Lawsuit could cost Sharp and Fulton County $6-8 million if not resolved for collecting tax levies for years for CVSID Village SID
Tammy Curtis, Managing Editor, Publisher
Unless one has lived under a rock, the illegal taxation lawsuit filed against the Cherokee Village Suburban Improvement (CVSID), the City, American Land Company, other entities, and individuals in 2018 began a saga that continues to this day. Why?
Recent evidence suggests that those in positions of authority over the SID – its Commissioners, General Manager, and both counties have not been complying with laws concerning CVSID’s taxation.
Whether this is intentional or due to a lack of knowledge of the law, the point is that, once again, the CVSID is being sued, and this time the Plaintiffs are bringing Fulton and Sharp Counties into the mix as well.
Why the counties?
Because CVSID’s district boundaries are located in both counties, CVSID uses the county tax collector to collect its annual levies. The Plaintiffs will be amending their complaint to allege that the counties have been assessing “CVSID’s tax”–not the CVSID’s Board of Commissioners.
This time, the new suit is against CVSID and both Fulton and Sharp counties. Based on discussions with Mark Kronkosky, one of the Plaintiffs for the current lawsuit, the lawsuit will be amended to include allegations that both counties’ quorum courts and county judges have created and filed illegal tax rate ordinances for the years 2023 through 2026. These yearly tax rate ordinances approved by the quorum courts have included a 10 percent tax on CVSID’s annual assessments (CVSID’s taxes). This violates Arkansas State Law. Arkansas Code Annotated 14-14-904 states that County Quorum Courts can ONLY levy tax rates for counties, cities, and schools–not Suburban Improvement Districts, which they have both clearly done, according to filings at both of the County Clerk’s offices. Further, Arkansas § 14-68-2102 requires the counties not to transfer any collected tax monies to CVSID while CVSID’s annual transparency reports are not filed with the County Clerk. Both counties have not withheld these monies, even though, for years since April 1, 2021, CVSID has not filed reports that comply with the law.
The Plaintiffs in the current lawsuit have submitted a proposal to settle the suit to the parties and the City. That proposal will be quoted at the end of this article. The goal of the settlement proposal is to promote a clear understanding of exactly what Cherokee Village SID and the counties have done that warrants this lawsuit, which, if unresolved, could cost CVSID and both Fulton and Sharp Counties upwards of $6-8 million.
These issues with CVSID began back in August, when Dave Gruger, a resident of Cherokee Village, realized that the Cherokee Village SID had likely not complied with state filing requirements to legalize its annual 2025 levy on benefits approved on Dec. 16, 2024, one day after the legal deadline, and to promote transparency within the SID for 2025 levy and the past four years of transparency reports required by 14-86-2102. Gruger had attended SID meetings for years and was well-versed in serving the community in a variety of capacities, including being a responsible steward and Watchdog of taxpayer dollars.
In an Aug. 8, 2025, SID meeting, Commissioner Susan Jett read from a prepared document as a rebuttal to a social media posting by Gruger regarding the levy, which some individuals were not being taxed on. Jett explained that the SID was following Arkansas ACT 359 (of legislative year 2021), which dictates and modifies language in Arkansas § 14-68-2102. During this meeting, CVSID’s GM, Waugh informed the audience that they had to follow Act 359 and that they would continue to do so. She also provided the audience with a document explaining how the SID tax works.
After hearing this at the meeting, Gruger apparently didn’t believe Jett’s or Waugh’s words and decided to investigate whether CVSID had filed annual transparency reports. At the end of August 2025, Gruger issued Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Clerk for each county regarding the matter.
Gruger’s suspicions were correct–both Clerks informed Gruger that CVSID’s latest filed report dated to 2021 and that nothing was filed afterward. The last report CVSID filed was back in April 1, 2021 when David Webb was serving as CVSID’s GM filed CVSID’s transparency report for 2020. Although the 2020 report was filed in 2021, the report lacked required several required documents and information about CVSID. The report form stated that financial statements were “attached,” yet no such financial statements are in the county clerk’s records.
