Van Buren County court votes to accept 1.7-mile stretch of State Highway 337 to back Green Bay Packaging expansion

Van Buren County’s Quorum Court voted to accept State Highway 337 Section 1, a roughly 1.7-mile stretch in the Sugarloaf community, into the county road system on a 8–1 roll-call vote, a move linked to a proposed expansion by Green Bay Packaging that proponents say would bring major regional investment.

Steve Good, who identified himself as a representative of Green Bay Packaging, told the court the full project would be “a $2,000,000,000 plus project,” with Phase 1 estimated at more than $1 billion and construction employing hundreds of workers. Good said the company and partner counties must reach approximately $12 million in committed funding—what he described as “drop money”—for the Arkansas Department of Transportation to open bids on the related highway relocation.

The measure authorizes the Van Buren County judge to execute agreements with the Arkansas Department of Transportation to accept Highway 337 Section 1 into the county system as part of an interjurisdictional package tied to the Conway County economic expansion. John Bradford sponsored the ordinance; the court completed second and third readings at the same meeting after voting to suspend the rules.

Supporters emphasized potential economic and timber-industry benefits, including continued work for residents who sell timber to the mill and higher future severance taxes. Speaker 10 (Steve Good) also argued that accepting the road would qualify it for state aid in future overlays and that the county would receive indirect fiscal benefits from increased production and related economic activity.

Opponents and skeptical members raised three main concerns: the permanency of the transfer (the county would assume long-term maintenance responsibility), the adequacy of current road maintenance funding, and whether the county would see substantial direct economic returns. One member noted a discrepancy between 1.7 miles listed in the ordinance and 1.3 miles on DOT maps and asked for clarification before the vote.

Court members also questioned whether the county’s annual road budget could absorb the additional cost—Steve Good estimated roughly $2,000 a year to maintain the transfer—and whether Green Bay or DOT would perform an initial chip-and-seal or resurfacing before the transfer. Good said he could request commitments from the company but could not bind Green Bay to any unilateral county-conditions at the hearing.

The roll-call vote recorded Holcomb, Nikki, Sarah, Phillips, John, Paige, Lemmings and Bass as voting yes and Mike as the sole no. The court’s minutes reflect the measure’s adoption; the judge and proponents thanked the court following the vote. The judge is authorized to sign the necessary agreements, contingent on the regional funding and DOT processes that Good described as prerequisites to construction.

Next steps: proponents said counties had until the coming Monday to return signed commitments for the April 10 bid letting; if the full funding package is not in place the DOT would not open bids and the highway move—and related incentives—would not proceed.