Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Garfield council to call special meeting to review proposed Performance Services water agreement
Summary
Council members agreed to schedule a special meeting after the city attorney reviews a proposed service agreement with Performance Services. Residents and a Benton County water adviser urged water-system improvements as the city reported a 21.79% unaccounted-for water loss in June.
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Garfield City Council voted July 8 to schedule a special meeting after the city attorney reviews a proposed service agreement with Performance Services, following public remarks urging investment in the town’s water system.
Mayor Gary Blackburn said the council is considering a service agreement intended to address system needs; Donnie Chambers addressed the council to answer questions about the proposed contract. Residents Trenton Denief and James Jolly and Benton County Water Advisory Committee member Douglas Sutton told the council that improvements will be necessary to meet future community needs. The council’s motion to call a special meeting, made by Council Member Kitterman and seconded by Council Member Rambo, passed unanimously.
The water department reported a June unaccounted-for water loss of 21.79% and provided the June 2025 Systems Total Report to the council, a figure council members discussed in context of future capital or service improvements. Mayor Blackburn also said the ongoing water system audit remains in progress and that the city is awaiting an update from the CPA. Separately, the mayor reported difficulties with a subcontractor on the standpipe project; the subcontractor will not be used for vault construction, indicating an upcoming contractor change for that work.
Council members did not adopt the Performance Services agreement at this meeting; instead they directed that the city attorney review the proposed contract and return recommendations, and they will meet separately to consider it. The motion to set a special meeting was procedural and did not itself authorize contract execution.
