Fayetteville council repeals Ordinance 6,800 after city attorney and attorney general flag likely state-law conflict

Fayetteville City Council voted on March 4 to repeal Ordinance 6,800 on the third reading after the city attorney and the Arkansas attorney general advised the council the ordinance was likely preempted by state law.

City Attorney Kit told the council the city had to repeal the ordinance before its scheduled effective date at the end of the month because it “is almost certainly in violation of state law,” citing Arkansas Code Annotated §14-43-608. The attorney general’s opinion was cited by staff as supporting that conclusion.

Councilmembers and members of the public disagreed sharply about the timing. Several public speakers urged the council to postpone repeal until a replacement policy or consumer protections were in place. Yannick Dwire, a Ward 1 resident, told the council he wanted to see a “suite of pro-renter reforms” drafted before repeal so the repeal would not be only “a symbolic gesture.” Billy Cook, another resident, urged the council to continue pursuing consumer protections for renters even if repeal was necessary. Councilmember Moore said she favored postponing until the end of the legislative session so the city could show diligence in developing alternative protections. Councilmember Stafford, Councilmember Turk and others said the city should not put an ordinance into effect that legal counsel said was unlikely to withstand challenge, and they urged repeal.

After public comment and further council discussion — including repeated statements from City Attorney Kit that both his office and the Arkansas attorney general believed the ordinance likely violated state law — the council voted to repeal Ordinance 6,800. The roll call recorded the following votes: Minister Jones — Yes; Mister Stafford — Yes; Doctor Jones — Yes; Miss Moore — No; Mister Weidecker — Yes; Mister Burnham — Yes; Miss Bunch — Yes; Miss Turk — Yes. The motion passed and the repeal was adopted.

Why it matters: Councilmembers emphasized that local officials swore to uphold the state constitution and that the city should not adopt an ordinance that legal counsel and the attorney general deemed unlikely to survive judicial review. Members of the public who opposed repeal said repeal without an immediate replacement would undercut renters; others said the legal risk and likely litigation costs supported repeal now and work on a legally sustainable policy later.

The council did not adopt a replacement ordinance at this meeting. City staff and council members said they will continue work on tenant protections and other housing measures in subsequent meetings.

Votes: The repeal was adopted on third reading; recorded vote as noted above. No implementation date beyond the council action was specified in the discussion other than reference to the original ordinance’s potential effective date at the end of March.