After Arkansas Act 314 of 2025, can cities still plan and zone in unincorporated areas outside their corporate limits?
Plain-English summary
State Representative Paul Childress asked the AG about Act 314 of 2025's effect on municipal extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) for planning and zoning. Under the prior framework (Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, A.C.A. § 14-56-413), a municipality could plan and zone in a defined area outside its corporate limits if it adopted a plan, ordinance, or regulation in accordance with statute and properly filed or recorded the documents. Those ordinances carried the force of law within the designated ETJ.
Act 314 of 2025 repealed that authority. The AG's analysis:
- Pre-Act 314: ETJ ordinances were valid if properly adopted and recorded. They had the force of law in the designated ETJ.
- Post-Act 314: No municipality can plan or zone outside its corporate limits, regardless of whether it had a pre-existing ordinance. Counties have exclusive jurisdiction over unincorporated areas.
- Pre-existing ordinances: Become unenforceable on and after Act 314's effective date. Because ETJ authority was purely statutory and Arkansas municipalities have only the powers the General Assembly grants, the repeal eliminates the ability to enforce, even though the ordinance text remains in the municipal code.
- Joint planning commissions: Cannot exercise more authority than their member municipalities/counties. With Act 314 eliminating municipal ETJ authority, joint planning commissions can no longer enforce ETJ ordinances. Their remaining planning activities outside corporate limits are advisory.
The AG declined to opine on specific city ordinances (Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60), citing the office's longstanding policy against construing specific local ordinances. The general analysis applies.
What this means for you
If you are a municipal planner or attorney
ETJ enforcement is over. Existing ordinances cannot be enforced outside corporate limits. Coordinate with the county on transition of any pending applications, permits, or enforcement actions. Update municipal staff documentation to remove ETJ-based enforcement language.
If you own land in a former ETJ
Your land use is now governed exclusively by county authority (and potentially state law). City ETJ restrictions no longer apply. If you have a pending dispute with the city over an ETJ ordinance, consult counsel about the change in law.
If you serve on a joint planning commission
Your authority to act outside corporate limits is now advisory only. You cannot enforce city-only ETJ ordinances. Coordinate with the county for any binding regulation of unincorporated areas.
If you are a real estate developer
Projects in formerly ETJ areas are now subject only to county planning and zoning (and state law). Reassess permit requirements and timelines accordingly.
Common questions
Q: What was the ETJ rule under § 14-56-413?
A: Municipalities could exercise planning and zoning powers in a designated extraterritorial area outside their corporate limits, if they adopted a master plan, planning ordinance, and zoning ordinance per statute and properly filed/recorded the documents. Many Arkansas cities had ETJ ordinances dating to the 1957 or 1987 acts.
Q: Does Act 314 operate retroactively?
A: Act 314 renders previously enacted ETJ ordinances unenforceable on and after its effective date. The AG framed this as a prospective effect (no further enforcement), not as a retroactive nullification of past actions taken under valid ordinances.
Q: Can the General Assembly retroactively void ordinances?
A: The AG did not directly resolve the constitutional question of retroactive ordinance voidance. The opinion treated Act 314 as prospectively eliminating enforcement authority going forward. Past enforcement actions are not addressed.
Q: What about counties' authority?
A: Counties retain their planning and zoning authority over unincorporated areas under separate Arkansas statutes (notably Title 14, Chapter 17). With Act 314, county authority over unincorporated areas is exclusive.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 14-56-413 (repealed by Act 314 of 2025)
- Act 314 of 2025
- Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987
Prior AG opinions on construing local ordinances:
- Ops. Att'y Gen. 2012-099, 2008-009, 2007-235, 2004-235, 2002-306
Source
Official summary
Question 1: Under Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413, what was required of a city to establish and exercise planning and/or zoning outside the city limits and within the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)? Did the law require a city to adopt an ordinance to exercise the authority to establish planning and/or zoning outside the city limits? Did such ordinances have the force and effect of law?
Brief Response: Before Act 314 of 2025, a municipality was generally required to adopt a plan, ordinance, or regulation to exercise planning or zoning authority outside its corporate limits within its ETJ. When adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and A.C.A. § 14-56-413, and when properly filed or recorded as required by law, such plans, ordinances, and regulations carried the force of law within the designated ETJ.
