Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Little Rock repeals extraterritorial planning authority under state Act 314
Summary
The Board of Directors adopted an ordinance repealing the city's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) in Pulaski County to comply with Act 314 of 2025, shifting land-use authority beyond city limits to Pulaski County and the Quorum Court.
The City of Little Rock Board of Directors on Sept. 2 voted to repeal the city’s planning jurisdiction in unincorporated areas of Pulaski County to comply with Act 314 of 2025. The ordinance was read three times and approved on final reading.
City planning staff explained that the change removes the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction — the three-mile area beyond city limits where the city previously exercised zoning and enforcement authority. "It takes that away, so anything that happens beyond our borders is not our responsibility anymore," Marissa Jordan, planning department staff, told the board.
Why it matters: repealing the ETJ transfers land-use oversight for those areas to Pulaski County and the Quorum Court. Board members raised questions about consequences for properties that had been required to come into compliance under city rules, including commercial activity along Highway 10 that was previously limited by city enforcement; planning staff confirmed such matters will now fall to Pulaski County.
The ordinance was presented as three readings during the meeting; after the final reading the board approved the repeal. The transcript records the final action as "Ayes have it." The ordinance title in the record cites compliance with Act 314 of 2025.
Discussion included clarifying the scope of authority change (three-mile ETJ removal) and who will now handle enforcement and zoning decisions — Pulaski County and the Quorum Court. The board did not adopt any separate mitigation measures or transitional rules at the meeting; the action was a repeal to align city code with the state law.
Board members and staff noted that properties previously required to change uses to conform with city standards would be subject to county review going forward. Planning staff offered to provide additional guidance as residents and property owners seek clarity on how the change will affect specific sites.
The board did not record a roll-call of individual votes in the transcript; the final reading passed as recorded by the clerk. No further follow-up action or timeline for implementation was specified during the meeting.
