Committee rejects emergency ordinance to dissolve and reconstitute planning board to meet new state requirements

The County Services Committee considered an emergency ordinance (item 8.1) intended to bring Washington County’s planning board into compliance with a recent change in state law (referred to repeatedly in the meeting as Act 519). The ordinance would dissolve the existing planning board and reconstitute it to ensure a majority of members reside in unincorporated areas, as the new statute requires. After extensive debate, the committee voted the ordinance down by show of hands, with a recorded division of 4 in favor and 5 opposed.

County Attorney Lester summarized the statutory change: counties that maintain a planning board must ensure a majority of members are from unincorporated areas. Lester said he and staff recommended rescinding the existing board and starting a new one to comply, calling it the “easiest and best path forward.” Judge Deacon and other officials said they had consulted attorneys and the Arkansas Association of Counties about compliance options.

Opponents on the committee argued that dissolving the board was excessive. Multiple JPs suggested less-disruptive alternatives: amend the planning ordinance to increase the board size or add two unincorporated-area members, or allow the quorum court to serve as the planning board. Concerned JPs said changing the number of members in the zoning ordinance would require a public meeting and could not be completed in time to meet the Aug. 5 compliance date, while others said it was feasible to add members without dissolving the existing board.

Judge Deacon said the county has struggled to recruit planning-board members historically and warned the county could be out of compliance from Aug. 5 to December if it waited and did not act. Public commenters urged alternatives and criticized last‑minute timing: Sherry Main and Kenneth Lovett urged adding members and raising planning-board pay to encourage participation; Mary McKinney called for more transparent notice and criticized the emergency approach.

Outcome: The committee held a division by show of hands; the motion to adopt the emergency ordinance failed on a 4–5 vote. The chair indicated the matter will return to the court for further work.

Why it matters: The state law change imposes a new residency requirement on planning boards; how the county achieves compliance affects governance of zoning and planning decisions and who controls nominations and appointments. Committee members debated legal steps, recruitment challenges, and whether the county should change its planning and zoning ordinance instead of dissolving the current board.