Question 2: If adoption of a planning and/or zoning ordinance was required to establish and exercise planning and/or zoning authority within the ETJ, do cities that refrained and failed to enact such ordinances prior to the effective date of Act 314, have any ability to establish planning or zoning outside their city limits? To exercise authority within the ETJ? Was the effect of Act 314 of 2025 to deny cities that have not previously enacted planning and zoning ordinances outside the city limits and within the ETJ to foreclose them from adopting ordinances seeking to establish or exercise planning or zoning outside the city limits (following the effective date of Act 314)? May the cities of Traskwood, Haskell, Pine Bluff (or cities which have not adopted ordinances on planning or zoning outside the city limits) now adopt ordinances seeking to establish planning or zoning outside the city limits?
Brief Response: Act 314 of 2025 repealed municipalities’ statutory authority to exercise planning or zoning powers outside their corporate limits. Cities that did not adopt ETJ ordinances before Act 314 took effect now lack authority to do so, and cities that previously enacted ETJ ordinances may no longer enforce them beyond their corporate limits. County authorities now have exclusive jurisdiction over unincorporated areas.
Question 3: Does Act 314 operate retroactively and to repeal or void city ordinances lawfully adopted establishing and exercising planning and/or zoning outside the city limits and within some or all of the ETJ? What provision of Act 314 of 2025, if any, purports to repeal the valid ordinances of cities lawfully adopted between 1957 and 2025 establishing planning and/or zoning within the ETJ as provided by and in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413? What provision of Act 314, if any, purports to act retroactively or ex post facto?
Question 4: Does Act 314 operate retroactively and repeal or render void:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
Question 5: Under Arkansas law, ordinances lawfully adopted by cities or counties are presumed valid and considered law, unless and until declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction. Are the ordinances referenced in this opinion request and described below presumed to be valid unless and until declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
Question 6: Does the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas have the legal authority or power to retroactively declare city or county ordinances previously and lawfully adopted to be invalid? Does the General Assembly have the authority and power to retroactively declare the ordinances referenced in Question 5 to be invalid?
Brief Response: In response to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, Act 314 of 2025 renders previously enacted municipal ETJ ordinances unenforceable on and after the Act’s effective date. Because ETJ authority was purely statutory and municipalities possess only those powers granted by the General Assembly, such ordinances may no longer be enforced outside of municipal corporate limits.
Question 7: If previously adopted city ETJ ordinances remain valid following Act 314, may a joint planning commission commence or continue to enforce those city ordinances?
Brief Response: No. A joint planning commission may exercise only those powers that its member municipalities or counties are authorized to exercise under existing law. Because Act 314 of 2025 eliminated municipal authority to enforce ETJ ordinances in unincorporated areas, a joint planning commission likewise lacks authority to commence or continue enforcement of such ordinances. Any remaining planning activities concerning areas outside municipal corporate limits are advisory in nature and do not provide a lawful basis for enforcement.
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-009
May 12, 2026
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
1003 River Raynes Trail
Benton, Arkansas 72019
Dear Representative Childress:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion regarding the effect of Act 314 of 2025 on
municipal ordinances that concern extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) and that were adopted
before Act 314 was enacted. You state that following the repeal of A.C.A. § 14-56-413, uncertainty
has arisen regarding the legal status and enforceability of such ordinances.
1
Against this background, you ask the following questions:
1. Under Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413, what was
required of a city to establish and exercise planning and/or zoning outside the city limits
and within the extraterritorial jurisdiction? Did the law require a city to adopt an ordinance
to exercise the authority to establish planning and/or zoning outside the city limits? Did
such ordinances have the force and effect of law?
Brief response: Before Act 314 of 2025, a municipality was generally required to adopt
a plan, ordinance, or regulation to exercise planning or zoning authority
outside its corporate limits within its ETJ. When adopted in accordance
with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and A.C.A. § 14-56-413, and
when properly filed or recorded as required by law, such plans,
ordinances, and regulations carried the force of law within the designated
ETJ.
1 Although your opinion request references several specific municipal ordinances, those ordinances were not provided
for my review. Furthermore, it has long been the policy of the Attorney General’s Office to decline to construe the
provisions of specific local ordinances. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2012-099, 2008-009, 2007-235, 2004-235, 2002-
306. Therefore, this opinion instead provides a general analysis that applies to any ordinance authorizing planning or
zoning in a municipality’s ETJ and should not be construed as assessing the validity or meaning of any specific local
ordinance.
