the timeline for the agreement. Calamita said that the congressionally directed spending money could help allow projects to be completed faster but that he does not anticipate Congress giving more time for consent decrees. Director Settle argued that he does see Congress giving more time.
Director George Catsavis asked what would happen if the agreement is accepted and the projects are not completed in the 11.5 years. Calamita said that “very detailed analysis” was done and the plan was laid out to be able to be completed on time. He mentioned that federal government wanted to only allow 8 years.
The modification agreement will be up for a vote on the next meeting agenda.
The Board discussed reinstating the mosquito fogging program. The program was discontinued to save the cost of the program and to respond to complaints and concerns about the program. The reinstatement was discussed in response to complaints about mosquitos after the program was terminated.
Director Rego reminded that he voted against ending the spraying. He said that in the last 10 months he’s received the most feedback about bringing back the spay/neuter voucher program and the second most, not far behind, being about bringing back mosquito spraying. He said that the Streets department received 36 comments requesting spraying stop and 372 requests to spray certain areas. He suggested potentially bringing back spraying on an opt-in basis.
Director Good also reminded that he voted against ending the spraying.
Director Kemp asked if the spraying could be reinstated and still maintain the balanced operating budget. Public Works Director Meeker said that it could and that there is still enough leftover chemical to last through most of this season. Director Kemp mentioned that Streets/Public Works did not have to make the 10% required across-the-board cut for that department to have a balanced budget but that they still “did it to be a team-player.”
Director Kemp mentioned that since 1999 there have been 21 cases of West Nile Virus reported in Sebastian County and asked if the program is effective in preventing viruses. Meeker answered that he does not have sufficient data to say if the program is effective for that or not.
Director Martin agreed about the lack of data. He reminded that he was against spraying originally and said that he is against it now. He expressed concerns about the spray impacting other things besides mosquitoes including other insects and bees.
Director Settle suggested that a schedule of when the sprayings are to take place be publicized so that residents could bring their pets or children inside during the spraying if they don’t want them to be outside during it. Meeker added that if the program were to resume that he would like to not start spraying until 10 PM instead of starting at 7 pm and spray on Sundays-Thursdays to help avoid more of the times when the most people are outside.
Director Good mentioned that in addition to transmitting human diseases the mosquitoes have other negative effects including mosquito bites on humans and transmission of heart worms in pets. He asked about possibly allowing residents to opt out of their property being sprayed. Meeker said that the previous opt-out system in place was difficult with some neighbors wanting to be sprayed and their next door neighbors wanting to not be sprayed. He said that if the program were to be reinstated that he would prefer to just spray everything.
Director Rego asked if the parks were sprayed as a part of the previous program. Meeker said that they were not routinely, only if the Parks Department specially requested it. Director Rego said that he received a lot of feedback about people being bitten in public spaces and suggested that if the program were to resume that it could include spraying at the City parks and ballfields where lots of people congregate.
Reinstatement of the spraying program will be up for a vote at the second meeting in March.
The Board discussed performing audits on all third party services providers including those with management contracts (like the management companies ARM for the water park and OVG for the convention center), animal services contracts (like Fort Smith Animal Haven), and services contracts to provide services (like Area Agency on Aging and the Fort Smith Museum of History).
Dingman mentioned that the waterpark and convention center already have provisions regarding audits in their management contracts.
Director Settle voiced his desire to audit the convention center the same as the water park every year or every other year.
Director Martin agreed with auditing the convention center and other services providers but expressed concerns about overburdening the Internal Auditor. Director Settle said that he wants to use an external auditor. Director Martin questioned auditing the Museum of History with them only receiving $20,000 annually from the City for their utilities. Director Rego agreed the total is low, but suggested that how they used the money could be checked.
Dingman pointed out that the water park and convention center are City owned facilities with management contracts where the other contracts for limited services are different.
The Board discussed water conservation measures with a focus on enforcement and punishment for not following water conservation measures. The City ended non-emergency conservation measures in 2006-2007 when Lake Fort Smith Dam was completed. Now the measures are only enacted for emergency situations like the broken water main in August 2025. Current penalties for not conserving are fines of $50-$100 for the first violation, $250-$500 for the second violation, and $500 each for further violations.
