Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arkansas Rural Connect topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators and county officials push back after state details Arkansas Rural Connect rules limiting applicants to incorporated towns
Summary
State broadband staff described the Arkansas Rural Connect rules and a $25 million initial fund targeting municipalities (generally 500+ population) to co‑apply with ISPs; lawmakers, county judges and quorum court members objected that the rules exclude many unincorporated areas and urged expanding eligibility to counties, special districts or allow ISPs as lead applicants.
Clint Moore of the Arkansas Department of Commerce read a statement from state broadband manager Nathan Smith describing the Arkansas Rural Connect grant program: the rules are posted for public comment, the program will distribute $25 million in grants and loans to help municipalities co‑apply with internet providers, and mayors will be asked to report on ISP performance. The program is intended to advance the governor—s broadband goal and prioritize municipal applicants in the first funding round.
Multiple legislators and local officials responded that the draft rules conflict with the way many members understood the statewide broadband effort. Representative Flowers, Senators Hill, Sample, Johnson and others raised concerns that limiting applicants to incorporated towns (generally population 500+) excludes unincorporated communities, water and improvement districts, Hot Springs Village and other places with significant populations that lack municipal charters. Saline and Pulaski county officials told the committee they represent many thousands of residents in unincorporated areas and that municipal‑only rules would prevent those residents from competing for state support.
County officials urged rule changes or alternative applicant models. Saline County Judge Jeff Airy said local government should not be the driver of deployment but that counties can sponsor or support ISP applications and asked that counties or quasi‑governmental units be eligible to apply. Quorum court members argued counties are often better positioned to assemble geography and assets to support deployment across larger territories and asked that the rules mirror federal applications so state dollars can leverage federal grants.
Moore and the broadband manager explained the rationale: with limited state funds the administration chose to concentrate on municipalities to create auditable boundaries and maximize measurable "bang for the buck" while encouraging ISPs to extend projects into unincorporated areas where feasible. They said the rules are open to public comment and can be revised before adoption.
Committee members asked the broadband office to take back concerns about rural definitions and eligibility and to consider revised rules that allow counties, special districts, municipal partnerships or ISPs to be lead applicants so unincorporated populations can compete. Several legislators said they would submit formal comments during the public comment period.
The committee took no final vote on the rules; staff and the broadband manager committed to circulating additional details and soliciting input.
