After Arkansas Act 314 of 2025 ended extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, can a city still appoint planning commissioners who live outside the city limits?
Subject
Whether the appointment provision at A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b), which allows a city to seat up to one-third of its planning commission from electors living outside the corporate limits but inside the city's "recorded planning jurisdiction," still operates after Act 314 of 2025 repealed § 14-56-413 and ended municipal extraterritorial planning authority.
Plain-English summary
Act 314 of 2025 ended a long-standing piece of Arkansas municipal land use law: the ability of cities to administer and enforce planning, zoning, and subdivision rules in an area outside their corporate limits. Section 14-56-413, the statute that set up that extraterritorial regime and required cities to file the boundary description with the city clerk and county recorder, was repealed.
But Act 314 left another statute, § 14-56-405(b), in place. That statute lets the city's legislative body appoint up to one-third of the planning commission from electors who live outside the corporate limits but inside the city's "recorded planning jurisdiction." With § 14-56-413 gone, what does "recorded planning jurisdiction" still refer to?
Senator Bryant asked the AG whether § 14-56-405(b) is now a dead letter. AG Griffin answered no, with conditions. The phrase "recorded planning jurisdiction" can still operate, but only by reference to a boundary that was actually recorded under the prior law. So a city may continue to use that older boundary as the eligibility line for outside-the-city planning commissioners, as long as two things are true: the boundary was duly recorded under former § 14-56-413 (filed with the city clerk and county recorder), and the city or planning commission has not since altered that boundary or changed the appointment criteria.
Two practical limits follow. First, cities that never recorded a planning jurisdiction boundary under former § 14-56-413 have no "recorded planning jurisdiction" to point to, so they cannot use § 14-56-405(b) to seat outside-the-city electors at all. Second, cities that have updated their planning area maps under § 14-56-412(c) and adopted those updated maps under §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423 to reflect only their corporate limits may have functionally erased the older boundary. In that case, electors residing outside the new boundary lose eligibility for appointment under § 14-56-405(b).
The opinion also notes that whether subsequent municipal action altered the boundary is fact-specific. An ordinance that simply repeals extraterritorial planning authority, without addressing the recorded boundary or revising the appointment criteria, is not enough to wipe the boundary out for § 14-56-405(b) purposes.
Although the opinion concludes that municipalities can no longer regulate outside their corporate limits, it does affirm one residual planning power: cities may still prepare comprehensive plans, future land-use maps, and infrastructure studies that consider areas beyond their corporate limits. Those documents are advisory only and have no legal force outside the city, but they can still inform coordination with the surrounding county.
What this means for you
If you serve on a city planning commission
Check whether your city ever filed a planning-jurisdiction boundary with the city clerk and county recorder under former § 14-56-413. If it did, and that filing has not been altered, you can still seat up to one-third of the commission from electors living within that recorded area but outside the city limits. If your city never filed such a boundary, that one-third slot can only come from electors inside the corporate limits.
If you are a city attorney or planning director
The eligibility question for outside-the-city planning commissioners now turns on a historical recordkeeping question, not a current regulatory map. Pull the city clerk's and county recorder's files for the planning-jurisdiction boundary filing. If you find it and the city has not adopted any subsequent ordinance or updated planning area map that altered it, the older boundary still controls under § 14-56-405(b). If you find a more recent planning area map adopted under §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423 that reflects only the corporate limits, that update may have functionally repealed the older boundary, which means outside-the-city electors are no longer eligible.
If you are a current outside-the-city commissioner
Your eligibility may not have changed. The opinion was specifically asked about this fact pattern and concluded that Act 314 did not, by itself, invalidate previously recorded planning jurisdictions for purposes of § 14-56-405(b). But your city has the power to alter the boundary going forward, so the answer depends on what your city has done since 2025.
If you are a county recorder or county clerk
Cities can no longer record new planning-jurisdiction boundaries under former § 14-56-413. Existing recorded boundaries remain in your records and remain operative for the appointment provision in § 14-56-405(b). If a city presents a new planning area map adopted under §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423, that is a separate record under a different statute and not a new "recorded planning jurisdiction" under former § 14-56-413.
If you are a property owner outside city limits
Act 314 means the city no longer has zoning, subdivision, or planning-regulation authority over your property. The city can still maintain comprehensive plans and future land-use maps that include your area, but those documents are advisory and do not carry the force of law beyond the corporate limits. Building permits and zoning enforcement on your property fall to the county.
Background and statutory framework
Before Act 314 of 2025, Arkansas municipalities could administer planning, zoning, and subdivision controls inside the corporate limits and within an extraterritorial planning area outside those limits. Former A.C.A. § 14-56-413 set up that extraterritorial regime. It required a municipality exercising extraterritorial planning jurisdiction to designate a planning area and file a description of its boundaries with both the city clerk and the county recorder. That filing produced a "recorded planning jurisdiction" of public record.
