2026 HISID LEVY PROTEST

N CIRCUIT COURT OF CARROLL COUNTY ARKANSAS EUREKA SPRINGS CIVIL DIVISION DELBERT LEE PHILLIPS III, et. Al, as individuals And on behalf of a class of similarly situated Residents of Holiday Island Improvement District No. 1 PLAINTIFFS VS. Case No.: 08WCV-25-15 Case No.: 08WCV-23-119 HOLIDAY ISLAND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 DEFENDANTS And The City of Holiday Island by and through the Mayor Dan Kees THIRD AND 6TH AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiffs Delbert Phillips (“Delbert”), et. Al., as individuals and on behalf a class of similarly situated residents of Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District No. 1 (“HISID”), by and through their attorney, W. Whitfield Hyman of the King Law Group, and for his Complaint brought under Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and Article 16 § 13 of the Arkansas Constitution, against HISID, and to the best of his knowledge and belief at the time of this writing, states and alleges the following: PARTIES,

JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. This case is a merger of two cases, 08WCV-23-119 and 08WCV-25-15, via prior court order mandating their consolidation.

2. Plaintiffs (“Delbert”) are levy-paying individuals residing in Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District No. 1 in Carroll County, Arkansas.

3. Defendant Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District (“HISID”) is a suburban improvement district operating within Carroll County, Arkansas.

4. Defendant City of Holiday Island, through Mayor Dan Kees, a municipality in Carroll County, Arkansas.

5. All matters complained of herein took place in Carroll County, Arkansas.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-13-201.

7. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228(c)(1), the remedy against the levy of taxes shall be by a suit in chancery court; however, with the elimination of chancery court, the Courts have interpreted circuit court to be the proper venue.

8. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228(c)(2) and (d)(1) specify that a suit protesting a tax or levy announced by a suburban improvement district must be brought within 30 days of the date of first publication of the notice.

9. This case is brought in protest of three levies, one enacted in 2023 for the 2024 tax year, one passed in 2024 for the 2025 tax year, and one passed in 2025 for the 2026 tax year.

10. The first case revolves around a levy that was enacted in December of 2023, and a timely protest was filed within 30 days.

11. For the second case, HISID published a corrected publication of notice on or about January 7th, 2025, for the collection of a levy.

12. A previous incorrect publication was posted sometime in December 2024.

13. HISID has since confirmed that they consider the January 7th date to be the first publication notice.

14. For the third tax protest count, the publication was on December 23, 2025.

15. Additionally, there are two counts of illegal exaction dating back to October 12th, 2022.

16. The First illegal exaction count is against HISID and the second illegal exaction count is against HISID and the City of Holiday Island.

17. Section 14-92-224 - Priority of cases – All cases involving the validity of suburban improvement districts or the assessment of benefits and all suits to foreclose the lien for taxes shall be deemed matters of public interest and shall be advanced and disposed of at the earliest possible moment, and all appeals from them must be taken and perfected within thirty (30) days.

18. Therefore, this Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction and venue.

19. Venue is proper pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-60-101. LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20. HISID was incorporated in 1970 by McCollough Oil (MCO Properties). MCO donated infrastructure, including roads and amenities, as well as $8 million, to the district. The initial bonds issued were written off by MCO as a tax benefit. (see Roberts v HISID appeals opinion).

21. Holiday Island Improvement District No. 1 of Carroll County, Arkansas, was formed in 1970 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-92-201 et seq. (1987) and Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-701 et seq. (Supp. 1985).

22. The district (HISID) issued bonds to construct a water system, sewage treatment plant, roads, and recreational facilities. (See Roberts v. HISID). Some of these are currently being paid by a $5.6 million special assessment, with half due on an annual levy billing of $54.25 that 2/3 of parcel owners pay. 1/3 of parcel owners pay an additional fee through a line item on the Water bill named Sewer Debt, based on the volume of water billed, with a rate of $9.25 for the first 1,500 gallons and $2 per additional 1,000 gallons. This results in an inequitable payment burden of 100%. This special assessment was for the wastewater treatment plant. It was also included in the 2011 assessment of benefits conducted by Tom Reed, which resulted in a double charge on AOB for parcel owners.

23. Subsequently to the development of HISID, the project developer, MCO Properties, transferred to the district the ownership of golf courses, tennis courts, marina, yacht club, and other recreational facilities, buffer zones, and an administrative building formerly used as a sales office. (HOLIDAY IS. SUBURBAN IMPROVEMENT DIST. V. WILLIAMS, as 295 Ark. 442 (1988)

24. HISID has continued to levy taxes and collect assessments without properly maintaining statutory compliance regarding assessments, notices, and procedural requirements

25. HISID has failed to maintain and currently does not have a “levy book” that lists what every property has paid since inception. Statute requires this Book per A.C.A. 14-92-225: “(b)(1) The assessor shall inscribe in a book each tract of land and shall place in one column seq. and 14-92-230 (a) (1), When the board of commissioners in a suburban improvement district shall make the levy of taxes, it shall be the duty of the assessor to extend the amount levied and set it opposite each benefit assessed in a column marked “Annual Collection” (2)(A) It shall be the duty of the county clerk of the county to extend the taxes annually upon the tax books of the county until the levy is exhausted. HISID has failed to implement and maintain this levy book, and as such, no levy is valid.”

26. For every parcel, HISID is required to file each year what the existing levy is, how much is collected that year, and the balance. See Ark. Code Ann. 14-92-230.

27. HISID failed to collect the LEVY on an annual basis.

28. The 2025 levy was passed in December 2024, and pursuant to Attorney General Opinion 90 – 242, the Levy must be collected in the year it is passed. See Ark. Code Ann. 14-92-228, and Ark. Code Ann. 25-92-230.

29. HISID failed to pass and publish notice for the 2025 levy in the same year and set off the levy until 2025, thus in violation of the statute and the A.G. opinion.

30. Therefore, as opined in the previous A.G. Opinion, HISID has failed to set a Levy for 2025 and for all preceding years.

31. After modifying the Levy published in November 2023, HISID made material changes to the Levy in March and April of 2024.

32. Still, HISID failed to properly notify property owners of their right to challenge the levy within the statutory 30-day period under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228(d).