After Gruger received answers to his FOIA requests from the counties, he sent FOIA requests to CVSID for copies of their filed 2024 transparency report. This 2024 report is required by law to be filed with the County Clerk’s office on or before April 1, 2025. Waugh replied to Gruger’s FOIA by requesting that specific information be provided by Gruger regarding his request. Gruger provided a reply listing eleven (11) items that CVSID must include in its report. Instead of providing Gruger with a copy of a filed report for 2024, which does not exist, Waugh simply wrote explanations for the eleven items from Waugh’s viewpoint. Waugh responded with vague responses such as, “NA”, county records, or the “SID website”.
Additionally, Waugh’s explanations were a clear FOIA violation; Waugh was asked to provide copies of CVSID’s 2024 transparency report, not explanations. If no report documents exist at the CVSID’s office–CVSID is required by FOIA laws to state that no document(s) exist. Obviously, from these responses, Gruger was becoming more informed that Waugh was not well-versed in FOIA laws, nor the reporting laws of ACT 359 that she claimed CVSID complied with. Waugh’s inability to provide Gruger with the information requested by FOIA revealed major internal issues within CVSID. Following CVSID’s FOIA answers, Gruger began directing concerns about the failed filing of CVSID’s transparency reports to Cherokee Village Mayor Steven Rose.
This caused the mayor to act under State Law 14-86-2102 which states “Shall appoint an administrator of the improvement district” for failing to file these yearly reports. Rose appointed Gruger as the Special Administrator on Oct. 1. Gruger, accompanied by Cherokee Village law enforcement officers with body cameras active, traveled to the SID office to allow Gruger to assume his officially appointed position and duties. Gruger verbally terminated Waugh with cause and suspended the SID legal counsel. At that time, Waugh called the SID attorney. While Gruger faced resistance, Waugh told him that the SID attorney had advised that the act was not legal.
Gruger further attempted to inform Waugh and the SID attorney that a similar case in Horseshoe Bend had already been adjudicated as legal, with a special administrator appointed in that city’s MRID. Gruger terminated Waugh, acting as the Special Administrator. Rose then began backtracking on his legal obligation as a mayor to the people of Cherokee Village, including those property owners affected in the SID.
Further, the SID attorney over speaker phone conversation informed Gruger that this law did not apply to them. Gruger then calledthe mayor and shortly after, the mayor told Gruger to return to the office at which time the mayor informed Gruger the city attorney said what they were doing was not legal and they, the city, had to give SID a thirty (30) day notice first. The Mayor decided not to re-appoint an administrator after he already had, and discoering that SID still had not come into compliance. The attempt to obtain all records from the city by Gruger on this issue has been met with resistance and has yet to be completed per Arkansas FOIA laws.
The law is specific regarding the consequences of not filing an accurate and timely transparency report–CVSID comes under the authority of a Special Administrator appointed by the Mayor, and there is no time period for allowing a filing to “perfect” CVSID problems. The law says to CVSID, if they miss their filing date CVSID is to suffer loss of the Board’s control.
Having heard of the Mayor backtracking and proposing appeasements, Mark Kronkosky, one of the Plaintiffs for the 2018 CVSID lawsuit and the current lawsuit, filed an emergency Writ of Mandamus to compel Mayor Rose to fulfill his required duties to appoint a Special Administrator. The Writ was filed on Oct. 3, 2025, to compel Mayor Rose to fulfill his duties as required by Arkansas Code § 14-86-2102 (b)(1). The Writ clearly states, “ The law is specific, the Mayor is required to act by law, and shall appoint an administrator when the District misses its required filing deadline. There is no discretion, nor are there any other matters or provisions that must be followed prior to such appointment. The law recognizes that this is an adversarial action in which a superior form of government is overtaking a subordinate governmental body. There is no precursor requirement(s) to follow before such action is instituted. The law is self-proving in these regards, that is, no other action(s) are needed to be undertaken except for: the District to miss its annual filing date, a citizen to inform the Mayor of such failure (for which Mr. Gruger has had numerous meetings with the Mayor prior to the October 1, 2025 letter), and an appointment order to be made by the Mayor.”
Gruger resigned his appointment as a Special Administrator on Oct. 4, 2025, due to a loss of support by the Mayor and city attorney, as well as the filing of the Writ of Mandamus by Kronkosky.
