Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Gun Range topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Warren County supervisors to halt proposed Bentonville sheriff training range; board says review ongoing
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Warren County Board of Supervisors to reconsider a proposed sheriff training and gun range near Bentonville, citing safety, methane at a nearby landfill and incomplete permit materials; the board said the proposal is still in early process and requires DEQ and planning commission review.
Dozens of Warren County residents told the Board of Supervisors they oppose a proposed sheriff training facility near Bentonville and urged leaders to find an alternate site.
In a string of public comments, South River and North River residents raised safety and environmental concerns. John Jenkins, a South River resident, said the site would affect "59" nearby homes, cited longstanding methane monitoring at a nearby landfill and told the board he had notified county staff that "the permit was incomplete" and that moving forward would be "possibly illegal." Jenkins also said he wanted his district representative to step down: "I would ask her to step down now."
Other speakers pressed safety and land-value concerns. Jeff Baggarly, who said he recently bought land nearby, cited ballistics figures he said apply to typical pistol rounds: "9 millimeter pistols... have a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second at the muzzle," and noted published ricochet distances and accidental incidents in other jurisdictions. Leslie Matthews, a South River resident, told supervisors: "Please listen to the people in South River." Mike Azappy warned that once the facility is established, "it can't be reversed."
Speakers also proposed alternatives and operational limits. Jer Baggerly urged the county to consider ESA Lane — a larger county-owned site with more vegetation and hills for sound mitigation — and described potential advantages for joint training and search-and-rescue exercises. Several speakers said they had seen prior proposals in 2020 and 2022 and expressed frustration about perceived rapid movement of the current application.
Board members responded that the matter remains in an early procedural stage. One official told the board the item was removed from the evening's agenda because "it simply isn't ready yet," and that a Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) report and Planning Commission review are outstanding before scheduling additional hearings. Chairperson and supervisors emphasized they were listening and would continue to gather information; the chair said she tries to "keep an open mind, and that's all I asked anyone that contacted me."
The board did not take any formal action on the proposal during this meeting. Officials said next procedural steps include DEQ review, Planning Commission consideration and a future board hearing, likely in August or September once required reports are complete.
What's next: county staff said the proposal will go to the planning commission and that a DEQ report is required before the commission can act; the board suggested the tentative timeline for further hearings could be August or September.