33. A protest has been filed; the levy is not finalized until it is adjudicated.

34. It “shall be the duty of the County Clerk of the County to extend the taxes annually upon the tax books of the county until the levy is exhausted.” See Ark. Code Ann. 14-92-230(2)(A).

35. In 2023, for the year 2024 assessment, HISID approved a 7% levy increase with at least the following defects:

36. HISID failed to pass and publish notice of the 2024 levy the same year the levy was collected.

37. The 2024 levy was passed by the HISID board in 2023, in violation of statute and A.G. Opinion.

38. HISID did not publish the percentage increase of the levy in its notice of levy.

39. HISID did not have equalized assessments as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228(a).

40. HISID did not have equalized assessments to ensure compliance with a court-ordered settlement agreements requiring uniform levy percentages for all properties. See Bischoff v. HISID settlement.

41. The levy demonstrated clear violation of the Statutes. See Ark. Code Ann. 14-92-228, and Ark. Code Ann. 25-92-230.

42. HISID continues to collect excessive levies on some parcels knowingly and totally waives 100% of all mandatory levies on others, completely ignoring the equalization mandate, resulting in inequitable financial burdens.

43. In 1983, HISID expanded its board from three to five members, changing the type of board that it has, without filing the required petition with the county clerk and court, the requisite number of signatures, election results, and mailing notices to all property owners. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-202.

44. In or about 1983, the Board of Commissioners of Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District No. 1 (“HISID”) discussed actions related to the selection and election of commissioners and the continuation of assessment authority.

45. Arkansas law in effect at that time required that the party initiating a referendum or election bear the costs of required notices and mailings.

46. During a duly noticed public meeting of the HISID Board of Commissioners, a commissioner suggested that the Holiday Island Homeowners Association (“HOA”) might provide the funds necessary for the required referendum mailings.

47. This suggestion was made despite the absence of statutory authority permitting a private homeowners' association to fund or subsidize a governmental referendum or assessment-related election.

48. Following the discussion, the Commissioners publicly stated that they would “find the funding” and report back at a subsequent meeting.

49. No report, resolution, accounting, or authorization identifying the source of such funding was ever produced, adopted, or entered into the public record.

50. Absence of Proof and Failure of Lawful Completion

51. Upon information and belief, HISID has no documentary evidence that any lawful expenses were incurred for the referendum mailings discussed in 1983.

52. Alternatively, if any expense was incurred, it was paid through undisclosed, unauthorized, or improper means not permitted by Arkansas law.

53. HISID has no proof that the referendum was completed in the manner required by statute, including proof of lawful notice, lawful funding, lawful certification, or lawful validation.

54. The absence of proof of expense and of lawful completion renders the purported referendum legally defective and void. a.B.5 Pattern of Continuity and Control

55. Several individuals involved in the 1983 actions later served as commissioners, officers, or controlling figures within HISID or related entities.

56. This continuity of control supports the inference that the unlawful process was knowingly relied upon and perpetuated to preserve assessment authority in the absence of a lawful foundation.

57. HISID must prove compliance with all statutory requirements for board expansion and ongoing annual notice requirements under the statute that predates Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-240. HISID has failed to reassess benefits in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-225 after “accepting gifts, improvements, or facilities,” or after constructing new facilities, or demolishing or perpetual leasing out of (defacto sales of) significant assets such as the property the cell tower is situated on, recreational facilities, and golf driving range.

58. On December 22, 2025, the Board of Commissioners of Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District No. 1 (“HISID”) purported to set the annual assessment for the 2026 levy year at a special meeting and, on the same date, purported to adopt a district budget

59. HISID thereafter caused to be published a “Notice of Order Levying Tax (Assessment)” stating that the assessment for R-1 Improved property for 2026 was $834.60.

60. The published notice does not disclose, reference, or identify any separate or special assessment for the wastewater treatment plant, including the annual charge of $54.25 previously imposed pursuant to Resolution No. 195 (2008).

61. HISID billing statements for prior levy years, including but not limited to the 2025 billing statement, separately itemize a wastewater-related charge of $54.25 in addition to the primary Assessment of Benefits levy.

62. As a result, the published notice for the 2026 levy year fails to accurately state the assessment actually imposed and collected from property owners.

63. If the $834.60 amount stated in the published notice includes the $54.25 wastewater charge, then the notice is materially misleading because it fails to disclose the existence, purpose, and legal basis of the special assessment component.

64. If the $834.60 amount stated in the published notice does not include the $54.25 wastewater charge, then HISID collected sums in excess of the amount lawfully noticed.

65. Resolution No. 195 (2008) establishes a separate special assessment related to the wastewater treatment plant and associated debt service, operation, and maintenance obligations.

66. Arkansas law does not authorize HISID to combine a special assessment adopted for a specific improvement with a general Assessment of Benefits levy without expressly identifying the components of the levy in the published notice.

67. HISID has further failed to demonstrate that wastewater-related special assessment funds are restricted, segregated, and applied solely to the wastewater system, as required by Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-92-239 and governing bond principles.

68. Instead, HISID has collected assessments under a single published figure while billing and accounting for multiple distinct revenue streams, defeating transparency and traceability of restricted funds.

69. The adoption of the levy and the budget on the same date, without prior disclosure of the component assessments and their respective purposes, deprived property owners of meaningful notice and the opportunity to protest the actual assessments imposed.

70. Each annual collection made pursuant to a defective levy notice constitutes an unlawful exaction.

71. HISID’s failure to properly notice, separately identify, and lawfully collect the special wastewater assessment renders the 2026 levy void or voidable as a matter of law.

72. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting further collection under defective levy notices, as well as restitution of sums unlawfully collected.

73. HISID annually published a single assessment amount in its Notice of Order Levying Tax while billing and collecting multiple distinct assessments under separate accounting categories.

74. For tax year 2023, HISID published a levy of $780.00 for R-1 Improved parcels. The billing issued by HISID itemized the amount as $725.75, designated as an Assessment of Benefits, and $54.25, designated as a Sewer Loan assessment, for a combined total of $780.00.

75. For tax year 2024, HISID again published a levy of $780.00 for R-1 Improved parcels and issued billing statements reflecting the same bifurcated structure consisting of an Assessment of Benefits component and a separate Sewer Loan assessment.