Act 314 of 2025 repealed § 14-56-413 and the related provisions implementing extraterritorial planning. As a result, municipalities can no longer administer or enforce planning, zoning, or subdivision rules outside their corporate limits.
Act 314 did not amend or repeal § 14-56-405(b). That subsection authorizes the legislative body of the municipality to appoint one-third of the planning commission's membership from electors living outside of the corporate limits but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality. Because the appointment provision still references the "recorded planning jurisdiction" by name, the term has to mean something. The opinion concludes the most natural reading is that it refers to a boundary that was made a matter of public record under the prior statutory framework, namely the boundary filed with the city clerk and county recorder under former § 14-56-413.
The opinion also walks through the planning-area-map mechanism that survives Act 314. Sections 14-56-412(c), 14-56-422, and 14-56-423 govern how a municipality adopts its planning area map. A municipality that updates its map to reflect only the corporate limits has, in the opinion's view, altered its previously recorded planning jurisdiction. After such an update, electors residing outside the new boundary are no longer eligible for § 14-56-405(b) appointment.
A more general repeal ordinance that simply ends extraterritorial planning authority (consistent with Act 314) does not, by itself, alter the recorded boundary. The repeal would have to address the recorded boundary or revise the appointment criteria for that effect.
Sections 14-56-402 and 14-56-403(a) preserve municipal authority to prepare and maintain comprehensive plans and related documents that consider the city and its environs, even outside the corporate limits. Those documents remain advisory only and have no legal force beyond the corporate limits.
Common questions
Did Act 314 of 2025 abolish all city planning authority outside the city limits?
It abolished the regulatory and enforcement authority. A city can no longer administer or enforce planning, zoning, or subdivision rules outside the corporate limits. But the city can still prepare comprehensive plans, future land-use maps, and infrastructure studies that consider areas outside the corporate limits, in an advisory capacity.
Does this mean my city planning commission cannot have outside-city members anymore?
Not necessarily. Section 14-56-405(b) still allows up to one-third of the planning commission to come from outside the corporate limits, if those electors live within the city's recorded planning jurisdiction. The opinion concludes that previously recorded planning jurisdictions remain operative for this appointment provision unless the city has altered the boundary.
What if our city never filed a planning-jurisdiction boundary?
Then there is no "recorded planning jurisdiction" for your city. Section 14-56-405(b) cannot be used to appoint outside-the-city electors, because the eligibility area does not exist on the public record. The one-third slot would have to come from electors inside the corporate limits, or remain vacant.
What if our city updated its planning area map last year to drop the extraterritorial area?
That update is significant. The opinion says a municipality that updates its planning area map under § 14-56-412(c) and adopts that update under §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423 to reflect only the corporate limits "may be deemed to have altered" the previously recorded planning jurisdiction. After such an update, outside-the-city electors are no longer eligible.
What about an ordinance that simply repealed extraterritorial planning?
That alone is not enough to alter the recorded boundary. The opinion concludes a repeal ordinance that does not address the recorded boundary or change the appointment criteria does not eliminate the previously recorded planning jurisdiction for purposes of § 14-56-405(b).
Can the city record a new planning jurisdiction boundary now?
No. Former § 14-56-413, the statute that authorized recording, has been repealed. There is no current statutory mechanism for recording a new planning jurisdiction. Cities are limited to the older boundary, if one exists, or to the corporate limits.
What is the practical interaction with current planning area maps?
Sections 14-56-412(c), 14-56-422, and 14-56-423 govern current planning area maps. A current map adopted under those sections is a separate record from the older "recorded planning jurisdiction" under former § 14-56-413. The two can coexist if the current map preserves the older boundary, but they can also conflict if the current map reflects only the corporate limits, in which case the opinion treats the current map as having altered the older boundary.
Citations
- Arkansas planning statutes: A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b) (planning commission appointments); former § 14-56-413 (repealed by Act 314 of 2025; previously authorized extraterritorial planning jurisdiction and required filing the boundary with the city clerk and county recorder); § 14-56-412(c) (planning area map update); §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423 (procedures for adopting a planning area map); § 14-56-402 (municipal authority to plan for the city and its environs); § 14-56-403(a) (purposes of municipal plans).
- Legislation: Act 314 of 2025 (eliminating municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction).
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-018
March 18, 2026
The Honorable Joshua Bryant
State Senator
Post Office Box 718
Rogers, Arkansas 72757
Dear Senator Bryant:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on whether A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b) still allows a municipality to appoint or reappoint up to one-third of its planning commission members from outside the city limits, now that Act 314 of 2025 has been enacted. You state that Act 314 eliminated municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction.