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 2
2. If adoption of a planning and/or zoning ordinance was required to establish and exercise
planning and/or zoning authority within the ETJ, do cities that refrained and failed to enact
such ordinances prior to the effective date of Act 314, have any ability to establish planning
or zoning outside their city limits? To exercise authority within the ETJ? Was the effect of
Act 314 of 2025 to deny cities that have not previously enacted planning and zoning
ordinances outside the city limits and within the ETJ to foreclose them from adopting
ordinances seeking to establish or exercise planning or zoning outside the city limits
(following the effective date of Act 314)? May the cities of Traskwood, Haskell, Pine Bluff
(or cities which have not adopted ordinances on planning or zoning outside the city limits)
now adopt ordinances seeking to establish planning or zoning outside the city limits?
Brief response: Act 314 of 2025 repealed municipalities’ statutory authority to exercise
planning or zoning powers outside their corporate limits. Cities that did
not adopt ETJ ordinances before Act 314 took effect now lack authority
to do so, and cities that previously enacted ETJ ordinances may no longer
enforce them beyond their corporate limits. County authorities now have
exclusive jurisdiction over unincorporated areas.
3. Does Act 314 operate retroactively and to repeal or void city ordinances lawfully adopted
establishing and exercising planning and/or zoning outside the city limits and within some
or all of the ETJ? What provision of Act 314 of 2025, if any, purports to repeal the valid
ordinances of cities lawfully adopted between 1957 and 2025 establishing planning and/or
zoning within the ETJ as provided by and in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of
1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413? What provision of Act 314, if any, purports to act
retroactively or ex post facto?
4. Does Act 314 operate retroactively and repeal or render void:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957,
Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or
zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
5. Under Arkansas law, ordinances lawfully adopted by cities or counties are presumed valid
and considered law, unless and until declared invalid by a court of proper jurisdiction. Are
the ordinances referenced in this opinion request and described below presumed to be valid
unless and until declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 3
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957,
Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or
zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
6. Does the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas have the legal authority or power to
retroactively declare city or county ordinances previously and lawfully adopted to be
invalid? Does the General Assembly have the authority and power to retroactively declare
the ordinances referenced in Question 5 to be invalid?
Brief response: In response to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, Act 314 of 2025 renders
previously enacted municipal ETJ ordinances unenforceable on and after
the Act’s effective date. Because ETJ authority was purely statutory and
municipalities possess only those powers granted by the General
Assembly, such ordinances may no longer be enforced outside of
municipal corporate limits.
7. If previously adopted city ETJ ordinances remain valid following Act 314, may a joint
planning commission commence or continue to enforce those city ordinances?
Brief response: No. A joint planning commission may exercise only those powers that
its member municipalities or counties are authorized to exercise under
existing law. Because Act 314 of 2025 eliminated municipal authority to
enforce ETJ ordinances in unincorporated areas, a joint planning
commission likewise lacks authority to commence or continue
enforcement of such ordinances. Any remaining planning activities
concerning areas outside municipal corporate limits are advisory in
nature and do not provide a lawful basis for enforcement.
DISCUSSION
Question 1: Under Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413, what was
required of a city to establish and exercise planning and/or zoning outside the city limits and
within the extraterritorial jurisdiction? Did the law require a city to adopt an ordinance to
exercise the authority to establish planning and/or zoning outside the city limits? Did such
ordinances have the force and effect of law?
Under Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987, and A.C.A. § 14-56-413, a city generally had to take
several steps before exercising planning or zoning authority within its ETJ. Specifically, it had to
(1) establish a planning commission and designate the area in which it would exercise ETJ
authority;
2
(2) file a description of that area’s boundaries with the city clerk and county recorder;
3
2 Act 186 of 1957, §§ 1(b), 3(c); A.C.A. § 14-56-404.
3 Act 186 of 1957, § 3(l); A.C.A. § 14-56-413 (repealed by Act 314 of 2025, § 5).
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 4
(3) direct the planning commission to prepare plans and recommend ordinances and regulations to
the municipal legislative body;
4
and (4) if those measures were enacted, file them with the county
recorder in each affected county.
5 Once properly adopted and recorded, those plans, ordinances,
and regulations carried the force of law within the ETJ.
Question 2: If adoption of a planning and/or zoning ordinance was required to establish and
exercise planning and/or zoning authority within the ETJ, do cities that refrained and failed to
enact such ordinances prior to the effective date of Act 314, have any ability to establish
planning or zoning outside their city limits? To exercise authority within the ETJ? Was the
effect of Act 314 of 2025 to deny cities that have not previously enacted planning and zoning
ordinances outside the city limits and within the ETJ to foreclose them from adopting
ordinances seeking to establish or exercise planning or zoning outside the city limits (following
the effective date of Act 314)? May the cities of Traskwood, Haskell, Pine Bluff (or cities which
have not adopted ordinances on planning or zoning outside the city limits) now adopt ordinances
seeking to establish planning or zoning outside the city limits?