On Oct. 9, 2025, CVSID filed transparency reports for year 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. On Nov. 14, 2025, the District filed a revised report for the year 2024. All of these reports are severely past due, incomplete, and noncompliant with Arkansas § 14-68-2102.
The Fulton County Circuit Court agreed with Kronkosky’s Writ of Mandamus filing and, on Dec. 8, 2025, the Court issued an Order again forcing Mayor Rose to do his job and appoint a Special Administrator within 14 days of the ruling. On Dec, 22, 2025, the Mayor appointed City Clerk – Penny Trumpy, to serve as Special Administrator for CVSID. CVSID has yet to file its annual reports for the years 2021 through 2024.
The current lawsuit filed by Kronkosky’s on Nov. 14, 2025, alleges a questionable relationship between CVSID and the counties regarding how CVSID’s taxes are assessed, levied, collected, and transferred to CVSID. The lawsuit describes this relationship as “the County Tax Collectors become the ‘bag man’ enforcing the exaction of illegal taxes and then giving such illegal taxes to the District (the ‘Boss’).” The Spring River Chronicle believes the graphic caption for this article illustrates these relationships perfectly. While the collector is the one who actually collects the taxes, it is the Quorum Court and County Judges who passed the ordinance instructing the Assessors and Collectors to do so, apparently contrary to state law.
For the years of 2023 through 2025, the lawsuit states that CVSID and the counties have violated no less than six laws. The suit contends that CVSID’s violated some, while the counties violated others .
Those violations of CVSID’s cited in the suit are: not creating a levy order to levy CVSID’s annual tax, not filing required newspaper notices about CVSID’s tax, not having or employing a District Assessor for CVSID, and not filing CVSID’s assessment listing, by Dec. 15 of the preceding year, for taxes that CVSID wants the counties to collect in the upcoming year. The county’s violations cited involve not rejecting CVSID’s assessments that were not included in the required assessment listing that CVSID must file on or before Dec. 15 of the preceding year for assessment in the following year.
As described by the Kronkoskys, their lawsuit will be amended to include other activities that the counties have undertaken that they allege don’t comply with the law. The suit contends that both counties have been enacting county tax rate ordinances for years that include assessment rates for CVSID, which are not allowed by law. It also alleges that both counties have been transferring monies collected on CVSID taxes and giving them to CVSID, despite the fact the law requires the counties to withhold those monies.
In essence, for years now, the counties have been asking CVSID what they want the county to set for its annual tax rate. A single piece of paper comes back (as proven in FOIA requests) from CVSID, saying to put them down for 10 percent that year. Without any other work on CVSID’s part, the counties apply 10 percent to the assessment of benefit values that are on the county’s tax system.
These are the same assessments of benefits that are required to be on CVSID’s books–not the county’s tax systems. The county’s tax system calculates the tax, and the county collectors prepare and send out tax statements that include what is essentially the “County assessed” tax for CVSID. The counties do this with nothing more than one piece of paper. Obviously, CVSID reaps the benefits of the counties’ accommodating nature. By having the county do the hard work, CVSID avoids the costs of preparing a levy order, newspaper notices for the levy order, employing a District Assessor, and filing a large list of assessments with the County Clerks. All of these costs and activities are the legal requirements of solely the CVSID. This is in no way the county’s requirement.
Why the counties have apparently assumed the roles of the “bag-man” for CVSID–that is a question for both counties to answer. It appears that the counties should do an about face and modify their 2026 tax rate ordinance to remove any words regarding CVSID assessments–the law clearly doesn’t allow for such. The citizens within both counties should be very concerned that their County Judges and Quorum Courts don’t seem to be following the law regarding various matters of CVSID taxes. These are things that training through the Municipal League provides.
The following is a quote from the Kronkosky’s regarding the suit and a resolution.
The proposed settlement agreement was sent by Kronkosky’s attorney on Jan. 14, 2026, to opposing counsel(s) and Mayor Steven Rose. Below is the proposed settlement agreement, quoted in its entirety, and has been provided to promote a public understanding of the issue that has garnered months of back-and-forth rhetoric by SID Commissioners to both men (Dave Gruger and Mark Kronkosky), who are essentially making certain government officials are doing their jobs and being in compliance with laws of the state.