76. For tax years 2025 and 2026, HISID published a levy of $834.60 for R-1 Improved parcels. Billing records for those years reflect the continued separation of charges between an Assessment of Benefits of $780.35 and a Sewer Loan assessment of $54.25, despite the published notice listing only a single amount of $834.60.

77. The published notices for tax years 2023 through 2026 did not disclose that the stated levy amounts consisted of multiple assessments, did not separately identify the Sewer Loan assessment, and did not provide notice of the probable collection of the Sewer Loan assessment as required by law.

78. HISID’s practice of publishing a single levy amount while billing and collecting separate assessments deprived property owners of notice, prevented meaningful protest of individual assessments, and resulted in the commingling and misapplication of assessment funds.

79. As a result, the levies imposed and collected by HISID for tax years 2023 through 2026 constitute illegal exactions beyond its statutory authority and are void.

80. HISID has not maintained or filed statutorily required assessment books showing:

81. Pre- and post-improvement property values;

82. Assessment of benefits and damages for each parcel; and
83. Estimated costs apportioned to property owners.
84. HISID must provide evidence of an assessor(s) appointment(s) and adherence to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-225.
85. Failure to enter a Formal Order for the levy, under A.C.A. § 14-92-228, the board of commissioners is required to enter an order when setting the annual levy formally:
86. This order must be recorded in the official minutes of the BOC meeting and provide complete transparency to property owners.
87. The order must outline the amount of the levy, its purpose, and the calculation method used.
88. In this case, no such order has been entered or recorded in the BOC’s minutes or on file with the Carroll County Clerk.
89. The absence of this formal action means that the levy has not been legally imposed, and any subsequent attempt to collect it is unauthorized and unenforceable.
90. The Board must then enter a written order outlining the details of the levy, including its justification and calculations.
91. This written order must include the amount of the budget, listing what the levy will pay, what the revenue is, and the 10% of the AOB if noted.
92. The order must be recorded in the official minutes of the Board, and the levy shall have been filed with the county and extended to the tax rolls unless a valid exemption applied.
93. However, HISID is less than 5,000 acres and collects its own levy, in violation of state law.
94. The levy shall be assigned by the category of the parcels, noting the amount of levy, the amount of interest, the before and after balance of the AOB per parcel, and the total amount of the AOB, before the levy and after the levy for the district.
95. HISID has not filed a perfected order of levy with the Carroll County clerk or collector, as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228.
96. HISID must provide proof of compliance with the statutory requirement to place assessments on individual tax rolls pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-230.
97. HISID has failed to account for the loss of benefits to property owners resulting from perpetual lease of the land that the commercial cell tower sits on (thus forever depriving owners of any/all benefits of what is probably the most valuable property in HISID).
98. This Parcel is known as Parcel K, and no record is available to show a transfer from Holiday Island Development Corp (HIDC) to HISID.
99. HISID had no authority to grant an easement for any part of Parcel K.
100. With the demolition of the recreational center, yacht club, and official closure (due to safety factors) and abandoning the golf driving range, HISID has failed the statutory requirements to reassess.
101. 101. Sale or Leasing of equipment and infrastructure to district employees without removing from inventory.
102. HISID has an excess of 5100 parcels:
103. HISID is less than 5,000 acres: See Tom Reed Deposition from Bischoff V HISID settlement, entered into evidence by the Defendants at the Defendant’s motion for dismissal. “[A] little bit over 4,500 acres there in the overall Holiday Island Project.” Pg. 30, line 8-17.
104. HISID collects its own levy.
105. HISID is not eligible to collect its own levy, as it does not meet the mandatory statutory acreage requirement under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-230.
106. HISID is required to file annually a Report with the Carroll County Clerk, namely, the Condition of HISID. See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-86-2102.
107. HISID’s collection practices violate statutory mandates requiring assessments to be placed on county tax rolls for proper collection. See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-230.
108. HISID also charges a 25% late fee penalty for delinquent payments, without following the statutorily mandated process of filing with the court before the penalty becomes effective.
109. The levy published by HISID is attached in previous filings and is hereby fully incorporated herein.
110. Note that the Levy was passed in December 2024 and not published until January 7, 2025, for collection in a succeeding year.
111. This is in violation of Attorney General Opinion 90 – 242.
112. For an example of what a published levy notification should look like, see Plaintiffs’ exhibit 4 in amended complaint number 4. COUNTS 1 THROUGH 3: TAX PROTESTS
113. Every paragraph of this complaint is realleged to support these counts, brought under A.C.A. § 14-92-228(c)(1).
114. The Plaintiffs bring these three counts against the separate Defendant HISID.
115. The three counts encompass count 1) the 2024 HISID levy (passed in 2023), count 2) the 2025 levy (passed in 2024), count 3) the 2026 (passed in 2025).
116. The basis for these three counts are the multitude of statutory violations listed in this complaint or otherwise committed by HISID, the violations of court precedent committed by HISID, the violations of law committed by HISID as interpreted in Attorney General opinions cited herein, and the violations of the prior court order from Bischoff v. HISID.
117. According to Plaintiffs’ count, each levy passed by HISID violated in excess of 35 different statutory provisions of Arkansas law.
118. The class of taxpayers that make up each illegal exaction count consist of all taxpayers that were or are subject to the levy tax against the District’s levy for the years of 2024, 2025, and 2026.
119. The classification of this count is a unique statutory challenge similar to that of an illegal exaction, which requires no class certification, nor does it follow the same rules as a class action.
120. Plaintiffs contend this is similar to an illegal exaction suit under Article 16, Section 13 of the Arkansas Constitution. This class of taxpayers is automatically certified as a class, and “because all citizens are parties to the constitutionally created class, the right to opt out as developed under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23 is not applicable”. Worth v. City of Rogers, 351 Ark. 183, 188 (2002). 121. The proposed classes which the Plaintiff seeks to represent are described as follows: “All HISID parcel owners, regardless of category, against whom HISID has enacted a 2024, 2025 or 2026 levy.”

COUNT 4 - ILLEGAL EXACTION FOR ILLEGAL TAX COLLECTION BY HISID

121. Every paragraph of this complaint is realleged to support this count of illegal exaction brought under the Arkansas Constitution, Article 16, Section 13, as a tax protest or levy protest and illegal exaction.

122. For all of the same reasons that each levy was enacted and collected illegally under the tax protest counts, those are the same reasons for the illegal exaction count.

