Commissioners considered a resolution to restructure the Pulaski County Community Development Commission and transfer the Building Department into the CDC; the proposal prompted extended public comment and a motion to table the item.
The matter is significant because speakers argued the change would shift authority from elected county officials to a quasi-governmental CDC board and that transfer of oversight could affect how projects such as commercial solar, battery storage and other developments are reviewed and permitted.
The county’s proposed resolution would merge planning, building and community development functions into a single department (the Community Development Commission), amend board membership and transfer staff positions (APC and BZA staff) into the CDC. The proposal included a December 1 start date to allow time for job descriptions and a smooth transition.
Several commissioners, staff and residents spoke at length. One commissioner and multiple residents said the move would “eliminate” the Building Department and place significant permitting authority with an unelected CDC director; residents warned the change would limit commissioners’ oversight and cited recent large-scale renewable projects (Mammoth Solar and others) as a reason to preserve direct elected oversight. One speaker noted alleged conflicts and said the CDC director did not live in Pulaski County and had a conflict of interest related to commercial solar; that director disputed the claim, saying his role had been advisory and focused on economic development agreements and ordinance research rather than drafting zoning findings.
County staff and one commissioner argued the consolidation would reduce redundancies, improve coordination between zoning and building services and help the department function more efficiently; supporters said the change could speed permitting and reduce administrative friction. A county attorney/staff member said the item was subject to legal review and, after discussion, the board rescinded the initial motion, then made and approved a motion to table the resolution for further consideration.
No structural change was adopted during the meeting; the motion to table passed on a voice vote.