Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Etj topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill to curtail municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction; supporters and cities promise continued talks
Summary
House Bill 15‑10, introduced by Representative Gonzales, would eliminate municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction that gives some cities planning and regulatory authority in a buffer outside their corporate limits.
Representative Gonzales introduced House Bill 15‑10, which would remove municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) that currently allows some Arkansas cities to prepare and enforce plans, ordinances and regulations beyond their corporate limits in a defined buffer (1–3 miles depending on city population). Gonzales said the change is intended to stop municipalities from applying city regulations to county residents who cannot vote in city elections.
Supporters emphasized property‑rights and representation concerns. Gonzales and several committee members argued that persons who own land outside city limits should not be subject to city rules without a vote in that government. Representative Kevin Auld and Representative Milligan said counties and cities should be required to negotiate annexation agreements or interlocal arrangements rather than rely on extended municipal jurisdiction.
City officials and municipal advocates urged caution. Susan Norton, representing the city of Fayetteville’s planning and public‑works staff, told the committee that modest ETJ planning (Fayetteville uses a one‑mile planning area) allows coordinated infrastructure, drainage and land‑use planning that reduces traffic congestion and downstream water‑quality impacts and avoids costly emergency infrastructure expansions. John Wilkerson, general counsel for the Arkansas Municipal League, urged fixing procedural weaknesses (notice and county engagement) rather than wholesale repeal and pointed to a 2015 law (Bridal Property Protection Act, referenced in testimony) that provides remedies when a city regulation lowers property value by a statutory threshold.
Members asked practical questions about notice, representation and service expectations. Witnesses said the ETJ typically becomes consequential when rural property is subdivided; testimony indicated title searches or local records disclose planning status but that direct notice to affected landowners is inconsistent. Municipal representatives signaled willingness to work on amendments and processes for intergovernmental coordination; sponsors said they would continue discussions but defended removing ETJ authority to protect unincorporated residents from city regulation without representation.
The committee adopted a motion to pass House Bill 15‑10 on a voice vote; the chair announced the ayes had it.
Ending: The bill passed the committee after substantial testimony from municipal staff, county and city elected officials, and the municipal league; sponsors and city representatives agreed to continue working on implementation details and notice/coordination processes.
