Pulaski County commissioners and county staff spent significant time discussing a proposal to reorganize community development services and the building department, including staffing changes and shifting some budget lines out of county general funds.
The conversation centered on two proposed staffing options — both keeping the same total number of full-time roles on paper while repackaging responsibilities so one position would function as a full-time building inspector and another would be a part-time office administrator — and on whether a project coordinator or reclassified project position should be added. Department leaders and several commissioners urged caution, noting questions about legal authority, prior notice and where funding would be drawn from.
Why it matters: commissioners said the reorganization could change who controls job descriptions and budgets, move some expenses out of county general into restricted fund 11/12 funds, and affect permit, planning and economic development work that the county says supports growth and assessed-value increases.
Board members and staff did not take a final vote to merge or reassign departments during the meeting; rather, the discussion produced a series of questions and suggested next steps, including seeking clear legal advice and better communication with affected boards.
County staff member Carla, who spoke repeatedly about day-to-day workload and the use of part-time and full-time positions, said the reorganization proposals on paper would not create new positions but would shift duties. Carla said the county currently has two full-time positions in her department and had requested a third; under the proposals, she said, the department would effectively remain at four full-time-equivalent positions overall but with different role titles and duties.
Carla said she is concerned about the timing and about whether the county has followed required processes. She said she has not been provided earlier drafts of the budget changes affecting her department and expressed frustration that commissioners or staff did not consult with her before circulating the proposal.
Multiple commissioners and other speakers raised legal and procedural concerns. One commissioner said the plan had been discussed briefly in an executive session but that the public-facing detail and outreach to affected boards had been insufficient. Several commissioners said the county’s attorney should review any structural change before any personnel action is taken, and one explicitly warned about potential legal problems if the county moved ahead without counsel.
Speakers also discussed funding sources: a commissioner noted that the reorganization would move some of Carla’s budget out of county general fund and into fund 11/12, which would change where the costs appear in county accounting and could have downstream effects on county general fund balances. Another commissioner and staff member emphasized that offices like the county development office and Carla’s office generate permitting and development work that can contribute to assessed-value growth and economic development, and therefore cutting personnel there could have long-term fiscal consequences.
By the end of the discussion commissioners proposed several next steps rather than a decision: (1) seek written legal advice regarding whether the county can change job descriptions and reporting lines in the proposed way; (2) ensure the affected advisory boards (planning commission, APC, VZA) and department heads receive clear written notice and have an opportunity to comment; and (3) provide a clearer budget comparison showing realized savings and expense shifts before any reclassification or consolidation is adopted.
No motion to merge the departments or to change the job descriptions was passed during the meeting. The discussion closed with commissioners saying they would not implement changes without attorney review and more detailed budget information.
The conversation also referenced Senate Bill 1 and prior moratorium discussions (battery storage was discussed historically), with several participants saying legal clarity is needed before moving ahead with structural changes that could implicate statutory responsibilities or interoffice authority.
Looking ahead: commissioners asked staff to return with more documentation, legal review and outreach to affected boards before any personnel or structural change is scheduled for implementation or adoption.