Director Martin mentioned that during the recent conservation period he heard a lot of complaints about commercial car washes still being allowed to operate. Director of Water Resources McAvoy said that while car wash businesses do use a large amount of water, the majority of the problem with water being used non-compliant with the conservation measures was irrigation sprinklers. He said that provisions for car washes could be added if the Board desired. He said that an enforcement mechanism is needed. Since he has been with the City since the 1990s, he has never once seen any enforcement actions taken for people violating the conservation measures.
Director Rego said that he would “like to hear some ideas” about enforcement. McAvoy said that for the penalties to be imposed there has to be a citation issued, it has to go to court, and they have to be convicted. Only the Fire Department, Police, and Neighborhood Services can issue citations. He said all three of those “have enough on their plate than to be water cops.” He said that he is researching what other comparable area cities are doing about enforcement.
Director Martin asked if any conservation actually took place during the recent emergency conservation period. McAvoy said that it did not. There was a slight decrease in some areas but not the ones most directly affected by the water main break and that pumps were still running non-stop. Director Martin suggested incentivizing positive conservation instead of penalizing refusal to conserve, like perhaps taking $25 off water bills if users use less water.
Director Settle asked about enforcement of conservation measures for the 42% of water users who live outside of the City. McAvoy said that they have to follow the same measures as Fort Smith and can be charged a surcharge if they do not conserve. Director Settle suggested flow restrictor devices be installed that would slow those outside meters by a certain percentage to force conservation. Director Rego mentioned that the law and agreements currently allow that and that he would like to see the cost for the devices. Director Settle suggested that instead of fines for multiple violations that residents’ water could be shut off or that flow restrictors could be installed on their meters. McAvoy said that his department’s staff suggested disconnecting water for repeat violators but that it would have to be proven that they’d been talked to multiple times already.
Director Kemp suggested higher rates for outside users if their usage is not reduced. He also suggested better communication including post cards and TV news interviews to help boost public awareness when conservation measures are active. He said “I don’t like the idea of restricting water.”
The Board reviewed a draft of a new agreement for all wholesale surplus water users buying water from Fort Smith. The agreement would not apply to Barling because they have an agreement in place until 2032, Van Buren because they provided Lee Creek water rights in 1984, or Fort Chaffee MTC because they have special designation. There would be no maximum amount of water those users could purchase.
The agreement would apply to places that agree to buy Fort Smith’s surplus water (which Fort Smith has most of the year) and that have no other source of water including Arkhoma, Cedarville, Mountainburg, Chester, and Winslow. The agreement would be for 10 years.
The agreement would include a 10% penalty for late payments. The rates would be adopted by Fort Smith ordinance, currently at $2.25/CCF for users north or the Arkansas River and $3.04/CCF for users south of the river. The users would be responsible for upkeep of their system and maintaining/reducing their water loss to 20% by the end of the fifth year of the agreement or they would have to pay surcharges. Users would be allowed 1% per year growth and at the end of 5 years may request to purchase additional volume. There would be a surcharge for exceeding maximum amount limits. Fort Smith can terminate the agreement if they do not have sufficient supply to meet their retail and wholesale customer demands. Surcharges would be charged for users not also following water conservation measures whenever they are enacted by Fort Smith. Users would be restricted to only up to 2 inch water meters with larger meters requiring special permission from Fort Smith.
Director Kemp called seven agreements having long-since expired including one with Mountainburg that has been expired since 1959 “disheartening” and “unacceptable”. He said “I don’t like it.” and “I totally support the standardization of this.”
Director Martin asked about the protections for Fort Smith on the high usage days that near capacity. McAvoy said that they can restrict on high usage days. He also mentioned that a couple of the systems have very high water loss, with one having loss of 70%. He mentioned that flow restriction devices were included in the old contract and could be added into the new one instead of surcharges.
Director Settle asked if 10 years might be too long for the agreement. McAvoy recommended 10 years. Director Settle said that the responsibility for paying for expensive infrastructure projects like the Lake Fort Smith transmission line and the treatment plant upgrades ought to be shared by both Fort Smith and outside water users.
Director Rego requested information regarding the cost for blinking signs at crosswalks. Meeker said that the ones like the new ones on Grand are $10,000 per set. Director Rego clarified that he would like pricing for the simple style without sensors or buttons, just blinking lights on the signs to add extra visibility and attract extra attention.
Director Kemp updated that a contract with Colin Baenziger for nation-wide recruitment of applicants for the the City Administrator vacancy will be up for a vote at the next meeting.
