The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Thursday a Pulaski County circuit judge's 2014 decision that a 45-cent fee for Central Arkansas Water users that is split with Pulaski County is a legal arrangement.
In February 2013, three Pulaski County residents -- Bryan Sullins and Kerri Sullins of Sherwood and Charles E. Williams of Little Rock -- sued Central Arkansas Water, Pulaski County and Buddy Villines in his former capacity as county judge, arguing that the partnership -- called the Watershed Protection Agreement -- is illegal.
Central Arkansas Water enacted a 45-cent-per-month fee in 2009 against utility users to pay for the purchase of land that could be developed near Lake Maumelle. Part of the fee also goes to Pulaski County for enforcement of regulations in the county's portion of the lake's watershed.
Lake Maumelle is the primary drinking water source for about 400,000 central Arkansans.
Pulaski County, Central Arkansas Water and environmental groups have been at odds with watershed property and business owners for years over measures the government has sought to protect Lake Maumelle from potential development and pollution that could come with it.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, H. Gregory Campbell, called the fee "really a tax" that Pulaski County is using for its own obligations and for the benefits of Pulaski County residents in a Feb. 19, 2013 complaint. That "tax," Campbell wrote, was not approved by voters during an election, making it "illegal."
"The Watershed Fee is simply a subterfuge to evade the statutory and constitutional limitations on Pulaski County's power to raise taxes and force CAW to impose an illegal tax on its customers," the complaint reads. The complaint noted that Villines had told the Quorum Court the county could not afford the staff to enforce the watershed management plan approved in 2007.
Campbell argued that the interlocal agreement between the utility and the county was illegal, because Central Arkansas Water does not have the same "powers, privileges and authority" as Pulaski County, required under the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Under the act, according to the complaint, agencies cannot enter into agreements for activities they couldn't do independent of each other.
Then-Pulaski County Attorney Karla Burnett wrote in a response to the complaint that the term "interlocal agreement" was never used to describe the agreement between the county and the utility.
Attorneys for Central Arkansas Water argued that Pulaski County is not required by law to enforce or implement the watershed management plan. Attorneys also argued the watershed fee could have been included in the base rate but was denoted separately on customer bills for "transparency."
In March 2014, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ruled that the contract between Central Arkansas Water and Pulaski County, entered into in April 2009, could have been done under the Arkansas Constitution and Local Government Code and was not necessarily done under the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Arkansas law allows county quorum courts to contract for "administrative services," which Fox said was the case for Central Arkansas Water and the county.
The Arkansas Supreme Court opinion released Wednesday affirmed Fox's decision and agreed that the arrangement was for administrative services, noting that it was for "implementation and enforcement" of regulations.
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-910(a) provides that counties may contract with public agencies "to perform any administrative service, activity, or undertaking which any contracting party is authorized by law to perform," the opinion notes.
"Clearly, the plain language of this section contemplates that counties may contract for any administrative service as long as either the county or the public agency is legally authorized to perform it," justices wrote.
The arrangement also does not give any extra authority to Central Arkansas Water than before, justices wrote.
Metro on 01/30/2015