“My wife and I, through the help and assistance of our attorney, have formulated what we believe to be provisions for a fair settlement agreement to end our latest lawsuit against CVSID and others. The agreement involves, among other things, having the City of Cherokee Village become the owner of CVSID’s facilities, i.e., the rec centers, lakes, parks, and golf courses. The agreement provides a potential funding mechanism (the Kronkosky “plan”) by which the City could assess, in perpetuity, parcels within the City limits for the upkeep and betterment of these facilities. Our community needs government to be lawful in all matters that we allow it to take on – especially when such matters involve the taking of property, whether it’s money or land. When that doesn’t occur, like back in 2018 with reassessments and now again with alleged illegal taxes and misappropriations, it’s perhaps NOW time for a change. The current lawsuit is beginning to move very quickly due to the Plaintiff’s belief that actions have been taken for CVSID’s 2026 taxes that should not have occurred. My wife and I have been property owners within this community since May 2013 and we are interested in its success just as everyone else. Our hope is that the powers to be — CVSID, the Counties, and the City of Cherokee Village really study what we have proposed and find it to be in the best interest of our community. “
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SPECIFICS OFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS (KRONKOSKYS)
1. CVSID agrees to be dissolved by September 1, 2026. The Special Appointed Administrator has the authority to act as the unanimous Board regarding a vote pursuant to AR Code 14-92-237(a)(1) for the District’s dissolution. If the Special Appointed Administrator is relieved of duties before Sept. 1, 2026, the District Board of Commissioners will be bound to all provisions of the settlement agreement executed by the Special Appointed Administrator.
2. Although the City of Cherokee Village, Arkansas is not a party to the current Kronkosky v. CVSID, the City will agree to this proposal as a third-party and be bound by its provisions. The time frame for which this proposal is considered offered by the Plaintiff and valid is determined by either of the two following conditions, whichever occurs first:
a) CVSID and the other parties to this lawsuit, in addition to the City of Cherokee Village, Arkansas, will enter into a settlement agreement compliant with this proposal by April 1, 2026, or
b) The effective date of any Order by any Circuit Court to enjoin and “freeze” any funds of CVSID.
3. CVSID agrees to transfer all of its properties — both real and personal — to the City of Cherokee Village, Arkansas, less its monies (deposits) within financial institutions, prior to executing the settlement agreement.
4. CVSID agrees to forego its 2026 tax levy (a future levy) as part of its dissolution, based on AR Code 14-92-237(a)(1). CVSID agrees to cancel all Settlement Based Assessed Benefits (SBAB) effective for year 2026 and onward, also based on AR Code 14-92-237(a)(1).
5. CVSID agrees to enter into operation, repair, and maintenance contracts with the City of Cherokee Village for real properties conveyed to the City. These contracts will begin on the date of the settlement agreement and extend until December 31, 2026. CVSID will use its current monies (deposits) to fund these contracts.
6. CVSID agrees to terminate its current contracts with various vendors by December 31, 2026, and pay any damages associated with early termination. Current CVSID monies (deposits) may be used for the continuation of vendor contracts until December 31, 2026, and payment of associated contractual damages.
7. Nothing in the settlement agreement will prejudice the City of Cherokee Village’s ability to contract, assume, takeover, or be assigned CVSID contracts.
8. CVSID agrees to refund property owners who “pre-paid” or “paid-off”, hereafter referred to as “pre-payments”, their SBAB as illustrated by examples below:
EXAMPLE #1 – A TAXPAYER’S SBAB IS $5,400, THE SBAB WAS PAID-IN-FULL IN 2022, AND FOR THE DETERMINE OF REFUND THE “PRE-PAYMENT” IS COMPARED TO THE REMAINING BALANCE IF ANNUAL TAX PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN-LIEU-OF THE “PRE-PAYMENT”.
The amortization schedule of a taxpayer’s $5,400 SBAB is based only upon “annual tax payments”. Those calculations are presented below. Annual payments to CVSID would result in a SBAB balance of $4,455.08 at the end of year 2025. The taxpayer would be refunded $4,455.08 per this settlement proposal.