Act 314 of 2025 repealed municipalities’ statutory authority to exercise planning or zoning powers
outside their corporate limits. As a result, cities that did not adopt ETJ ordinances before Act 314
took effect no longer have authority to do so, and cities that previously enacted such ordinances
may no longer enforce them beyond their corporate limits. County authorities now have exclusive
jurisdiction over unincorporated areas.
Question 3: Does Act 314 operate retroactively and to repeal or void city ordinances lawfully
adopted establishing and exercising planning and/or zoning outside the city limits and within
some or all of the ETJ? What provision of Act 314 of 2025, if any, purports to repeal the valid
ordinances of cities lawfully adopted between 1957 and 2025 establishing planning and/or
zoning within the ETJ as provided by and in accordance with Act 186 of 1957, Act 56 of 1987,
and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413? What provision of Act 314, if any, purports to act retroactively
or ex post facto?
Question 4: Does Act 314 operate retroactively and repeal or render void:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957,
Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or
zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
4 Act 186 of 1957, § 5(a); A.C.A. § 14-56-422(1)(A)–(5)(A).
5 Act 186 of 1957, § 6(a)(5); A.C.A. § 14-56-422(5)(B) (repealed by Act 314 of 2025, § 6).
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 5
Question 5: Under Arkansas law, ordinances lawfully adopted by cities or counties are
presumed valid and considered law, unless and until declared invalid by a court of proper
jurisdiction. Are the ordinances referenced in this opinion request and described below
presumed to be valid unless and until declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction:
a. Bryant Ordinance No. 99-16, (Exhibit 1, including the map attached thereto);
b. Benton Ordinance No. 2013-60, (Exhibit 2, including the map attached thereto);
c. Other ordinances that cities have adopted in accordance with Act 186 of 1957,
Act 56 of 1987, and Arkansas Code § 14-56-413 establishing planning and/or
zoning outside their city limits and expanding their authority within the ETJ?
Question 6: Does the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas have the legal authority or
power to retroactively declare city or county ordinances previously and lawfully adopted to be
invalid? Does the General Assembly have the authority and power to retroactively declare the
ordinances referenced in Question 5 to be invalid?
In response to Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6, Act 314 of 2025 operates retroactively to make previously
passed ETJ ordinances unenforceable only at and after the act’s effective date. Retroactivity turns
on whether the act expressly or impliedly alters the legal consequences of a past action or
event.
6 A law can be retroactive in two ways, which are sometimes called “strong” or “weak.”7 A
law is strongly retroactive if it alters the past legal consequences of a past action or event in the
past. A law is weakly retroactive when it alters the past legal consequences of a past action or
event only at and after the act’s effective date.
Act 314 of 2025 is weakly retroactive. It changes the legal consequences of a past action—the
enactment of municipal ETJ ordinances—by removing their enforceability in the ETJ area on and
after the Act’s effective date. The General Assembly has the authority to pass legislation—
6 See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269–70, 280 (1994) (requiring courts to assess whether a statute
is retroactive by “ask[ing] whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its
enactment” and requiring courts to “first … determine whether [the legislature] prescribed the statute’s proper reach”);
see also Stephen R. Munzer, Retroactive Law, J. Legal Stud. 373, 373 (1977) (“A law is retroactive if it alters the
legal status of acts that were performed before it came into existence.”).
7 While numerous courts and scholars have recognized and applied this distinction, they often use different labels for
the two kinds of retroactivity: E.D. Ark.: St. Bernard’s Hosp., Inc. v. Sullivan, 781 F. Supp. 576, 590–91 (E.D. Ark.
1991); D.C. Cir.: Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Assn. v. F.C.C., 567 F.3d 659, 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 5th Cir.: F.D.I.C.
v. Faulkner, 991 F.2d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1993); 9th Cir.: Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 644, 671 (9th
Cir. 1992); Calif.: 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi, 878 P.2d 566, 607 (Cal. 1994) (en banc); New Jersey: Harris
v. Branin Transp., Inc., 711 A.2d 311, 337 (N.J. 1998) (“A pure retroactive statute changes what the law was in the
past. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 220 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring). A law or rule that has
exclusively future effects, but that affects past transactions is ‘secondarily retroactive.’ Ibid. A secondarily retroactive
law is valid so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious. Ibid.”). See also Daniel E. Troy, Toward a Definition and
Critique of Retroactivity, 51 Ala. L. Rev. 1329, 1334–35 (2000).
