Quorum court committee advances ordinance to require county‑issued 911 addresses, authorizes fines for noncompliant utilities

The Pulaski County quorum court committee voted to send an ordinance about 911 addressing to the full court with a “due pass” recommendation, advancing proposed rules that would require utilities and others to use county‑issued 911 addresses and allow enforcement penalties.

The ordinance, identified in the meeting as item 25 I 63, would establish a system for registering addresses so emergency responders can locate properties. County staff and justices said utilities have in some cases assigned addresses outside the county’s addressing process; the ordinance would allow misdemeanor charges and fines up to $250 per day for violations and related aiding or abetting, with penalties collected to the county general fund.

The measure’s sponsors and staff said the change is intended to improve public safety by preventing addresses that are not entered into the county system. Van, a planning‑department staff member who spoke at the meeting, told justices that “the utilities have not played ball” and described cases where people “just put a mailbox out there and put a number on it,” creating addresses that are not in the county 911 database.

Justice Young Baker moved to send the ordinance to the full court with a due pass recommendation; the committee recorded 15 ayes on the roll call.

During debate, Justice Robinson and others asked whether the ordinance would simply formalize existing practice or impose new penalties. Van said the planning department issues 911 addresses and that utilities’ informal addressing has led to problems such as out‑of‑sequence numbering and addresses placed on the wrong side of the street. Adam Fogelman, Pulaski County attorney, clarified that the ordinance text makes any “person, firm, corporation, or other entity violating this article or aiding and abetting the violation” guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fines up to $250.

A public commenter after the vote questioned whether the committee should have invited utility representatives before voting, noting the meeting record included no state law that would reinforce the county ordinance and warning the measure could prompt court challenges. The commenter asked who would be accountable when a resident supplies an informal address and a utility installs service, because the ordinance’s fines and misdemeanor language can apply to both utilities and individuals.

The ordinance now goes to the full quorum court for final consideration; no final hearing date was specified in the committee record.

Less critical details: the meeting transcript indicates Central Arkansas Water was described as the one utility that “plays ball with any consistency,” while others such as Entergy and Mid Arkansas utilities were described as less cooperative. The committee did not provide a funding change or implementation timeline in the discussion.