Question 1: After the enactment of Act 314 of 2025, which eliminated municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, does A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b) continue to authorize a municipality to appoint or reappoint up to one-third of its planning commission members from outside the city limits but within the municipality's "recorded planning jurisdiction"?
Yes, but only if the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction was properly recorded under the law then in effect and has not since been altered, either by later municipal or planning-commission action or by changes to the municipality's appointment criteria.
Act 314 of 2025 repealed § 14-56-413 and related provisions that implemented municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. As a result, municipalities may no longer administer and enforce planning ordinances, regulations, and related controls outside their corporate limits. Act 314 did not, however, amend or repeal § 14-56-405(b). That subsection states that the "legislative body of the municipality may appoint one-third (1/3) of the membership of the [planning] commission from electors living outside of the corporate limits of the municipality but within the recorded planning jurisdiction of the municipality." (Emphasis added.)
Because the statute uses the term "recorded," eligibility under § 14-56-405(b) depends on the existence of an identifiable boundary that was made a matter of public record under the statutory framework then in effect. Former § 14-56-413 required a municipality exercising extraterritorial planning jurisdiction to designate the planning area and file a description of its boundaries with both the city clerk and the county recorder. That filing is the "recorded planning jurisdiction" referenced in § 14-56-405(b). Act 314 of 2025 did not invalidate those previously recorded boundaries for purposes of § 14-56-405(b). But now that former § 14-56-413 has been repealed, municipalities no longer have the authority to record a new planning-jurisdiction boundary for purposes of § 14-56-405(b).
Accordingly, a municipality may continue to appoint electors who reside outside the corporate limits but within the recorded planning jurisdiction only if (1) the planning-jurisdiction boundary was duly recorded under the statutes in effect at the time of recording, and (2) neither the planning commission nor the municipality has subsequently altered that boundary or changed the criteria for appointment.
Whether the planning commission or the municipality has subsequently altered the recorded boundary or changed the appointment criteria is a fact-dependent inquiry. An ordinance repealing extraterritorial planning or zoning authority, standing alone, is not sufficient to eliminate a previously recorded planning jurisdiction if it does not address the recorded boundary or revise the applicable appointment criteria.
In contrast, a municipality that updates its planning area map under A.C.A. § 14-56-412(c) and adopts that map through the procedures set forth in §§ 14-56-422 and 14-56-423 to reflect only its corporate limits may be deemed to have altered its previously recorded planning jurisdiction. In that situation, the revised map becomes the operative planning jurisdiction for purposes of A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b), and electors residing outside the new boundary would no longer be eligible for appointment or reappointment.
Conversely, if the municipality continues to identify the same boundary that was previously recorded under former § 14-56-413(b)(2), that circumstance supports treating the area within that boundary as the "recorded planning jurisdiction" for purposes of § 14-56-405(b), notwithstanding the loss of regulatory authority following the enactment of Act 314.
Although Act 314 of 2025 eliminated municipal extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, a municipality retains authority to prepare and maintain planning documents that consider areas outside its corporate limits for advisory and coordination purposes. Under § 14-56-402, municipalities may adopt plans for "the coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the municipality and its environs," and under § 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."
Municipalities may continue, consistent with these provisions, to prepare and maintain comprehensive plans, future land-use maps, and transportation or infrastructure studies that consider areas outside the corporate limits. Those planning documents, however, are advisory only and have no legal force beyond the corporate limits.
In sum, where a municipality has a planning-jurisdiction boundary that was previously recorded under former § 14-56-413 and has not been altered by later municipal action, § 14-56-405(b) may continue to be applied by reference to that recorded boundary to allow appointment of electors who reside outside the corporate limits but within the recorded planning jurisdiction, to the planning commission. By contrast, a municipality that never recorded the boundary under former § 14-56-413, or that has since altered the recorded boundary, may not appoint electors who reside outside the corporate limits under § 14-56-405(b), even though it may continue to prepare and maintain advisory planning materials that consider areas beyond the corporate limits.
Question 2: If so, how should the phrase "recorded planning jurisdiction" be construed following the elimination of extraterritorial jurisdiction?
The phrase "recorded planning jurisdiction" in A.C.A. § 14-56-405(b) should be understood to refer to an identifiable boundary that was made a matter of public record under the statutory framework then in effect. Former § 14-56-413 required a municipality exercising extraterritorial planning jurisdiction to designate the planning area and file a description of its boundaries with both the city clerk and the county recorder. That filing is the "recorded planning jurisdiction" referenced in § 14-56-405(b). For purposes of § 14-56-405(b), a previously recorded planning jurisdiction remains operative unless it has been altered through municipal or planning-commission action, as discussed in my answer to question one.
Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General