Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Organizational Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commissioners spar over proposed merger of Pulaski County building and economic development functions
Summary
Public speakers and commissioners debated a proposed merger putting the economic/CDC director over the building department. A motion to deny elimination of the building department passed earlier in the meeting; speakers urged tabling further decisions until legal counsel is present and until tensions in the county subside.
A proposed reorganization that would place the county’s building department under the economic development/CDC director drew extended public comment Sept. 15, with residents and county officials urging caution, legal review and more public engagement.
A member of the public who identified concerns about workplace bullying, threats and a tense public climate urged commissioners to table merger decisions and seek legal counsel before proceeding. The commenter said employees had been harassed and that decisions made in a “climate of fear” could lead to poor outcomes, and asked commissioners to "table all the decisions on the merger and the moratorium until you can be advised by our county attorney." (public comment at meeting)
Commissioners discussed the proposal at length and a motion presented earlier in the meeting to deny a resolution that would have eliminated the building department was made and seconded; the board recorded the vote as in favor. In supporting remarks, a county official said the proposed merger would be "a merger and not an elimination" and that cross training could provide extra support without cutting positions.
Why it matters: The merger touches the county’s ability to enforce building codes, manage permits and carry out economic development. Several speakers said the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) may constrain reassigning building‑department authority, and multiple commissioners asked for written legal guidance before acting further.
What happened next: Commissioners and staff repeatedly requested county attorney input; one commissioner explicitly asked that discussions about the merger not proceed until legal counsel was available. Public commenters urged formation of advisory committees, more transparent public engagement and careful review of comprehensive plan requirements and state law prior to structural reassignments.
Next steps: Commissioners indicated they would seek legal advice and asked staff and APC to clarify whether UDO provisions allow the proposed reporting change. A formal ordinance or resolution would require additional readings, attorney review and possible public hearings.