123. However, in addition to the levy, the residents of HISID have been paying illegal fees and an increased levy on the assessment of benefits based on the added value of the wastewater treatment plant bond and water system.

124. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff brings these counts, also as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.

125. The proposed classes which the Plaintiff seeks to represent are described as follows: “All HISID parcel owners, regardless of category, against whom HISID has enacted a 2024, 2025 or 2026 levy.”

COUNT 5 - ILLEGAL EXACTION FOR ILLEGAL COLLECTION AND ILLEGAL SPENDING

This count is brought by all plaintiffs against the City of Holiday Island and Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District.

126. Additionally, this count is brought against the City of Holiday Island to claw back any funds illegally paid to the City in violation of the Arkansas Illegal Exaction law.

127. Holiday Island is a duly incorporated second-class city under Arkansas law, having incorporated in 2020 and been elevated to second-class status in 2022.

128. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the City of Holiday Island or were citizens of Holiday Island during at least a portion of the covered period that pertains to this count.

129. HISID is totally within the boundaries of the City of Holiday Island, except for a strip of land on the north side of Table Rock Lake, which is in Missouri.

130. Parts of Holiday Island, to include the wastewater treatment plant, the water plant, parts of the Road Infrastructure facility and maintenance facility, and the campground, are located outside of HISID proper on ground owned by HISID, which is located in Missouri proper.

131. The population of the City of Holiday Island is estimated to be greater than 2500 residents, making it a City of the First Class. Still, the mayor fails to recognize the total population.

132. Despite its obligations under A.C.A. §§ 14-44-101 et seq. and §14-61-101 et seq., the city has failed to assume statutory responsibilities for municipal services, including fire protection, police protection, public road maintenance, animal wildlife officer, and water/sewer infrastructure. Instead, the City has continued contracting these obligations to HISID, despite HISID's ongoing financial misconduct and without completing a statutorily required reassessment of benefits.

133. Plaintiffs allege the City has paid HISID public funds for these services, while HISID simultaneously charges parcel owners user fees and assessments, amounting to duplicative taxation and due process violations.

134. The mayor and several current City officials, including Wesley Stille, Linda Graves, Suzanne Childers, Barb Kuhn, and Lyn Dumas, some of whom are former HISID commissioners and or individuals who were involved with the committee for incorporation of the city of Holiday Island, who participated in an email chain misleading residents about road ownership while seeking public road funds from Carroll County.

135. This pattern of coordination and concealment constitutes municipal dereliction and violates the principle of fair taxation, transparent governance, and statutory compliance.

136. Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the existing causes of action and remedies in this matter to include the City of Holiday Island.

137. Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District (HISID) Board of Commissioners adopting Resolution 2020-R3, supporting the incorporation of Holiday Island as a 'City.'

138. Despite this, the petition proceeded as a 'Town' without any additional authorization from HISID, creating a legal and procedural discrepancy.

139. The City collected duplicative taxes for services rendered by HISID through an improper use of taxpayer funds under an agreement between the City of Holiday Island and the Holiday Island Suburban Improvement District (HISID) for fire protection services.

140. The deal provided HISID with $50,000 in 2023, $50,000 in 2024, and $100,000 in 2025 for services HISID is already obligated to provide through the assessment of benefits (AOBs) paid by property owners.

141. The city failed to assume services consistent with second-class city obligations.

142. The City’s misuse of mutual aid agreements attempted to shift liability to HISID. 145. Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 96-114 addresses the statutory limits and requirements about fire services provided by Suburban Improvement Districts (SIDs), and the extent of their authority under Arkansas law.

143. HISID and the City of Holiday Island exceeded their statutory powers in establishing fire protection agreements and levies beyond the authorized scope.

144. The agreement between HISID and the City did not have adequate consideration required for a contract.

146. In Arkansas, "adequate consideration" is a foundational element required to support any binding contract.

147. Consideration is defined as something of value exchanged between parties, and it must be sufficient and legal.

148. If one party promises to perform a duty without receiving something of legally adequate value in return, the agreement may be unenforceable due to a lack of consideration.

149. 18. AR Code § 14-53-101: “(1) Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2) of this section, the governing body of a city shall establish fire departments and provide them with proper engines and such other equipment as shall be necessary to extinguish fires and preserve the property of the city and of the inhabitants from conflagration. (2) In lieu of establishing its own fire department under this section, the governing body of a city by ordinance may enter into a contract or interlocal agreement for city fire protection with an existing fire department certified by the Arkansas Fire Protection Services Board.”

150. Holiday Island is not certified as a Fire Department by the Arkansas State Fire Marshall or ADEM.

151. The minutes of HISID and/or City of Holiday Island meetings contain materially relevant public comments by Mayor Dan Kees confirming that the City of Holiday Island has both funded and assumed responsibility for road repairs.

152. A.C.A. 14-92-225 allows governmental entities, such as counties, to contribute funds toward the cost of a Suburban Improvement District's infrastructure project.

153. While it authorizes voluntary financial support, it implicitly requires that such contributions be treated as offsets against any assessments or benefits. It shall have the authority to affect the assessment of benefits and to levy the necessary tax against such assessment of benefits, as prescribed in this subchapter, to provide the revenue for the costs of maintenance and operation.

154. The projected revenue structure of the City of Holiday Island is based on the publicly available budget documents for fiscal years 2025 through 2029.

155. HISID has been conducting property inspections—specifically related to short-term rentals—on behalf of the City of Holiday Island, without receiving compensation or statutory authorization.

156. These inspections are inherently municipal and outside the statutory scope of services permitted for a Suburban Improvement District under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-219 and related statutes.

157. HISID's board acknowledged in their June 24, 2024, meeting that they intend to begin charging the City for these services going forward.

158. The city and HISID have been working on a plan to transition roads already declared public and under the city's control in HISID as the city repaves or resurfaces those roads.

159. Most of Stateline Drive, Hawk Drive, and Hawk Lane have already been transitioned.

160. Also, the roads (streets) south of Highway 23, which encompass basically the Park and the Bluffs, are now city roads.

161. The city is also soliciting bids to resurface about 7 miles of roads in 2026.

162. Once all these roads are transitioned to the city, the city will be responsible for approximately 10% of Holiday Island roads.

163. This minimal effort violates statutory requirements for 2nd class cities. 166. All of the roads within HISID are public roads.