2022 –> $5,400.00 (SBAB) – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $5,400.00)] = $5,184.00
2023 –> $5,184.00 – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $5,184.00)] = $4,955.04
2024 –> $4,955.04 – [ $540.00 – (0,06 * $4,955.04)] = $4,712.34
2025 –> $4,712.34 – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $4,712.34)] = $4,455.08
EXAMPLE #2 – A TAXPAYER’S SBAB IS $5,400, THE SBAB WAS “PAID-IN-FULL” BY A “PRE-PAYMENT” OF $4,712.34 IN 2024, AND FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE SETTLEMENT REFUND PROPOSED HEREIN –THE “PRE-PAYMENT” PAYOFF IS COMPARED TO ANY YEAR, FROM 2022 THROUGH 2025, WHEREBY AN ANNUAL TAX PAYMENT(S) WAS NOT MADE.
2022 –> $5,400.00 (AOB) – [ $540 – (0.06 * $5,400.00)] = $5,184.00
2023 –> $5,184.00 – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $5,184.00)] = $4,955.04
2024 –> $4,955.04 – [ $540.00 – (0,06 * $4,955.04)] – $4,712.34 = 0
Because an annual tax payment was not made in year 2025 – the taxpayer’s “pre-payment” is reduced by $540.00 and by this settlement proposal — the taxpayer is refunded $4,172.34, e.g. ($4,712.34 – $540.00) = $4,172.34.
EXAMPLE #3 – A TAXPAYER’S SBAB IS $5,400, THE TAXPAYER MAKES MULTIPLE “PRE-PAYMENTS” AND A BALANCE ON THE SBAB REMAINS IN YEAR 2025. ALL OF THE TAXPAYER’S “PRE-PAYMENTS” ARE REFUNDED.
2022 –> $5,400.00 (AOB) – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $5,400.00)] = $5,184.00
2023 –> $5,184.00 – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $5,184.00)] -$1,000.00 = $3,955.04
2024 –> $3,955.04 – [ $540.00 – (0,06 * $3,955.04)] -$500.00 = $3,152.34
2025 –> $3,152.34 – [ $540.00 – (0.06 * $3,152.34)] – $800.00 = $2,001.48
No reductions are made due to unpaid annual tax payments of $540.00 and the taxpayer is refunded all “pre-payments” – $2,300.00 that were made. Further, if the taxpayer did not “make” an annual tax payment during the years of 2022 through 2025 — the total “pre-payments” stated above would be reduced by each year’s payment(s), for years 2022 through 2025, that were not made .
9. Both Counties agree to pay CVSID their respective 3 percent collection fees upon assessment payments distributed to CVSID for 2023, 2024, and 2025
10. After both Counties have paid their respective 3% collection fees back to CVSID, CVSID agrees to pay $200,000.00 for attorney fees, court costs, etc., and $40,000.00 as an “enhancement award” to the named Plaintiffs. This compensation proposal is a “one-time” offer only being presented to entice the Defendants to settle this lawsuit in an expeditious manner.
11. We currently estimate the damages to be in excess of $6 million and if CVSID doesn’t forego the 2026 tax assessment — the damages could be in excess of $8 million. If CVSID and the Counties, for which the Plaintiffs have evidence that would suggest the Counties are potentially liable for more than their respective 3% collection fees, do not accept this proposal and the Plaintiff’s prevail in court — the Plaintiff’s will be seeking a recover fee of up to 33% of awarded damages. That recover fee amount, in addition to any and all attorney fees awarded by the court could be in excess of $2.6 million.
To assist the City of Cherokee Village with understanding “How the City might fund continuing operation, repair, and maintenance obligation of facilities conveyed to the City by CVSID” — The Plaintiffs offer the following “assessment plan” that the City might implement by ordinance. Below are proposed steps/actions/procedures that a City assessment ordinance for City-owned “public grounds” (those properties conveyed by CVSID) could “assess”, tax, and fund these conveyed CVSID improvements.
POTENTIAL STEPS AND ACTIONS THAT THE CITY OF CHEROKEE VILLAGE COULD TAKE TO FUND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BY NEWLY CREATED “CITY ASSESSMENTS BY ORDINANCE” FOR CVSID IMPROVEMENTS CONVEYED TO CITY.
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, IT IS ONLY BEING PRESENTED AS A POTENTIAL PLAN FOR FUNDING
1. CITY PUBLISHES ITS INTENT TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC GROUNDS
(Comply with AR Code 14-55-206 & 208 regarding newspaper publication of ordinance.)