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 6
including retroactive legislation—that preempts city and county ordinances when those ordinances
conflict with state statutes.8 Cities and counties, as municipal corporations, are “creatures of the
legislature and as such only have the power bestowed upon them by statute or the Arkansas
Constitution.”9 Any substantial doubt about the existence of a power in a municipal corporation
must be resolved against it.10 Because ETJ regulatory authority was purely statutory,
municipalities may no longer enforce ETJ ordinances outside their corporate limits now that the
General Assembly has withdrawn that authority, even if those measures have not been repealed
locally.11
Determining that an act is retroactive does not necessarily mean the act is unconstitutional. Acts
of the legislature are presumed to apply only prospectively. But because this “presumption against
retroactivity is [merely] a guide” or canon of interpretation and “not a constitutional rule,” an act
“can explicitly or by clear implication be made retroactive.”12 As shown above, Act 314 of 2025
has, by clear implication, been made retroactive. Of course, applying an act retroactively might
render the act unconstitutional “under one of the Ex Post Facto Clauses, one of the Due Process
Clauses, the Takings Clause, or the Obligation of Contracts Clause,” or their counterparts under
our state constitution.13 None of these constitutional concerns are implicated here. Act 314 does
not impose criminal liability, disturb vested rights, impair contractual obligations, or appropriate
private property. Rather, it represents a permissible exercise of the State’s authority to define, limit,
or withdraw municipal power.
Question 7: If previously adopted city ETJ ordinances remain valid following Act 314, may a
joint planning commission commence or continue to enforce those city ordinances?
No, a joint planning commission may not commence or continue to enforce ETJ ordinances in an
unincorporated area of a county after Act 314 of 2025. Under A.C.A. § 14-56-504(b), a joint
planning agency “may be empowered to carry into effect such provisions of state law relating to
planning which are authorized for the joining cities or counties and which each may, under existing
laws, separately exercise and perform.” Because Act 314 of 2025 eliminated municipal authority
8 City of Piggott v. Eblen, 236 Ark. 390, 395, 366 S.W.2d 192, 195 (1963) (state statutes are paramount and supreme
and preempt city ordinances).
9 Municipality of Helena-W. Helena v. Weaver, 374 Ark. 109, 114, 286 S.W.3d 132, 136 (2008) (reaffirming that
municipal corporations have no inherent powers and may exercise only those powers granted by statute or the
Arkansas Constitution).
10 White Cnty. v. Cities of Judsonia, Kensett & Pangburn, 369 Ark. 151, 155, 251 S.W.3d 275, 279 (2007).
11 This conclusion concerns municipal regulatory authority in unincorporated areas; it does not address whether
previously recorded planning-jurisdiction boundaries may remain relevant for other statutory purposes not amended
or repealed by Act 314 of 2025. See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2026-018.
12 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 261 (2012).
13 Id. at 262.
The Honorable Paul Childress
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-009
Page 7
to exercise territorial jurisdiction in unincorporated areas, municipalities no longer “may, under
existing laws,” enforce ETJ ordinances outside their corporate limits. A joint planning commission
therefore cannot enforce ETJ ordinances on a municipality’s behalf in territory formerly within the
ETJ.
Although Act 314 of 2025 eliminated municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, a
municipality may still prepare and maintain planning documents that consider areas outside its
corporate limits for advisory and coordination purposes. And to the extent a joint planning
commission continues to exist, A.C.A. § 14-56-504(b) likewise limits its role to planning functions
the member governments still possess under existing law. Under A.C.A. § 14-56-402,
municipalities may adopt plans for “the coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the
municipality and its environs,” and under A.C.A. § 14-56-403(a), municipal plans may address
“present and future needs” and promote “the safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and
general welfare of the citizens.”
Consistent with these provisions, municipalities may continue to prepare and maintain
comprehensive plans, future land-use maps, and transportation or infrastructure studies that
consider areas outside corporate limits. Joint planning commissions may likewise assist with or
contribute to planning documents and coordination efforts of this type, to the extent permitted by
remaining statutory authority under A.C.A. § 14-56-504(b). But those planning documents are
advisory only and have no legal effect beyond municipal corporate limits, and neither a
municipality nor a joint planning commission may treat such planning materials as a basis to
enforce municipal ordinances in unincorporated territory formerly within the ETJ.
Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General