164. All public roads are the responsibility of either the county or the city in which they are physically present. See A.C.A. § 27-72-316.

165. It is the responsibility of the City of Holiday Island to take over maintenance of these roads, and using any HISID money or portion of the AOB for public road maintenance is a violation of Arkansas law.

166. There is currently a task force working on the long-range plan for roads. Although there are some significant issues to research and resolve, the goal is for the city to take over all the streets by 2027.

167. The proposed classes which the Plaintiff seeks to represent are described as follows: “All HISID residents who have paid any levy to HISID from October 12th, 2022 to present.”

168. The City of Holiday Island is a municipal corporation organized under Arkansas law and is required to provide municipal services, including fire protection, in compliance with statutory authority and constitutional limitations.

169. Fire protection services funded by municipal taxes or public funds must be lawfully provided, properly documented, and supported by adequate consideration.

170. The City has levied taxes and expended public funds for fire protection services while disclaiming direct operational responsibility and relying upon arrangements with HISID and related entities.

171. The city relied upon fire protection services purportedly provided through HISID and related fire entities without ensuring lawful certification, reporting, or accountability.

172. The city relied upon fire protection services purportedly provided through HISID and related fire entities without ensuring lawful certification, reporting, or accountability.

173. The city relied on fire service representations and aggregated reporting data that included runs occurring outside City and HISID boundaries.

174. The City accepted, relied upon, and benefited from NFIRS reporting submitted under HISID’s NFIRS number, despite knowing or having reason to know that such reporting included non-municipal and rural fire district runs.

175. The City did not require independent NFIRS reporting, segregated accounting, or transparent allocation of fire protection costs as a condition of public funding.

176. The City funded or relied upon fire protection services provided by entities that were not certified as municipal fire departments during relevant periods.

177. The City failed to ensure that the fire protection services funded by City taxes complied with the Arkansas State Fire Marshal certification requirements.

178. The city thereby expended public funds without lawful assurance that the services provided met statutory standards.

179. The city entered into interlocal arrangements and funding mechanisms with HISID purporting to support fire protection services.

180. In 2023, the city allocated approximately $50,000 to such arrangements but withheld approximately $45,000 to offset other obligations, including law-enforcement contracts.

181. In 2024, the city again allocated approximately $50,000.

182. In 2025, the city increased funding to approximately $100,000.

183. In 2026, the city plans to allocate approximately $100,000 for the same purpose.

184. During each of these years, the total annual cost of fire protection services exceeded approximately $600,000.

185. The city has represented that its limited contributions constituted adequate consideration for fire protection services.

186. The city’s contributions did not exceed approximately 8.5% of the actual annual fire protection costs.

187. Such nominal contributions do not constitute adequate consideration for municipal fire protection services.

188. Public funds expended without adequate consideration constitute illegal exactions under Arkansas law.

189. The City failed to maintain segregated accounts or accounting records demonstrating how municipal fire protection funds were used.

190. The City did not require HISID or any related entity to provide itemized expenditures attributable to City funds.

191. The City cannot demonstrate that municipal funds were used exclusively for lawful municipal fire protection purposes.

192. The City imposed and collected municipal taxes while expending public funds for uncertified, inadequately documented, and illusory fire protection services.

193. Taxes collected for unlawful purposes constitute illegal exactions.

194. The City’s actions deprived taxpayers of transparency, accountability, and constitutional protections.

195. The amount of this illegally spent funds is yet to be determined.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

196. Numerosity: The members of the proposed class are so numerous that joinder of more than 5,000 unique parcel owners is impracticable.

197. The names and addresses of persons who comprise the proposed class can be readily ascertained from HISID records, and notice to these class members can be provided from information from HISID’s database.

198. Commonality: There are common questions of law or fact common to the class. Those questions include, but are not limited to: (1) Whether HISID’s levy was illegally enacted or will be collected unlawfully (2) Whether the levy was published correctly, and (3) If HISID is allowed to collect a levy, how much can that levy be?

199. Typicality: The claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class: The Plaintiff and Class own a variety of 11 different categories of Parcels.

200. Adequacy: The Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

201 There are no conflicts of interest or other impediments that would render the Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation inappropriate.

202. The Plaintiffs are passionate about forcing HISID to comply with the law, are knowledgeable about the statutes and rules regarding HISID, are frequent observers of HISID’s board of directors’ meetings, and display a sufficient level of interest in this cause of action, brought this matter to the attention of Plaintiff’s counsel and have the ability to assist in this litigation.

203. The experience of Plaintiff’s counsel is 12 years and includes three prior class action litigations.

204. Predominance: The questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

205. Plaintiff is alleging a common wrong that affects all Class members. 209. Preliminary and common issues presented herein can be resolved before any individualized issues.

206. Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy: A cohesive and manageable Class exists.

207. There will be no difficulty in the management of this case as a class action.

208. The only method to adjudicate the claims of the Class members would be through numerous separate trials with potential for different and inconsistent results.

209. By contrast, a class action can provide a single forum for all the Class members’ claims to be addressed fairly and equitably.

210. Each of the three objections to the levy were filed within 30 days of the defective publication of this levy pursuant to the statutory requirements set forth in 14-92-228(1) and (2).

211. First, it is illegal for HISID to enact any levy, even if there is no increase in the levy, if HISID has been derelict in complying with the required statutes that determine the amount of levy that should be paid.

212. HISID, among other illegal acts, was required to do a reassessment of the AOB after demolishing, closing, and constructing facilities, and has failed to do so. A.C.A. 14-92-225.

213. HISID is also required to publicize the levy, file a copy of the order with the clerk, and failed to meet the requirements to satisfy legal publication. A.C.A. 14-92-228.