2. CITY ADOPTS THE ORDINANCE BY MULTIPLE READINGS TO ESTABLISH THE PURPOSE AND ASSESSMENT MILLAGE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND FOR LOTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS FOR MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC GROUNDS
(Refer to AR Code 14-55-202, AR Code 14-55-102, and AR Code 14-54-601 through 606.)
3. CITY SENDS OUT BILLING STATEMENTS FOR PUBLIC GROUNDS ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING DUE DATE, NOTICE OF LIEN, AND DELINQUENCY CONSEQUENCES
(Refer to AR Code 14-54-603(b).)
4. CITY INSTITUTES COURT PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT LIENS ON DELINQUENT PROPERTIES; COURT RENDERS JUDGMENT
(Refer to AR Code 14-54-604(a).)
5. CITY DELIVERS TO COUNTY CLERK THE LIST OF LIEN JUDGMENTS AGAINST DELINQUENT PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ENTERED AS “DELINQUENT TAXES” FOR COLLECTION
(Refer to AR Code 14-54-604(b)&(c). County Tax Collector receives 5% for collection.)
The Plaintiffs provide these comments and statements regarding the settlement proposals as various solutions for the “problems” that plague CVSID’s ability to “fund” and “maintain” their improvements into the future. Such comments and statements that are offered to solve CVSID’s future problems by the City acceptance of CVSID conveyed improvements are the following:
• The conveyance of CVSID improvements to the City solves the problem of how CVSID’s improvements can be maintained once CVSID’s SBAB is exhausted. CVSID is currently on track to exhaust its SBAB circa 2035.
• The conveyance of CVSID improvements to the City solves the problem of how CVSID’s improvements can be maintained in perpetuity by the City. The City’s assessment ordinance provides perpetuity as long as the City desires to assess.
• Upon the City’s acceptance of CVSID improvements, the City is able to legally enforce any and all policing powers for the CVSID improvements that the City desires to apply, i.e., building codes, laws for public safety, etc.
• Upon the City’s acceptance of CVSID improvements, the City would be able to pursue “bonds” for capital funding expenditures for the improvements.
• Upon the City’s acceptance of CVSID’s improvements, the City could pursue “grants” for funding capital improvements of what would now be “publicly-owned” improvements, not “privately-owned, member-owned” improvements.
• Upon the City’s acceptance of CVSID’s improvements, the City could ensure to its citizens that their taxpayer monies are being utilized with greater efficiency and effectiveness due to the reduction of staffing needs once CVSID is dissolved and other benefits. Such efficiencies could be recognized by the following:
1) A General Manager for CVSID would no longer be needed,
2) Existing city employees who perform accounting / financial tasks could perform duties regarding “assessments” — the preparation and collection of assessment billings, and/or, if the need exists, supplemented with additional staff (or contracted services) to perform duties related to the City’s “assessments”,
3) Employees who work on maintenance of the City’s “public grounds” could also potentially assist in other City maintenance matters. Equipment used by CVSID to maintain its current facilities, once conveyed to the City, could be used on other City projects.
Currently, CVSID is under the control of a Special Administrator who acts as the Board of Commissioners. Cherokee Village SID held its Jan. 16, 2026, commissioner election. The election produced three new commissioner-elects who will take their seats upon the canvassing of the election results and other requirements.
The new commissioner-elects are: Brent Hunstad, with 375 votes; Steve Rorex, with 327 votes; and Michael Myers, with 306 votes. They will serve for four-year terms, ending in Dec. 2029. These three will join the incumbents, Susan Jett and Tony Stallsmith. Both were not candidates for re-election this term.
Other candidates included Jonathan Pillow-232; Al Kemetz -65; Ben Feldman- 115; Tom Trumpy- 114, Jan Madsen 76 and Scott Jones-37,
Perhaps these commissioners will become active again in the future if Mayor Rose determines that his appointed Special Administrator is no longer needed. Let’s hope the four mission statements the Special Administrator enumerated in her acceptance letter are followed to the letter.
The SRC will continue to follow this story and provide complete details as they become available. If a settlement agreement is reached as currently contemplated, the SID could be completely dissolved before 2026 is over.