214. A.C.A. 14-92-228(d)(1) states the commissioners shall, promptly after entry of an order levying the tax, publish once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in some newspaper having general circulation in the district, a notice setting forth the order of levy and warning all persons affected by it that it shall become final unless suit is brought to contest it ….”
215. The levy for 2024 is the same as the levy from 2025 and 2026; however, the levy from 2024 was not equalized across all defined categories of property owners. 97.A.C.A. 14-92-228(a)(1) requires equalization, and HISID has also previously agreed to equalization in prior court settlement orders from previous litigation. (Bischoff v HISID).
216. Because the levy from 2024 was illegal for not being equalized, the levy from 2025 and 2026 are unlawful for the same reasons.
217. Some of the categories of parcels were issued a court-ordered “credit” towards their assessment due to previous litigation. (Bischoff v HISID). 100. When increasing the levy for 2024, each parcel owner was mandated a flat 7% increase, which HISID did not take into account the previous credit adjustment awarded to those parcel owners. (Bischoff v HISID).
218. As a result, numerous categories of parcels had their levy increased at a disproportionately higher rate than the others.
219. If this tax protest is treated the same way as an illegal exaction, The Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Class, are entitled to all the protections afforded by the virtue of Article 16 § 13 of the Arkansas Constitution, including an equitable disgorgement by HISID of all monies illegally exacted with said monies placed in a common fund and distributed as equity dictates to those similarly situated and to cover attorney fees and costs.
220. 103. Illegal Exactions do not require class certification and are automatically certified as a class based on their description. I. The Assessment was Not Equalized; Therefore, the Levy was Invalid.
221. The levy was not equalized, as required in 14-92-228(a)(1).
222. Equalized means everyone pays the same percentage, or “in proportion,” which is why the Defendant is supposed to publicize the percentages, not the raw amount owed.
223. HISID used last year’s levy (2023) as the basis for the 7% increase.
224. Assessment of benefits is different from the annual levy payment (or “annual assessment payment” as incorrectly referred to by the board in other documents), and the Board appears to be conflating the two.
225. The board minutes show an approved “increase assessments at a rate of 7%,” however, a flat 7% increase in assessments is illegal for several reasons.
226. Firstly, any increase in the assessment is illegal without conducting a formal reassessment of benefits. See A.C.A. 14-92-225.
227. This requires hiring an assessor and a variety of other statutory requirements that were not satisfied. Id.
228. Second, a flat 7% increase from in the “annual assessment of payment,” or “levy,” results in an unequal percentage paid by the varying categories of parcel owners.
229. To obtain the 2024 annual assessment or levy payment numbers, HISID simply increased the 2023 levy by 7%.
230. The basis of the 2023 levy payment was a combination of assessment and interest.
231. HISID cannot increase the levy based on interest and the assessment; they can only increase the levy based on the assessment of benefits: “(2) The tax is to be paid by the real property in the district in proportion to the amount of the assessment of benefits thereon…” Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228.
232. This is important because four categories of parcels are paying on the principal owed, and seven are not.
233. Each year, the assessed benefit declines for four categories of parcels and remains the same for seven of the others.
234. This 7% flat increase resulted in a 6.42% increase in levy for 7 of the parcel categories, an 8.66% increase for 3 of the categories, and an 8.97% increase for one of the categories.
235. In section 1(d) of the 2012 settlement agreement with HISID, it states: “The percentage of levy against the Assessment of Benefit will be the same for every lot within HISID.”
236. This is in addition to the statutory requirement of equalization. “The tax is to be paid by the real property in the district in proportion to the amount of the assessment of benefits thereon…” Ark. Code Ann. § 14-92-228. 118. Here, “in proportion” logically means to pay the same percentage towards the annual levy.

II. HISID’S CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS IS INACCURATELY INFLATED

237. A.C.A. 14-92-225 - “Assessment of benefits and damages (a)(1) In the event the board of commissioners of a suburban improvement district shall have voted to accept any offer of gift, shall have voted to purchase any improvement or facility, or shall have voted to construct any improvement or facility, it shall thereupon appoint an assessor to assess the benefits which will accrue to the real property within the district from the acceptance of the gift of improvement or facilities, the purchase of the improvement or facilities, or the construction of the improvement or facilities.”
238. HISID ordered the construction of a new recreational center last year and did not complete another assessment of benefits.
239. If HISID were to perform a statutorily required assessment of benefits, it would be reduced substantially.
240. The following are a few examples of property that are included in the assessment of benefits, which should not be included.
241. The $625,000 cell phone tower is no longer under the control of the SID, and therefore no longer a benefit from which an assessment may arise.
242. The Cell Tower next to the fire station was leased out for $625,000 on a perpetual lease, thus removing it from further benefit to HISID property owners.
243. The Yacht Club Building, integral to the Assessment of Benefits (AOB), was demolished without any adjustment to the assessment.
244. The closure of the Driving Range at the 18H Golf Course, and the demolition of the Recreational Center Building. The sale of significant equipment assets occurred without issuance of corresponding amendments to the property owner’s assessment of liability balances.
245. HISID should have reassessed the benefits when the statutory triggers occurred.
246. HISID did not reassess the benefits.
247. If HISID had reassessed the benefits, the plaintiffs could have objected to the value assigned to the public roads, currently about $9.6 million, which should be $0 since the streets are public and not a private benefit of HISID.
248. The wastewater treatment facility, currently valued at over $18 million, should not exceed the bond that was owed.
249. As the Plaintiffs will demonstrate, it should already be paid off and worth $0 towards the AOB.
250. The “resource management”, which is assigned $89,000 in the AOB, is not something that may be assessed as a benefit.
251. The 9-hole golf course, the 18-hole golf course, various buildings, fire department, land, and literally everything else would be assigned a $0 legal benefit towards the AOB due to their age being over 30 years, the bonds associated with them being satisfied, and the private developers having gifted them for no cost to HISID after paying off the bonds.
252. This would leave HISID with no AOB to pay except the $7.28 million bond, reducing the AOB from its current approximate $48 million to $7.28 million. 135. HISID is also “double” or even “triple” collecting on sewer bonds. 136. HISID has collected these varying fees for such an extended period that it is mathematically impossible for a third of the lots not to have already completely paid off the original $7.28 million bond.
253. The total amount paid by residents via their monthly water bill and annual bond bill exceeds the amount owed on the sewer bond.
254. For example, HISID issued a sewer bond of approximately $7.28 million USD (including service fees and interest over 20 years) for the construction of a wastewater treatment facility, which it began collecting in 2007.
255. Each parcel owner must pay their fair share towards that sewer bond every year.
256. In what the plaintiffs call sewer group A, approximately one-third of parcels pay zero dollars toward the sewer bond.
257. In what the plaintiffs call sewer group B, another approximate one-third of parcels pay approximately $54.25 per year towards the sewer bond. This amount paid by sewer group B comes straight from an addon published in the annual levy, in addition to the rest of the levy.
258. Sewer group B has, over the last 13 years, starting in 2011, paid about 1.325 million toward the sewer bond.
259. Finally, another approximate one-third of parcels, referred to by the plaintiffs as sewer group C, pay the same $54.25 and an additional amount on their water bill that is dedicated to paying the bond’s debt service.
260. Annually, sewer group C pays $54.25 towards the bond’s debt on the annual levy bill, which over the past 13 years equals about 1.325 million dollars.
261. Four types of parcels (R1 paved, R1 gravel, R2, C, and Timeshares) make up sewer group C.
262. The parcels in sewer group C are connected to the sewer plant.
263. The additional payment from sewer group C comes from a monthly line item found on the water bill.
264. This monthly line item is based on the amount of water usage and varies for each parcel based on the meter readings.
265. According to the annual audited budget documents published by Landmark Auditing Firm, as requested by HISID, the total debt service amount collected over the past 13 years is $7,037,095. However, we approximate that the actual number is higher as collections for the bond began in 2007.
266. HISID’s $7,037,095 debt service number from the last 13 years does not include the annual $54.25 paid by 2/3 of the parcels.
267. The $54.25 from approximately 3,760 parcels in sewer groups B and C over the last 13 years would be $2.65 million.
268. The total of $2.65 million plus a $7.037 million monthly debt service fee amounts to $9.686 million over the past 13 years alone, on a maximum bond debt of $7.28 million over the 2007-2028 life of the bond.
269. Using this metric alone, HISID has collected more than $2.6 million over what they are legally allowed to collect towards the bond debt. 155. It is generally known that during the first four years of collections, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 $154,000 worth of debt service interest payments were made each year. 156. Any amount collected over the value of the bond should be refunded.
270. HISID illegally charges a 6% annual interest fee on the benefit of having the wastewater treatment facility.
271. The wastewater treatment facility is also assigned a benefit in the Assessment of Benefits for $18 million.
272. It is illegal and improper to assess a $18 million benefit to something that is already bonded to be worth $7.28 million.
273. However, HISID illegally charges two-thirds of the parcels (roughly 3,760 parcels) an additional 6% of $18 million in the annual levy.
274. This results in an additional $1,000,000 being charged toward the sewer bond each year since 2014.
275. Over the last 12 years, that adds up to about $14 million.
276. HISID is legally allowed to collect operations costs for maintenance and service to run the wastewater treatment facility.
277. However, HISID pays for operations costs, salaries, and maintenance from monthly user fees on the water bill for “water” and “sewer” usage, which have not yet been included in the calculations.
278. From 2011 to 2024, HISID collected over $12.128 million and spent $10.654 million, leaving a net profit of $1.474 million.
279. Therefore, HISID illegally collected an additional $1.474 million over its cost of operations. Suburban improvement districts cannot turn a profit and must feed this money back into the budget for the following year.
280. Over the past 13 years, the $1.474 million should have been applied to the water department budget, the bond, or decreasing the levy associated with the water system or wastewater treatment facility, but it was not. Finally, the combined water and sewer systems provide an $8.224 million benefit.
281. Parcels without a water connection are not being charged all the fees they should be, creating an inequality in violation of prior binding agreements in Bischoff v HISID, as well as Arkansas statutes.
282. The maximum amount HISID can charge or increase is based on the assessment of benefits.
283. Therefore, there cannot be a tax increase. III. There is No Order Enacting the Levy, and The Publication of the Alleged Order Is Defective
284. The published notification did state the raw amount of money that would be owed by the different types of property owners.
285. All HISID did was publish a notice listing the dollar amounts they were charging per category, as no order had been entered.
286. The Publication quoted November 20th, 2023, as the date that the order was enacted.
287. However, according to the minutes of the meeting of November 20th, 2023, there was no order enacted that set a levy. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 to the 4th amended complaint, November 20th, 2023 HISID Meeting.
288. At the November 20th meeting, the 2024 budget was discussed and approved.
289. At the November 13th, 2023, meeting, the HISID board did not enact an order. Still, the minutes include the following statement: "...the motion to increase assessments at a rate of 7% was approved unanimously." See Exhibit 3 to Plaintffs’ amended complaint 4, November 13th, 2023 HISID Meeting Minutes.
290. No ordinance, order, or resolution was entered into the record of the HISID Board of Commissioners during the Nov. 13, 2023, meeting. To date, no resolutions, ordinances, or orders have been enacted during regular business meetings by HISID No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant” or HISID, that enact a levy for 2024.
291. HISID has failed to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of entering into its records an ordinance, order, invoice, or resolution setting the levy.
292. A.C.A. 14-92-228(d)(1) states the commissioners shall, promptly after entry of an order levying the tax, publish once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in some newspaper having general circulation in the district, a notice setting forth the order of levy and warning all persons affected by it that it shall become final unless suit is brought to contest it.”
293. The published notification was statutorily defective. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s 4th amended complaint, Notification.
294. The published notification did not state the percentage increase of the levy, nor did it state the levy percentage.
295. The published notification did state the raw amount of money that would be owed by the different types of property owners.
296. HISID did not publish the order because no order was entered.
297. The Publication quoted November 20th, 2023, as the date that the order was enacted.
298. However, according to the minutes of the meeting of November 20th, 2023, there was no order enacted that set a levy. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 to the 4th amended complaint, November 20th, 2023 HISID Meeting.
299. At the November 20th meeting, the 2024 budget was discussed and approved.
300. At the November 13th, 2023, meeting, the HISID board did not enact an order. Still, the minutes include the following statement: "...the motion to increase assessments at a rate of 7% was approved unanimously." See Plainiff’s Exhibit 3 to the 4th amended complaint, November 13th, 2023 HISID Meeting Minutes.
301. No ordinance, order, or resolution was entered into the record of the HISID Board of Commissioners during the Nov. 13, 2023, meeting. LEGAL DEFECTS OF THE 2025 LEVY ORDER AND BUDGET
302. The same factual defects from the 2024 levy occurred during the faulty enaction of the 2025 levy.

LEGAL DEFECTS OF THE 2026 LEVY ORDER AND BUDGET

303. On December 17, 2025, HISID conducted a Special Meeting limited by agenda to a first reading of the proposed 2026 budget.
304. At that meeting, commissioners acknowledged that the proposed budget was incomplete and subject to material post-meeting revisions.
305. No finalized or stable budget was made available to the public prior to or during the December 17, 2025, Special Meeting, in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-109 and § 25-19-106.
306. On December 22, 2025, HISID conducted a Regular Meeting combining the second reading of the 2026 budget with approval of the 2026 levy.
307. HISID approved the 2026 levy despite unresolved judicial challenges to the 2024 and 2025 levies pending before this Court (Case Nos. 08WCV-23-119 and 08WCV-25-15).
308. On December 23, 2025, HISID filed a copy of the 2026 budget with the Carroll County Clerk reflecting revisions not fully deliberated in a public meeting, contrary to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-86-210 and 14-92-239.
309. On December 23, 2025, HISID published notice of a levy intended for collection.
310. The levy publication did not include a resolution authorizing the levy.
311. The publication did not state the total amount to be collected.
312. The publication did not state the total amount of funds necessary to meet the district budget.
313. Property owners were deprived of the ability to determine whether the levy was consistent with a balanced budget.
314. The levy was not passed in the same year it was collected. HISID HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY INCREASING THE AOB EVERY YEAR SINCE 2014
315. In 2014, the total AOB was 43,922,278; in 2022, HISID had the AOB value listed as $48,309,187.
316. To increase the AOB, HISID has to do the following, according to A.C.A. § 14-92-227: b) (1) “The reassessment shall be filed with the county clerk of the county.” A) (i) The secretary of the board of commissioners shall give notice of its filing by publication in the newspaper with specific language outlined in “Notice is hereby given that the reassessment of benefits and damages of District Number has been filed in the office of the county clerk of County, and it is open to inspection. All persons wishing to be heard on the reassessment will be heard by the commissioners and the assessor of the district between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. at…” (B)(i) “The secretary shall send a copy of the notice by certified letter to each owner of realty…”
317. There are more requirements requiring a hearing; however, HISID has NEVER filed a reassessment with the county clerk since at least the conclusion of the Bischoff v. HISID lawsuit in 2014.
318. The illegal increases alone for 2022 equal an additional $263,000 paid for that year.
319. All of these payments on the illegal increases of the AOB since 2014 to present, or at the very least 2022 to present, should be used to reduce the amount owed toward the AOB.
320. When setting the 2023 levy, HISID set a budget and then set its annual levy.
321. In setting the 2024, 2025 levy, HISID set their annual levy and then set their budget.
322. This process was backward compared to what is required by statute and, therefore, illegal. 210. In 14-92-219(11)(B)(ii)(a) and (b) "The district may levy and collect fees and require licenses as determined appropriate to discharge the responsibilities of the district...Any fees, charges, and licenses shall be based upon a schedule set forth by the district..." COUNT 6: WRIT OF MANDAMUS
323. Plaintiff reinstates all previous and subsequent paragraphs into this count as if restated verbatim.
324. A writ of mandamus can be used to direct an improvement district to act. (A.C.A. § 14-88-101).
325. This count is brought under A.C.A. § 16-115-101 and sequentially, by the Plaintiffs against HISID.
326. It is evident for all of the reasons previously stated, but most blatantly, the construction of a new facility requires HISID to complete an assessment or reassessment of benefits.
327. Therefore, we request that the court issue a writ of mandamus to HISID to complete a new assessment of benefits. PRAYER FOR RELIEF: Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:
328. Declare the 7% increase in the annual amount charged by HISID that began for the 2024 fiscal year and continued into 2025 as unlawful and unjust as a violation of the required equalization and/or the illegally increased levy without a proper reassessment.
329. The court orders a new assessment or reassessment of benefits before HISID authorizes or enforces the 2024 or 2025 or 2026 levy or any future levy.
330. Grant an injunction and direct the Defendant that they may not authorize or enforce an annual levy until the Defendant so conducts a lawful, complete assessment or reassessment of benefits before Levy.
331. Grant an injunction to direct the Defendant that they may not collect or assess late penalties on the 2024, 2025, 2026 or any future levies until such order levying such tax becomes final after all timely challenges filed within 30 days of publication of such tax have been litigated.
332. The Plaintiff requests attorney fees and costs.
333. Declaratory relief that HISID has violated the numerous statutes listed in this complaint.
334. As this action seeks declaratory relief pursuant to ARCP Rule 57 and Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101 et seq., this action should be advanced upon the docket of this court for early disposition.
335. Provide any further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
336. The Plaintiffs request that the entire 2026, 2025 and 2024 levy be declared illegal and abolished, and that the Court order any amounts paid to be returned or not collected.
337. The Court find that any illegally exacted or spent funds be returned to the class.
338. A.C.A. 14-92-228(d)(1) states “[the levy] shall become final unless suit is brought to contest it within thirty (30) days of the date of first publication of the notice.”
339. Therefore, we request that the court immediately prevent HISID from collecting this 2024 and 2025 and 2026 levy, or any future levies.
340. Suppose the Court does not grant complete relief.
341. In that case, Plaintiff requests that all increases from the 2023 levy be found to be illegal and a refund issued to all parcel owners due to the lack of equalization as required by statute and the other legal deficiencies described in this complaint.
342. HISID has been illegally increasing the AOB, and therefore any extra money paid into HISID from these illegal increases should be credited against the AOB or refunded to the plaintiffs.
343. Provide any further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
344. Plaintiffs also request an equitable disgorgement by HISID and the City of all monies illegally exacted, collected, or attempted to be gathered with the illegal new levies. These monies should be placed in a common fund and distributed as equity dictates to those similarly situated, with a portion allocated to cover attorney fees and costs and an amount for the named plaintiffs.

Respectfully Submitted Delbert Phillips, et. Al.

By: /s/W. Whitfield Hyman

Attorney for Plaintiffs W. Whitfield Hyman,

AR BAR#: 2013237 King Law Group, PLLC

300 North 6th Street

Fort Smith, AR 72901

Phone: (479) 782-1125

Fax: (479) 316-2252

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, W. Whitfield Hyman, state on oath that I have served the foregoing pleading on the Defendants’ Counsel’s office below via e-file on this 22nd day of January, 2026. Matt Bishop Justin Eichmann Gabrielle Gibson Thomas N. Kieklak